Geotourism in the Middle East 303124169X, 9783031241697

Citation preview

Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism

Mamoon Allan Ross Dowling Editors

Geotourism in the Middle East

Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism Conservation and Management Series Series Editors Wolfgang Eder, GeoCentre-Geobiology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Niedersachsen, Germany Peter T. Bobrowsky, Geological Survey of Canada, Sidney, BC, Canada Jesús Martínez-Frías, CSIC-Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Geociencias, Madrid, Spain

Spectacular geo-morphological landscapes and regions with special geological features or mining sites are becoming increasingly recognized as critical areas to protect and conserve for the unique geoscientific aspects they represent and as places to enjoy and learn about the science and history of our planet. More and more national and international stakeholders are engaged in projects related to “Geoheritage”, “Geo-conservation”, “Geoparks” and “Geotourism”; and are positively influencing the general perception of modern Earth Sciences. Most notably, “Geoparks” have proven to be excellent tools to educate the public about Earth Sciences; and they are also important areas for recreation and significant sustainable economic development through geotourism. In order to develop further the understanding of Earth Sciences in general and to elucidate the importance of Earth Sciences for Society, the “Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism Conservation and Management Series” has been launched together with its sister “GeoGuides” series. Projects developed in partnership with UNESCO, World Heritage and Global Geoparks Networks, IUGS and IGU, as well as with the ‘Earth Science Matters’ Foundation will be considered for publication. This series aims to provide a place for in-depth presentations of developmental and management issues related to Geoheritage and Geotourism in existing and potential Geoparks. Individually authored monographs as well as edited volumes and conference proceedings are welcome; and this book series is considered to be complementary to the Springer-Journal “Geoheritage”.

Mamoon Allan • Ross Dowling Editors

Geotourism in the Middle East

123

Editors Mamoon Allan Department of Tourism University of Jordan Amman, Jordan

Ross Dowling School of Business & Law Edith Cowan University Joondalup, WA, Australia

ISSN 2363-765X ISSN 2363-7668 (electronic) Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism ISBN 978-3-031-24169-7 ISBN 978-3-031-24170-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Wadi Numeira, near the Dead Sea in Jordan. The second image: The editors in Wadi Rum, Southern Jordan. Egypt, White Desert rock formations: Matyas Rehak/shutterstock.com Turkey, Pamukale pools and terraces: Andre Chet/shutterstock.com Oman, Bimmah sinkhole: Yoshida/shutterstock.com This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to Reida Al-Magharieh “Mother, you left us beautiful memories, your love is still our guide, although we cannot see you, you’re always at our side”—Unknown This is the first book I have completed since my mother’s passing in August 2020. I gratefully dedicate this book to the memory of my beloved and deeply missed mother (1938–2020). Her support, care, and love were constantly the base for any achievement I made in my life. During her life, she taught me as the Arabic proverb said, “Determination is the key to everything.” I will forever remember all you did for me, my mother. Mamoon Allan

Preface

Tourism has taken a toll over the past 2–3 years due to COVID-19 and the ensuing Global Pandemic. In 2019, there were 1.3 billion international tourists but in 2021, that was reduced to 415 million (UN World Tourism Organization, 2022). Whilst experiencing a 4% increase over the previous year (2020, the worst year on record), international tourist arrivals were still 72% below the pre-pandemic year of 2019. In the Middle East, arrivals declined by 24% compared to 2020 and 79% over 2019. However, according to the latest UNWTO Panel of Experts, most tourism professionals (61%) see better prospects for 2022. New research from the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) has revealed the Travel & Tourism sector in the Middle East could reach US$246 billion this year, just 8.9% behind pre-pandemic levels (HospitalityNet 2022). Research from the WTTC shows that as the region continues to recover from the pandemic, with major markets reopening borders and easing restrictions to travel, the sector’s contribution to employment could almost reach pre-pandemic levels this year. Further attention to tourism development in the Middle East will occur with the World Travel and Tourism Council’s Global Summit taking place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 28 November—1 December 2022. With an increase in international tourism expected in the Middle East, it will be important for destinations to protect their geological, biological, and cultural diversities by building resilience and becoming more sustainable. For example, Ras Al Khaimah, in the United Arab Emirates, aims to become the first certified sustainable tourism destination in the Middle East (WTTC 2022). One of their goals is for local community development by encouraging businesses to consume locally produced goods, respecting local culture and heritage, and local job creation. Geotourism with its holistic approach of fostering economic, social, and environmental benefits is an obvious vehicle to deliver this goal, and it can do that in a myriad of locations across the Middle East. However, geotourism is not well known or practiced in the Middle East, so the intention of this book is to provide an understanding of what geotourism is, and how it is being approached in some countries within the Region. For a more comprehensive compendium on geotourism, we recommend the Handbook of Geotourism (Dowling and Newsome 2018). Thus, this book is a research text that has been written for practitioners, educators, and students alike. Geotourism is not geological tourism but rather an approach to tourism which starts with geology to understand a destination’s sense of place. Thus, geotourism is viewed here as more ‘geographical’ than ‘geological’ in nature by encompassing an ‘ABC’ approach to understanding the world in which we live. This comprises the Abiotic (geology and climate), Biotic (plants and animals), and Cultural (past and present) aspects of the environment. The abiotic elements shape the biotic elements and together, both shape the cultural environment, that is, the way in which people have lived and continue to live in their setting. This is the power of geotourism which is a vehicle for fostering sustainable development for local communities as well as providing an integrated understanding of a destination and its people for visitors and tourists.

vii

viii

Preface

This book includes contributions from many sources and authors for whom English is not their first language. In addition, geotourism is relatively new in the Middle East and is often understood as being geological or environmental tourism. Thus, some contributions reflect these biases. In addition, the writing styles vary somewhat and while we have done our best to edit these contributions, we hope you appreciate what these authors have to say, applaud their enthusiasm and hard work, and value their insights into geotourism. Accordingly, we want this book to serve three functions: 1. Provide a clear understanding of what geotourism is 2. Profile a range of country case studies from the Middle East 3. Be a resource for students and practitioners. We hope you enjoy the read as much as we did in its compilation. Amman, Jordan Perth, Australia August 2022

Mamoon Allan Ross Dowling

References Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) (2018) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford HospitalityNet (2022) Middle East’s travel & tourism sector could grow to US$246 billion in 2022, says WTTC. https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4109234.html UNWTO (2022) Tourism grows 4% in 2021 but remains far below pre-pandemic levels. http://www.unwto. org/news/tourism-grows-4-in-2021-but-remains-far-below-pre-pandemic-%09levels WTTC (2022) Enhancing resilience to create sustainability in destinations. World Travel and Tourism Council, London, UK

Acknowledgements

The two editors would like to thank each other for a productive relationship spanning two decades. We have worked well together over the years, having co-authored a number of academic papers and book chapters on geotourism. The experience of co-editing this book has been extremely productive and very enjoyable. We wish to acknowledge the support of our employers: the University of Jordan, the oldest and leading University in Jordan, and Edith Cowan University, one of Australia’s leading new-generation universities. Both our universities are committed to excellence in research, teaching, and community engagement. No book is written in isolation, in fact most require the efforts of a wide range of people including the support of family and friends, the contributions and encouragement of colleagues, and of course the professional skills of those who are directly involved in its publication and subsequent promotion. This book is no exception, and we wish to thank a number of people for their personal and/or professional support throughout the process. First, we would like to thank all of the 21 contributors. Some we have known for many years and have worked with before; others were unknown to us before this project. Some are emerging, new, or young researchers, whereas others are leading academics having global impact in their fields. We have got to know all better through the many iterations of the text during the evolution of the book, and we salute each and every one of you for having the faith in this project and the fortitude to deal with our many demands over a long period of time. This book is yours, and we know that it has been immeasurably enriched by your contributions. We also wish to acknowledge the enthusiasm and support of the publishers, Springer Nature Switzerland. They are a leading publisher of science and nature and are well known for their book series Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism (https://www.springer.com/series/ 11639). The series aims to provide a place for in-depth presentations of developmental and management issues related to geoheritage and geotourism in existing and potential geoparks. They are also the publishers of the journal Geoheritage (https://www.springer.com/journal/ 12371) which details all aspects of our global geoheritage. It examines conservation of sites and materials—use, protection, and practical heritage management, as well as its interpretation through education, training, and tourism. We specifically want to thank Doris Bleier, Publishing Editor of Geography and Sustainability Research, and Jayanthi Krishnamoorthi, Project Coordinator—Total Service Books Production, for their encouragement throughout the preparation of this book. They were very professional to work with. Individually as editors, we wish to thank the following people. Mamoon Allan would like to thank his friends of professional geotourism researchers and experts from around the world. I also wish to thank my colleagues at Edith Cowan University, Western Australia, and at Faculty of Economics—Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia, as I shared with them several geotourism papers and research. I wish to thank my colleagues, and friends at the University of Jordan and Yarmouk University for their support and encouragement. I have had the opportunity to teach in Libya, Australia, and Jordan, thus, I would like to thank all my students from different countries, and it was really an enjoyable and rich ix

x

teaching experience in these different countries. Also, I would like to thank all of my relatives and friends in my hometown, AL-Husn, northern Jordan. Furthermore, I would like to express my deepest thanks to my beloved brothers, sisters, and my wife, for their continuous support, encouragement, and care. Finally, greatest thanks to my son Reda whose birth coincided with the start of work on this book. I wish he will enjoy reading this book in the future. Ross Dowling would like to thank my many Australian and international students from around the world, particularly the Middle East, who have participated in my Geotourism classes since 2008. We have had a lot of fun, and I have learned a lot about the industry from your research assignments and oral presentations. Thanks also to other geotourism professionals Dr. Alan Briggs (Chair, Geoparks Western Australia), Dr. Young Ng, (Principal Geoscientist, Danxiashan UNESCO Global Geopark, China), Prof. Rannveig Ólafsdóttir (University of Iceland), Dr. Martina Pásková (Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic), Prof. Ibrahim Komoo (Malaysia), and Nick Powe (Kent’s Cavern, UK). I also wish to thank my colleagues on the Australian and International Advisory Boards of the Australian Geoparks Network (https:// australiangeoparksnetwork.org). Together we are fostering the establishment of geoparks, geotourism, and geotrails in Australia. Finally, I wish to thank my wife Wendy for her unfailing love and support through my 18th book in the last 30 years. I could not have achieved this without her. I also wish to thank my six children and eleven grandchildren for the contributions they have made, and continue to make, to my life. They are my son Tobias and HyeHyang Dowling, and grandson Joshua (Jeju Island, South Korea); daughter Aurora and Mike Gibbs, and granddaughters Helena and Nina; son Frank and Kate Dowling, and grandson William (Christchurch, New Zealand); daughter Jayne and Trevor Belstead, and granddaughters Shenee and Paige (London, England); son Simon and Lynette MacLennan, and grandchildren Amelie, Ewan, and Elsie (Melbourne, Australia); and son Mark and Jess Dowling, and their children Nessa and Zavier (Perth, Australia). This book is part of my legacy for you all.

Acknowledgements

Contents

Part I

Introduction and Setting the Scene

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ross Dowling

2

The Geotourism Potential of Sand and Dunes—From Theory to Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Newsome

3

29

3

The Significance of Geotourism Through the Lens of Geoethics . . . . . . . . . . Silvia Peppoloni and Giuseppe Di Capua

41

4

Geotourism in the Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mamoon Allan

53

Part II

Country Case Studies

5

Geotourism in Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maha Y. K. Abdou, Ghada M. Wafik, and Suzan B. Hassan

65

6

Geotourism in Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kimiya Sadat Ajayebi and Alireza Amrikazemi

81

7

Residents’ Perceptions of Geotourism in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shahrzad Khodayar, Ross Dowling, and Greg Willson

97

8

Geotourism in Light of Potential Geoheritage and Geoparks in Iraq . . . . . . . 109 Salih Muhammad Awadh

9

Geotourism in Jordan–The Potential for Developing Geotrails in the Wadis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Mamoon Allan and Małgorzata Ludwikowska-Kędzia

10 Geotourism in the Sultanate of Oman: Samail Ophiolite Geosites–A Concept of Sustainable Geotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Sobhi Nasir 11 Geotourism in Qatar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Sayed Mahmoud Moursi Said 12 Geotourism in Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Khaled Bawahidi and Khaled Al-Rubaki 13 The Role of the Geologic and the Geomorphologic Factors in the Formation of Some Geotourism Sites of Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Ammar A. Amin and Ali A. Mesaed

xi

xii

Contents

14 Assessing Caves for Geotourism Development—An Example from Türkiye Using a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Based Multi-Criteria Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Deniz Arca and Hulya Keskin Citiroglu 15 Geotourism in Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Jafar Abahre and Hussein Al-Rimmawi 16 Geotourism in in the United Arab of Emirates (UAE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Mamoon Allan Part III

Conclusion

17 Conclusion—The Future of Geotourism in the Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Mamoon Allan and Ross Dowling

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Mamoon Allan is Professor of Tourism Marketing in the Tourism Department, Faculty of Archaeology and Tourism, the University of Jordan. Professor Allan was working in tourism and hospitality fields in three countries—Australia, Jordan, and Libya. He completed his Ph.D. in Tourism Marketing at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Western Australia. Professor Allan conducts international research in the fields of Geotourism, Geotourists, Ecotourism, Volcano Tourism, Adventure Tourism, Accessible Tourism, and other topics. He published a book about geotourism in Jordan in Arabic in 2014. He participated in several UNESCO workshops to enhance the geoheritage and geoparks in Arabic countries. His doctoral thesis (2012) on geotourism was one of the first in the world on this topic. Ross Dowling AM is Emeritus Professor of Tourism in the School of Business & Law, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia. He has a B.Sc. (Geology), M.Sc. [Hons] (Geography), and Ph.D. (Environmental Science). Professor Dowling conducts international research in the fields of geotourism, ecotourism, and cruise ship tourism and has over 200 publications in these fields including sixteen books. He has deep interest in the development of Geotourism and Geoparks, and he is a passionate advocate for the establishment of UNESCO’s Global Geoparks in Australia and around the world. He is the Foundation Chair of the Australian Geoparks Network. He fosters regional development through Geotourism globally, and he convened the world’s first three conferences on Geotourism in Australia (2008), Malaysia (2010), and the Sultanate of Oman (2011). For his contributions to tourism education and development, conservation, and higher education, he has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia (2011) as well as made a Member of the Order of Australia (2019).

xiii

xiv

Editors and Contributors

Mamoon Allan and Ross Dowling Wadi Rum, Jordan (2010) Together Mamoon Allan and Ross Dowling have written a number of papers and book chapters on Geotourism. This is their first book collaboration. They met in the late 2000s when Mamoon was a student at Edith Cowan University, Australia, conducting doctoral studies on geotourism. This photo was taken during a field visit to the Wadi Rum Protected Area UNESCO World Heritage Site, Jordan, in December 2010 (Source: Wendy Dowling).

Contributors Jafar Abahre Department of Tourism and Archaeology, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine Maha Y. K. Abdou Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt Kimiya Sadat Ajayebi Department of Geology, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran Mamoon Allan Faculty of Archeology and Tourism, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan Hussein Al-Rimmawi Department of Geography, Birzeit University, Birzeit, Palestine Khaled Al-Rubaki Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Marine Biology, Hadhramout University, Al Mukalla, Yemen Ammar A. Amin Faculty of Earth Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Alireza Amrikazemi Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark and Geological Survey of Iran, Tehran, Iran

Editors and Contributors

xv

Deniz Arca Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, DEU Izmir Vocational School, Izmir, Türkiye Salih Muhammad Awadh Department of Geology, College of Science, Univesity of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq Khaled Bawahidi Center for Environmental Studies and Water Resources, Hadhramout University, Al Mukalla, Yemen Giuseppe Di Capua Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy; International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), Rome, Italy Ross Dowling Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Perth, WA, Australia Suzan B. Hassan Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt Hulya Keskin Citiroglu Department of Investment Monitoring and Coordination, YIKOB, Aydın, Türkiye Shahrzad Khodayar Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia Małgorzata Ludwikowska-Kędzia Institute of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce, Poland Ali A. Mesaed Faculty of Earth Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Geology Department, Faculty of Sciences, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt Sobhi Nasir UNESCO Chair for Ophiolite Studies-Sultan, Qaboos University, Seeb, Oman David Newsome College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia Silvia Peppoloni Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy; International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), Rome, Italy Sayed Mahmoud Moursi Said Applied Geography and GIS Program, Department of Humanities, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar Ghada M. Wafik Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt Greg Willson Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia

Part I Introduction and Setting the Scene

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview Ross Dowling

Abstract

Geotourism is an approach to tourism which starts with geology as a basis for understanding the environment. It comprises the ABC elements of the environment, that is, the Abiotic (non-living) elements of earth and climate, as these have shaped the Biotic (living) elements of plants and animals, which in turn have shaped the Cultural elements, both past (indigenous) and present (current population) and how they live. Unlike ecotourism, which focuses exclusively on the biotic environment, that is, natural areas, geotourism can occur in both urban and natural areas. This holistic approach to tourism is growing rapidly around the world. It is being developed by governments and business and is also powering UNESCO Global Geoparks which are now on virtually every continent. However, geotourism in the Middle East is a relatively new, emerging form of tourism. This chapter sets the scene by explaining what geotourism is, how is has grown across the world, and some of the emerging geotourism attractions in the Middle East. Keywords





Geotourism Interpretive elements Geoparks The Middle East

1.1




Global growth




Introduction

Geotourism comprises geology and tourism (Dowling 2021a, b). The basis of this type of tourism is its underpinning emphasis on geology which deals with the physical features of the earth, the processes which formed them, and the times of formation, or history of development. On the

other hand tourism is travel for pleasure or business. Taken together geotourism is essentially tourism associated with geological attractions and destinations. A key point to remember about geotourism is that the word comprises ten letters, only three of which denote the ‘geo’ side while seven denote the ‘tourism’ element. Thus geotourism is more ‘tourism’ than ‘geology’, a point often overlooked by geologists when describing geological features as potential tourist attractions.

1.1.1 Geology and Tourism At its simplest, tourism comprises either mass tourism or alternative tourism. The former is characterised by large numbers of people seeking replication of their own culture in institutionalised settings with little cultural or environmental interaction in authentic settings. Probably the most well known types of alternative or special interest tourism are ecotourism and cultural tourism. However, a new type of tourism has emerged called geotourism (Dowling 2013). A simple and easy to understand synopsis of geotourism is that coined by the US National Park Service. It is: Geotourism is the term used internationally for the practice of hosting visitors at natural areas specifically to enjoy geologic features and processes. Many communities around the world are sustained by geotourism. [NPS/ACI 2015 p. 33].

Geotourism comprises both ‘geo’ (geological) and ‘tourism’ elements (Dowling and Newsome 2018a). Geology is the study of the earth and geomorphology is the study of landforms. Natural resources include landscapes, landforms, rock outcrops, rock types, sediments, soils and crystals. The ‘tourism’ part means visiting, learning from and appreciating geosites in a sustainable manner (Newsome et al. 2012). Geotourism has a primary focus on

R. Dowling (&) Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_1

3

4

experiencing the earth’s geological features in a way that fosters environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and conservation, and is locally beneficial (Dowling 2021a, b). It is about creating a geotourism product that conserves, educates and promotes geological heritage (Dowling 2015). Overall, geotourism comprises the geological elements of ‘form’ and ‘process’ combined with the components of tourism such as attractions, accommodation, tours, activities, interpretation as well as planning and management. Thus geotourism may be viewed both as a form of tourism as well as an approach to it, but one that firmly ties itself first to the geologic nature of an area’s ‘sense of place’ (Dowling 2021a, b). Such tourism development generates benefits for conservation (especially geoconservation), appreciation (through geoheritage interpretation), and the economy. An added component of geotourism is that, unlike ecotourism which by definition can only occur in natural environments, geotourism occurs wherever there are rocks or landforms etc., and hence can take place in both built (urban) as well as natural settings (Riganti and Johnston 2018). Geotourism can be defined as: Geotourism is tourism of geology and landscape usually undertaken at geosites. It fosters conservation of geological attributes (geoconservation) as well as understanding of geoheritage and geodiversity (through appropriate interpretation). At a higher level the geological knowledge imparted at a geosite may be used to inform its biotic and cultural features so that a more holistic view of the environment can be gained. This should then lead to a more enhanced understanding and appreciation of the world built from its geological foundations. (Dowling and Newsome 2018a, p. 8).

1.1.2 Scales of Geotourism The global diversity of landscapes and geological materials in association with the body of knowledge relating to Earth history and geological processes provides for immense scope within the context of geotourism (Dowling and Newsome 2006). Geotourism can be developed at a variety of scales from mega to micro (Fig. 1.1). Mega scale geotourism occurs at the landscape scale, for example as in the case of the Grand Canyon USA or Fish River Canyon, Namibia. A recent contribution identified the world’s top geotourism destinations (Gray 2021). Examples of macro scale geotourism include landforms such as mountains, hills plateaus and plains provide much of the focus of tourists visiting natural areas. Geotourism can also be site specific at the micro scale level comprising visits to road sections, cuttings and quarries etc.

R. Dowling

1.1.3 Geotourism’s Diverse Settings Geotourism has a number of characteristics. They are that it is geologically based, promotes geoconservation, fosters geo-education through geo-interpretation, and contributes to an area or region’s sustainable development through economic and social benefits. The recognition and identification of geosites is essential in order to draw up an inventory of geotourism resources. It is important to note that geotourism can take place in a range of settings that include urban environments (Fig. 1.2), peri-urban locations, quarries and mine sites, agricultural land, remote natural areas and protected areas such as national parks, nature reserves and national monuments.

1.2

Geodiversity, Geoheritage and Geoconservation

Key aspects of geotourism are its relationships to geodiversity, geoheritage and Geoconservation (Gray 2018; Gordon et al. 2021). These have been examined in many places around the world, for example in China (Wang et al. 2015) and Ethiopia (Williams 2020) and Indonesia (Jaya et al. 2022).

1.2.1 Geodiversity Geodiverstiy is the variety of earth materials, forms and processes that constitute and shape the Earth (Brilha 2016). Materials includes minerals, rocks, sediments, fossils, soils and water. Forms may comprise landforms, folds or faults etc. Geological processes are those things which shape the earth such as volcanoes, earthquakes, the rock cycle or landslides etc. Together with biodiversity, geodiversity constitutes the natural diversity of planet Earth. The relationship between geodiversity and geotourism development has been examined in numerous settings, for example, in Caoling Geopark, China (Lee 2013); in El Kef, Conservatory of the Memory of Earth and Humans in Tunisia (Memmi and Ben Haj Ali 2015); and in Mauitania (Hamoud et al. 2021).

1.2.2 Geoheritage Geoheritage (geological heritage) includes sites or areas of geologic features with significant scientific, educational, cultural, and/or aesthetic value (Gordon 2018). They may also include micro features such as stones which compose the Global Heritage Stone Resource (International Union of

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

5

Fig. 1.1 The scale of geotourism features. Geotourism can be developed at a variety of scales from mega to micro. Mega scale geotourism occurs at the landscape scale, for example as in the case of the Grand Canyon USA or Fish River Canyon, Namibia. Examples of macro scale geotourism include landforms such as mountains, hills plateaus and plains provide much of the focus of tourists visiting natural areas. Geotourism can also be site specific at the micro scale level comprising visits to road sections, cuttings and quarries etc. Photos—Upper Left: A Mega Geotourism Feature—Fish River Canyon, located in southern Namibia, is the largest canyon in Africa and is said to be the second largest canyon in the world after the Grand

Canyon, USA. Upper Right: A Macro Geotourism Feature—Eyjafjallajökull Volcano, is a subglacial volcano in southern Iceland. It gained worldwide attention in 2010 when it erupted over a three month period. The event created the highest level of air travel disruption since the Second World War and thus was billed as ‘the volcano which stopped the world’. Lower Left: A Micro Geotourism Feature—a Roadside Cutting on the island of Borneo between the airport and the town of the coastal city of Miri in northeastern Sarawak, Malaysia. Lower Right: The interpretive sign reads Airport Roadside Outcrop, Poster 3. Structural Geology. Source Ross Dowling

Geological Science (IUGS) or ancient mythological sites such as Mount Olympus, Greece (Rassios et al. 2022). One example is the potential to list a number of stones in Brazil (Del Lama and Costa 2022). There is also a link between urban geodiversity and cultural heritage, as explored in the case of the city of Poznań, Poland (Wolniewicz 2022). There is a natural tension with geoheritage between preserving sites of geological significance on the one hand and developing them for tourism on the other (Adriansyah 2015; Arrad et al. 2020; Lima and Machado 2021; Serjani 2021).

A good example of developing geological heritage into a geological park is the case of Stonehammer UNESCO Global Geopark, Canada (Miller and Buhay 2014) and a more recent example is put forward for Yeliguan National Geopark in China (Shi et al. 2022). Straddling these two ends of a spectrum is geoconservation which can allow both to occur at the same time. Through an appreciation of geoheritage there comes an understanding of the need for the conservation of our geological attributes through geoconservation (Brilha and Reynard 2018).

6

R. Dowling

Fig. 1.2 Geotourism in urban settings. Unlike ecotourism, which by definition can only occur in natural areas, geotourism can take place in a range of settings that include urban environments, wherever geological features occur. Porto, in northern Portugal, is the second largest city in the country with a population of 1.7 million people. Located along the Douro River Estuary lies the Foz do Douro

Geological Walk. The walk trail was established in 2005 to preserve and promote the area’s rocks which are of great scientific and educational value. Photos—Left: The Douro River Mouth, Porto. Right: Interpretive sign on the Foz do Douro Geological Walk. Source Dowling (Taken in 2009)

1.2.3 Geoconservation

just as nature conservation is integral to the development of ecotourism. The first element of geoheritage conservation is the need to identify our geological and landscape attributes so that appropriate judgements can be made about them (Dowling and Newsome 2010). A sound example of this is conservation of the geoheritage of the La Garrotxa Volcanic Zone Natural Park, in Catalonia Province, north eastern Spain (Planagumà-Guàrdia et al. 2022).

Geoconservation is the practice of recognising, protecting and managing sites and landscapes which have value for their geology or geomorphology (Kubalíková 2013; Kubalíková and Kirchner 2016; Migón et al. 2017; Evans et al. 2021; Brilha 2022). It involves the protection of those elements of geodiversity that have geoheritage value principally for scientific reasons, but also for supporting educational, cultural, aesthetic, spiritual and ecological values (Gordon 2019). Recent examples of the development of geotourism to protect the geological heritage include the aktobe oblast in Kazakhstan (Sergeyeva et al. 2022) the Western Carpathians in Poland (Alexandrowicz and Alexandrowicz 2022) and the volcanic fields in La Garrotxa, Catalonia, Spain (PlanagumàGuàrdia et al. 2022). In addition an overview of geoconservation in Africa analysed 244 documents and found that while there are many differing types of geoheritage on the whole it is under represented on the continent (Neto and Henriques 2022). Geoconservation is carried out by a wide range of organisations from local geological societies to government agencies. Typically the conservation of geodiversity at a site or within a landscape takes place alongside that of biodiversity. Geotourism actively embraces geoheritage protection and conservation. Indeed this is an essential part of it

1.3

Geotourism

Geotourism is tourism based on geological features. Over time it has been variously described as being a type of tourism that is either ‘geological’ (Hose 1995, 1996) or geographical’ (Tourtellot 2000; Stokes et al. 2003) in orientation. Whereas the former view was that geotourism was a ‘type’ of tourism in a similar vein to ecotourism, the latter view was wider and encompassed it thereby representing a new ‘approach’ to tourism. It has been suggested that geotourism can now be viewed through multiple lenses along a geological spectrum which has geotourism as a ‘type’ of tourism at one end, and as an ‘approach’ at the other. A key to either model is that geotourism is firmly embedded in the geologic nature of an area’s ‘sense of place’. Such tourism development generates benefits for conservation (especially

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

7

geoconservation), appreciation (through geoheritage interpretation), and the economy.

1.3.1 Geotourism’s Interpretive Elements Essential to the development of geotourism is the understanding of the identity or character of a region or territory. Thus interpretation is an essential element of geotourism (Migón and Pijet-Migón 2017; Migón 2018; Macadam 2018). To achieve this geotourism is viewed as being based on the idea that the environment is made up of Abiotic, Biotic and Cultural components. This ‘ABC’ approach comprises the Abiotic elements of geology and climate, the Biotic elements of animals (fauna) and plants (flora), and Cultural or human components, both past and present (Dowling 2013; Dowling and Newsome 2018b; Fig. 1.3). Geotourism argues that to fully understand and appreciate the environment we must know about the Abiotic elements of geology and climate first, as these determine the Biotic elements of animals and plants which live there (Fig. 1.4). By extension, the combination of the Abiotic and Biotic components of the environment, determine the Cultural Landscape of how people have lived in the area in the past, as well as how they live there today, in the present (Dowling 2021a, b; Pásková et al. 2021). The essence of geotourism is its geological base comprising plate tectonics, fossils and the evolution of life. It also embraces the understanding of geology interpreted through its components of Form (landforms and landscape), Process (how the landforms originated) and Time (when and how long these processes occurred). This forms the basis of a more holistic understanding of the environment and its component parts and thus provides the resident or tourist with a greater connection to the environment in which they live or are visiting. Thus, when interpreting geotourism it is important that its geological (Abiotic) element is described in such a way that it informs the area’s plants and animals (Biotic) elements, and then taken together, the information from both the

Geotourism Viewed As A Form or Type of Tourism

An Approach to Tourism

Geological Tourism

Geographical Tourism

A focus on the Abiotic Environment

Includes Abiotic, Biotic and Cultural Elements

Fig. 1.3 The geotourism spectrum (After Dowling and Newsome 2017)

Abiotic and Biotic parts is used to explain how people have lived there in the past and/or today (Cultural elements). Inherent in this interpretation is that the geology will be clearly and easily explained according to its form, process and time (Fig. 1.5). Finally, it should be noted that Geological interpretation today has moved away from traditional hard print brochures and signboards etc. and are being replaced by mobile application technology (Pica et al. 2017).

1.4

Geotourism’s Global Growth

Geotourism is now being researched and developed around the world as illustrated by a number of contributions to the literature (Dowling 2008, 2011; Dowling and Newsome 2018a, b; Ólafsdóttir and Tverijonaite 2018; Ruban 2018 and Duarte et al. 2020; Sadry 2021). However, the most comprehensive overview has been made by Herrera-Franco et al. (2020) who published a bibliometric of the structure, conceptual evolution, and trends of geotourism. The results showed that geotourism as a scientific discipline has had three main phases of development between 1984 and 2019. These have been described as 1. introduction, 2. theoretical development, and 3. diversification of information phases (Franco et al. 2020). Key research themes within geotourism are geoheritage, geosites and geoparks. Geotourism has come a long way since the term was first coined by Hose (1995) and further developed by Pralong (2006a, b). In the intervening decades much has been written about geotourism. Surprising early contributions included a book entitled Geotourism in Ethiopiawhich focused on its archaeological, religious and cultural centres (Asfawossen et al. 2008) and Fundamentals of Geotourism which focused on Iran (Nekouie-Sadry 2009). Other books provided a detailed account of geotourism as we understand and included case studies from around the world (Dowling and Newsome 2006, 2010, 2018a; Newsome and Dowling 2010; Chen et al. 2015). In addition, many international conferences have been held on the subject including a Workshop on Geopark and Geotourism Research in Karlsruhe, Germany (Morrissey 2006); the Inaugural Global Geotourism Conference held in Australia in 2008 (Dowling and Newsome 2008); the Second Global Geotourism Conference (Malaysia 2010); Third Global Geotourism Conference (Sultanate of Oman 2011; Dowling 2012, Fig. 1.6); European Geoparks Conference on Geotourism (Portugal 2011), Asia Pacific Geotourism Conference (Hong Kong, China 2013). Other more specialised conferences have taken place on geotourism. A recent example was the Caves and Karst Symposium: Understanding, conservation and geotourism held in Voguë, France in March 2018.

8

R. Dowling

Fig. 1.4 The Devils Tower Interpretive Center, Wyoming, USA. Devils Tower is a laccolithic butte composed of igneous rock in part of the Black Hills, northeastern Wyoming. It rises dramatically 386 m above the Belle Fourche River, standing 265 m from summit to base. The summit is 1559 m above sea level. It was the first declared United States National Monument established in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt. It is visited by approximately 400,000 people per annum. Photos—Upper Left: The Devils Tower viewed from the roadside.

Upper Right: This photo of the Tower was taken from within the Visitor Center. Lower Left: Interpretive panel within the centre describing its geological or ‘Abiotic’ origins in ‘How the tower was formed’. Lower Right: A great example of geotourism linking geology with the wider context of people or ‘Cultural’ connection in a panel ‘What does the tower mean to people?’ which explains its cultural significance to the Lakota Indians. Source Upper Left: Wendy Dowling, all others, Dowling (Taken in 2016)

Underpinning all of the above has been an explosion of academic literature on the subject. The first journal to be dedicated to geotourism is GeoTurystyka (Geotourism) which was launched in 2005 (www.geoturystyka.pl). It is published by the AGH University of Science and Technology, in Krakow Poland. Whilst most of the contributions are about Poland and written in Polish, a number are in English and are global in scope. A new journal, the GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, published in Romania (http://gtg. webhost.uoradea.ro) was started in 2008 and one year later the journal Geoheritage (https://link.springer.com/journal/ 12371) was launched. The International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/ international-journal-of-geoheritage-and-parks) was launched in 2013. Many Special Issues of Journals have focussed

on the theme of geotourism, one example being the Czech Journal of Tourism (Pásková 2013, 2018). A principal characteristic of geotourism is that it fosters conservation of its geological resources through geoconservation (Larwood and Durham 2005; Dowling and Newsome 2018b). Specific forms of geotourism have been investigated such as glacier tourism (Purdie 2013; Welling et al. 2015); volcano tourism (Erfurt-Cooper and Cooper 2010; Erfurt-Cooper 2014; Erfurt 2018), caves (Purlido-Bosch et al. 1997; Kim et al. 2008; Brick 2017; Garofano 2018; Antić et al. 2022a); mining heritage (Cable 2021; Liccardo et al. 2021; in the Czech Republic (Koudelková 2022); dinosaur tourism (Cayla 2021); karst in Mount Kalafat, South-eastern Serbia (Antić et al. 2022b); and in areas of regolith (Newsome et al. 2022).

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

9

Fig. 1.5 Interpretation at Al Hoota Cave, Sultanate of Oman. One of the key elements of geotourism is the interpretation of the geological heritage which a visitor is viewing. Interpretation is used to help a visitor gain a knowledge of, and affinity for, the natural and cultural world. Effective interpretation uses both accurate information and a variety of interpretive techniques which help visitors respond to the environment on both an intellectual and emotional level. Information is not interpretation—interpretation is revelation based upon information. Visitor Centres are central to sharing sound geological interpretation. Al Hoota Cave is located in the Al-Hajar Mountains at the base of Jabal

Shams, the highest mountain in Oman. The cave opened to the public in 2006 and is the only tourist cave on the Arabian Peninsula. The Visitor Centre provides interpretation of both the local and national geology of Oman. The Centre is separated from the cave by a 500 m buffer zone and visitors access it by an electric powered light rail train. Photos—Upper Left: The Al Hoota Visitors Centre in the foreground with the Hajar Mountains in the background. Upper Right: The Visitors Centre. Lower Left: The Centre entrance. Centre: Visitor Information. Lower Right: Innovative interpretive panel which shows the evolution of the geology over time by turning the wheel. Source Dowling (Taken in 2011)

Fig. 1.6 Third Global Geotourism Conference, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, 2011. The Third Global Geotourism Conference was held in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, from 30 October–1 November 2011. With the theme ‘Seeing destinations differently’, the conference attracted 330

delegates from over 30 countries. There were a range of geotourism presentations from contributors throughout the Middle East. Photos— Left: The Conference Program Cover. Right: Delegates at the Opening Ceremony

10

R. Dowling

Fig. 1.7 Tourists in geological settings. Central to geotourism is the tourist. Early studies defined geotourists from the perspective of ‘geological’ tourists. Segments included geologists (both professional and amateur), visitors (interested in one or more parts of geology), academic and science groups, as well as others such as landscape photographers, artists and historians. Today there is a clear understanding that geotourists expect to have geosites interpreted well so that the visitor can acquire education about the geology and how it supported and created the surrounding environment. One area which attracts many tourists each year is the Dead Sea, a salt lake straddling the border between Jordan and Israel. It lies in the Jordan Rift Valley,

and its main tributary is the Jordan River. It is the Earth's lowest point not under water or ice, occurring 418 m below sea level. It is the deepest hypersaline lake in the world (330 m deep) and the second saltiest body of water on Earth, with a salinity of about 30% (approximately 8.6 times greater than average ocean salinity). Approximately 1.5 million visitors come here for the health benefits of the high mineral content in the water, as well as the rich nutrients in the mud. Are they geotourists? They would not call themselves that but undoubtedly they are attracted to the sea for its unique geological benefits. Photos—Left: The Dead Sea. Right: Tourists exploring a valley adjacent to the Dead Sea. Source Allan (Taken in 2017)

Geotourism has been used as a vehicle to generate sustainable regional development in many areas (Dowling 2009, 2013; Dowling and Newsome 2018a). Early examples included an exploration of the geotourism potential of South Africa (Schutte 2006a, b) and its Vredefort Dome (Gibson and Blom 2008) and the potential for geotourism development in Western Australia (Pforr and Dowling 2008; Pforr et al. 2014). In recent years there has been an explosion of studies on sustainable geotourism development in specific regions and/or countries. Some examples include Iceland (Ólafsdóttir and Dowling 2014); Uganda (Schumann et al. 2015); the El Kef region, Tunisia (Memmi and Ben Haj Ali 2015); the Philippines (Aquino et al. 2017); Zonguldak, Turkey (Citiroglu et al. 2017); Waldviertel, Austria (Migón et al. 2017); Serbia (Began et al. 2017), Australia and New Zealand (Dowling and Pforr 2017; Dowling 2018a); southern Egypt (Sallam et al. 2018); Malta (Crawford 2018); Czech Republic (Kubaliková 2018); Namibia (Dowling and Grünert 2018; Dowling and Pforr 2021); Africa (Thomas and Asrat 2018); the southern Altai Region of East Kazakhstan (Chlachula et al. 2021); the Paleo-valleys of Bani Geopark, Morocco (Lahmidi et al. 2021); the Chorna Tysa River Basin, Ukraine (Bortnyk et al. 2021); the northern area of Rio De Janiero, Brazil (Albani et al. 2022); and in the Turkestan Region, Kazakstan (Sergeyeva et al. 2022). An interesting contribution is an investigation of how the development of geotourism could ameliorate the

socio-environmental conflicts created by the BR-174 federal highway of Brazil when it was opened in the 1970s (Veras et al. 2022). A recent inventory and assessment of geosites for geotourism development has taken place in the Eastern and Southeastern Lake Tana Region, Ethiopia. 61 geosites, of which 17 are viewpoints. Among the major geosites identified for development are waterfalls, a lake with islands and island monasteries, a flood plain, caves and cave churches, lava tubes, a mountain (shield volcano), volcanic plugs, volcanic cones, rock-hewn churches, and viewpoints (Tessema et al. 2021a, b). A similar geosite assessment survey was conducted in the coastal area of the Caleta de Los Loros Natural Protected Area in northern Patagonia, Argentina (Boretto 2022). Former mine sites often make excellent geotourism attractions in order to preserve mining heritage, for example, in Brazil (Liccardo et al. 2021), Poland (Gaidzik and Chmielewska 2021) and Cyprus (Oktay Vehbi et al. 2022). Relatively little has been written about the economic value of geotourism. An early example was a study of the economic effects of geotourism in Geopark TERRA. vita, Northern Germany (Härtling and Meier 2010). A recent and more comprehensive economic review was carried out on the Irish geoscience sector which provides some indication of its contribution (IIEC 2017). The report finds that the geoheritage and geotourism sector is a major contributor to the Irish economy, with total revenues (visitor expenditures)

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

directly attributable to this sub-sector amounting to over €370 million (2016), while the sector directly contributes almost €240 million to the Irish economy. It supports 8767 full time equivalent jobs as well as €415 million in gross value added and over €660 million in output. Geotrails form a major part of geotourism (Hose 2021). Today geotrails have become vehicles to power sustainable geotoruism development in hundreds of regions around the world (eg: Norrish et al. 2014; Farsani et al. 2014a, b; Dowling and Newsome 2018a; UNESCO 2022). Geotrails can take many forms including walk, cycle and drive trails. Examples of walk trails include Cilento Vallo did Diano Geopark, southern Italy (Santangelo et al. 2015); The Ichnite Route of Soria, Spain (Castanera et al. 2017); and the High Atlas mountains, Morocco (Bouzekraoui et al. 2018; Rais et al. 2021). An example of a geo-cycle trail is one in the Carpathians, Poland (Szczęch et al. 2020) and a ‘biogeotrail’ has been developed in the Langakwi UNESCO Global Geopark, Malaysia (Komoo et al. 2022). Drive trails are best illustrated by a range of trails in the USA fostered by the Roadside Geology books. The books cover 38 US states and parts of Canada interpreting the geology for travellers and over 1 million copies of the series of books have been sold (Witherspoon and Rimel 2021). Geotourism can be a champion of geoheritage (Brilha 2018) and the two can work in synergy when geotourism promotes geoheritage as is the case in Slovakia (Štrba et al. 2020) and Australia (Newsome and Ladd 2022). Geotourism can foster both natural and cultural geoheritage in the case of the stone churches of Ethiopia (Asfawossen et al. 2008); the stone ‘grandfather’ statues of Jeju Island in South Korea (Hunter 2010): and ornamental stones and their quarries in the Basque Country, Spain (Mollá et al. 2021, 2022). It can also be a driver of geoparks (Dowling 2018b). Examples of geotourism’s contribution to geoparks include geotourism development in Europe—Beigua UNESCO Global Geopark (UGGp), Italy (Burlando 2018); Asia—Jeju Island. UGGp, South Korea (Jeon and Woo 2018), Langkawi, Malaysia (Jing et al. 2022), China (Luan and Fang 2022); North America—Stonehammer UGGp, Canada (Miller); South America—Araripe UGGp, Brazil (Soares et al. 2018; Pereira 2022); Africa—M’Goun UGGp, Morocco (Rais et al. 2021); and the Middle East—Qeshm UGGp, Iran (Khodayar, Dowling and Willson Chap. 7). The strength of geoparks has been canvassed in a major contribution by 15 of the world’s geoparks leaders as they outline the contributions geoparks make in terms of creating a more resilient future for the environmentally, for society, and for sustainable development (Martini et al. 2021). Central to geotourism is the geotourist (Kim and Brown 2012). Exploratory studies in Australia were undertaken to establish who were the potential geotourists (Mao et al.

11

2009) as well as the development of a geotourism typology model (Hurtado et al. 2014). Other studies have included an investigation of geotourist values in a cave environment in Western Australia (Allan et al. 2015); in a geologic park in Aliaga, Spain (Escorihuela and Dowling 2015); their willingness to pay for accredited geo-guides, Hong Kong, China (Cheung 2016); the Visttula River Gap, Poland (Warowna et al. 2016); and at Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines (Aquino et al. 2017). The prediction of tourists’ behaviour intention towards geotours has been trialled in Egypt (Soliman and Abou-Shouk 2017); and examinations of geotourists have been made in a number of countries including Jordan (Dowling and Allan 2018: Fig. 1.7) and Namibia (Dowling et al. 2021). Interpretation is a central plank of geotourism (Farsani et al. 2014a, b; Dowling 2021b) and maps play an important role here (Albert and Pál 2022). Traditional crafts have been suggested as a tool for geo-education in geotourism (Farsani et al. 2017). A GeoAl project has been initiated in Algeria in order to create a GIS database of major geosites, and to promote Algerian geoheritage using the new information and communication technologies (Bendaoud 2015). Likewise a GIS-supported multidisciplinary database has been developed for the management of the Courel Mountains UNESCO Global Geopark in northwestern Spain (Ballesteros et al. 2022). A recent study outlined the opportunities in making geotourism more accessible for people with physical challenges (Allan 2021). Geotourism is not confined to natural areas and it can occur wherever there is the possibility of geology being developed as a tourist attraction. Thus it can occur in human modified areas such as cities and towns. Examples of urban geotourism include Turin, Italy (Borghi et al. 2014); Mexico City, Mexico (Palacio-Prieto 2015); Bojnoord City, Iran (Kharazian 2015); New York, USA (Gates 2018); São Paulo, Brazil (Del Lama et al. 2015; Del Lama 2018) and Krakow, Wroclaw and Kielce, Poland (Gaidzik 2021). The development of geotourism has given rise to a number of related ‘geo’ activities. These include ‘Geo-art’ in Norway (Erikstad 2009; Rangnes 2013); a ‘geobakery’, Portugal (Geraldes and Ferreira 2009); ‘geo-climbing’, Spain (García-Rodríguez and Fernández-Escalante 2017); and ‘geo-trekking’, Indonesia (Brahmantyo 2013). In addition ‘geo-medicine’ is described as the link between geotourism and medical geology and the health benefits of geotourism in natural healing areas, as well as the development of related products, which is being investigated in Cape Verde (Rocha and Ferreira da Silva 2014). The term ‘geowatching’ has been introduced to describe the activity of observing geological objects and phenomena without damaging them (Garofano 2015) and space and celestial geotourism have been suggested (Sadry 2021).

12

R. Dowling

Finally, geotourism to significant mega sites can also have appeal to visitors seeking ‘spiritual’ experiences. A trip to the Antarctic in 1999 was indeed a spiritual experience for me. An examination of tourists to the Sahara Desert found that they may travel to the desert as an intentional and planned quest for spiritual fulfilment (Moufakkir and Selmi 2018). Thus visits to mega sites, remote landscapes or significant geological attractions could form part of the marketing experience in specified geotourism destinations. This of course must be conducted with safety of the visitors as a first priority as underscored by the death of 22 tourists visiting the Whakaari (White Island) active volcanic in New Zealand in December 2019 (Erfurt 2022).

1.5

Geotourism in the Middle East

Although the geological and geomorphic resources in the Middle East are abundant, only a few studies have investigated geotourism in the region (Abdou et al. 2017). A pioneering conference embracing geotourism and geoparks in the region was held in Abidjan, Ivory Coast in 2009 (Errami et al. 2012). It was the first international conference on African and Arabian Geoparks titled Aspiring Geoparks in Africa and Arab world. The African Association of Women in Geosciences (AAWG) created the African Geoparks Network (AGN) during the preparatory meeting of its fifth conference entitled “Women and Geosciences for Peace”. The AGN was established to increase the awareness of the local population and decision makers regarding the need for sustainable use and management of geoheritage in particular, for the benefit of local socio-economic sustainable development targets through the promotion of both geotourism and the creation of unique (Errami et al. 2015). Over the years there have been a number of pioneering studies on geotourism in the Middle East such as in the Sultanate of Oman (Al Musharfi and Lawrence 2008; Lawrence 2010); Jordan (Allan 2012, 2013); and Iran (Amrikazemi and Mehrpooya 2006; Sadry 2009). The most prolific country has been Iran which has published a steady stream of papers.

1.5.1 Iran Early contributions to better understanding geotourism in Iran included the aesthetics of geotourism (Amrikazemi 2008) and a survey of Alisadr Cave in Kabudarahang Township, Hamedan Province (Lotfo et al. 2010). Another early paper which identified some examples of geotourism attractions in Iran identified the highest sand hills in Kavir-e Lut (the hottest place in the earth), the traces of the greatest

landslides in Seimareh (Ilam province), and the highest fresh-water lake at the summit of Sabalan Mountain (Yalgouz-Agaj et al. 2010). In addition a tourism demand based method of geosites assessment for geotourism was made based on a case study of Razavi Khorasan Province (Hassan et al. 2012). Similarly, the northwest region of Iran with its main geological features including the Sahand Volcano, the Urmia Lake, salt deposits, travertine deposits, springs, limestone caves, tectonic structures and Cenozoic vertebrate fossils was also identified as an area for geotourism and possible geopark development (Ghazi et al. 2013). An investigation of establishing four mining trails in Yazd Province was made in order to promote mining tourism (Farsani et al. 2020). Four routes were identified Taft-Mehriz route; west of Meybod city; the route from Yazd to Tabas and route between Bafgh and Bahabad (Ghazi et al. 2013). Another region in Iran which has been identified as having geotourism development potential is the Lut Desert (Dasht-e-Lut), located in the south-east of the country. The area is already a UNESCO World Heritage Region and was inscribed on the WH List in 2016 for its spectacular examples of aeolian yardang landforms (massive corrugated ridges), extensive stony deserts and dune fields. The site also represents an exceptional example of ongoing geological processes (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1505/). An evaluation of geosites in the region suggest that there are eight sites suitable for geotourism development (Maghsoudi et al. 2019). These include Shur River, mega-yardangs (kaluts), linear dunes, basalt plateau of Gandom Beryan, and the city of the Lut (Shahr-e Khialy-ye Lut). A number of geotourism attractions have been identified on Hormuz Island. It is a salt dome situated in the Persian Gulf waters near the mouth of Hormuz Strait in Hormuzgan province, eight kilometers from Bandar Abbas. The island is elliptical, and its rock is mostly of the igneous and often volcanic type. The main geotourism attractions on the island include various landforms, rocky and sandy beaches, sea caves, colourful salt domes and coral reefs. The island’s geological features together with its already developed tourism infrastructure make it an ideal region to establish a geopark (Ranjbaran et al. 2020). An assessment of geomorphological heritage for urban geotourism development in Khorramabad City has identified a number of possible geotourism attraction sites (Moradipour et al. 2020). The city is situated in the Zagros Mountains in western Iran and is the capital of Lorestan Province. 32 potential geotourism sites have been identified for possible development as attractions preserving their scientific, educational and geotourism values. Other contributions included the publication of a book on Geoparks and Geotourism which led to a raft of publications

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

13

Fig. 1.8 Geotourism on Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Iran. Qeshm Island in southern Iran, is the largest island in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the largest in the Persian Gulf. It has a population of around 150,000 people and attracts around 3 million visitors annually. They come to see its bizarre-shaped gorges, tall pillars, canyon-like paths, hollowed-out spaces as well as the smooth and round stones, which have been formed by the wind and rain eroding the

soil, rocks, and stones. In 2017 it was designated a UNESCO Global Geopark. Photos—Left: Stars Valley is a spectacular natural site on the Island comprising mysterious landforms shaped by water and wind erosion. Right: Chahkooh Valley is a sinuous canyon containing spectacular landforms and is billed one of the seven wonders of Qeshm. Source Shahrzad Khodayar (Taken in 2017)

on geotourism (Farsani et al. 2012). Amongst her contributions was a paper on traditional crafts being uses as a tool for geo-education in geotourism in order to promote Earth sciences (Farsani et al. 2017). A report on the activities of the National Fossil Day (NFD) in Iran in 2017 described how different partners including research institutions, universities, museums and other groups come together to share their activities and celebrate fossils (Pour 2018). The Iranian Paleontological Society (IPS), acknowledged this event by celebrating and promoting the importance of fossils and actions on their protection for people on October, 25, 2017. Emerging from the ‘Year of Geosciences’ in 2002, Germany has an annual ‘Day of Geosites’ which takes place in the third week-end of September each year with the aim of raising awareness about geological heritage (Lagally 2018). An assessment was made of the potential and capabilities of a number of geosites on Qeshm Island (Pourahmad et al. 2018) and residents’ perceptions of geotourism’s development and impacts has been identified in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark (Chap. 7; Fig. 1.8). Some selected geotourism studies from other Middle Eastern countries include contributions from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Yemen.

geotourism awareness and knowledge amongst visitors and the local community was limited. However, it was found that geotourism development brought different benefits for geosites including economic, educational and conservation. In addition the consequent development of geotourism improved the facilities, helped with community wellbeing, and provided job opportunities. A resulting paper based on the thesis and its case study of Wadi Al-Hitan indicated that there were a number of challenges in developing geotourism in Egypt (Abdou et al. 2017). The Hassana Dome Protected Area lies in Giza, 23 kms from Cairo. The Dome is often referred to as a ‘geological museum’ with its rich geological formations including many faults and folds. Numerous marine fossils are also preserved in the area which depict a complete record of the ancient geological history. Recently the area was investigated for its geotourism potential and the results indicate that the area with its unique geological and geomorphological diversity make it an excellent site to develop for geotourism (Abdou et al. 2019). The Jebel Qatrani Formation is a palaeontological and geologic formation located in the Faiyum Governorate of central Egypt. An Open Air Museum has been built to showcase both marine (eg. whales) and continental (eg. elephants) fossils (https://fayoumegypt.com/jebel-qatraniopen-air-museum). Recent research explored the role of geosite management in enhancing Jebel Qatrani as a geotourism site (Abdou et al. 2020). It found that while it was characterized by unique geological and geomorphological diversity, there is limited visitor information or facilities, no

1.5.2 Egypt An early contribution to geotourism knowledge in Egypt was a Master’s Thesis at Fayoum University entitled ‘Studying the challenges of geotourism development as new form of tourism’ (Abdou 2013). The research showed that

14

pamphlets, brochures or signboards, and no food and beverage service. The study recommended that the local community should be involved in any geotourism development; and that there is an opportunity for them to make local handicrafts such as the production of fossil casts and souvenirs (Abdou et al. 2020).

1.5.3 Iraq A pioneering study of the geotourism potential in the mountainous region of north-eastern Iraq identified a number of development sites (Sissakian et al. 2016). These included a range of waterfalls, springs and caves in this predominantly karstic area. The report concluded that there are ‘Hundreds of interesting sites with magnificent geological interest occur in different parts of the involved area that can be utilized as sites of Tourism Geology’ (Sissakian et al. 2016, p. 106). A more recent survey has been made of the geotourism potential of the Akre district in Duhok Governorate, Kurdistan region, northern Iraq (Asaad and Balaky 2021). Sixteen geotourism sites were investigated in the mountainous region which has rugged topography. The sites included mountains, gorges, waterfalls, springs and caves. Three of the 16 sites were identified as having sound potential for geotourism development. Jabal Sanam (hump mountain) is an isolated and elevated salt dome structure in the southern part of Iraq (Soltan 2021). It is located 45 km south of Basrah City and approximately 7 km southwest of Safwan City at the Iraq–Kuwait border. This mountain is the only high relief in the region and its name came from the local population likening it to a camel’s hump. The diversity and number of different types of rocks and minerals make it an exciting place for people to visit and it has been suggested that it be designated as a geopark. The research identified the site as ‘a unique tourist area in Basra and Iraq, and an important destination for geological researchers, especially those interested in salt domes, pre-Cambrian rocks, and the tectonics of the Arabian Plate’ (Soltan 2021, p. 77).

1.5.4 Jordan Despite the diverse and distinctive geodiversity in Jordan, minimal attention and awareness has been paid to its geoheritage and geosites (Allan 2015). However, early pioneering research on the motivations of geotourists was conducted in Jordan by Allan in a Ph.D. thesis (Allan 2011). This was later reported in a Conference Presentation in Oman (Allan 2011) and book (Allan 2012). Allan surveyed 600 tourists visiting Wadi Rum and the Dead Sea in Jordan between 2010–2011 and compared them with visitors to two

R. Dowling

geosites in Australia. The results of this study revealed that the main intrinsic motivation for the respondents in Jordan and Australia were ‘to escape from the hustle and bustle of the daily life routine’, ‘relaxation’, ‘enjoyment’, ‘a sense of wonder’, and ‘gaining knowledge’. A further study explored the motivations of children (14– 17) years old undertaking a geotourism experience at the Dead Sea and how they had sourced information about the region before undertaking their trip (Allan 2014). The findings revealed that the main motivation for the respondents were ‘enjoyment’, ‘to escape from the pressures of the study’, ‘friendship’ and ‘relaxation’. Additionally, the study indicated that most of the children had sourced information about the Dead Sea before undertaking their trip. They also identified the Internet as the most frequent source of information to acquire necessary information before their visit (Allan 2014). Despite the sound research about geotourists in Jordan there has been a general lack of awareness about geotourism among tourism stakeholders. Nevertheless, proposing Wadi Al-Mujib as the first geopark in Jordan in 2014 played a vital role in raising public awareness of the geological sites and urging the media to promote the importance of the local geoheritage (Allan 2015, p. 28). The Wadi Rum Protected Areas is a UNESCO World Heritage Region situated in southern Jordan. It was inscribed on the World Heritage Register in 2011 for its mixed natural and cultural features (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1377/). The region is a varied desert landscape consisting of a range of narrow gorges, natural arches, towering cliffs, ramps, massive landslides and caverns (Fig. 1.9). Petroglyphs, inscriptions and archaeological remains in the site testify to 12,000 years of human occupation and interaction with the natural environment. The combination of 25,000 rock carvings with 20,000 inscriptions trace the evolution of human thought and the early development of the alphabet. The site illustrates the evolution of pastoral, agricultural and urban activity in the region. A survey of the potential to develop geotourism in the area included research on the local community’s attitude towards the development of tourism and people’s impact on the natural and cultural environments as well as the potential to create new jobs (Wojtowicz and Wotjowicz 2016). Their findings showed that the local Bedouin community thought that geotourism was a positive factor in the economic development of the rural settlements and the desert region. The young people especially liked the opportunities to create new jobs, and the increase in the economic development of the region. The authors concluded that a geopark should be created in the area so that geotourism could develop alongside conservation of the natural and cultural environments (Wojtowicz and Wotjowicz 2016). Another study in Wadi Rum investigated the relationship between the tourist experience and place attachment in a

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

15

Fig. 1.9 Wadi Rum, Jordan. Wadi Rum (the Valley of the Moon) is a valley in southern Jordan. It features a varied desert landscape consisting of a range of narrow gorges, natural arches, towering cliffs, ramps, massive landslides and caverns. Petroglyphs, inscriptions and archaeological remains in the site testify to 12,000 years of human occupation and interaction with the natural environment. The region was inscribed onto UNESCO’s World Heritage List in 2011 due to its mixed natural and cultural heritage. It attracts around 1 million visitors annually. Photos—Upper Left: The vast expanse of Wadi Rum. Upper Right: This spring was named for T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), famous for his autobiographical account of the region in the book Seven

Pillars of Wisdom. Lower Left: The Seven Pillars of Wisdom Mountain is named after Lawrence’s book. The local Bedouin name is Jabbal Al Mazmar. The peak brings together two geological formations—a granitoid basement of Precambrian age (4.6 billion years), overlain by a thick Early Paleozoic quartz sandstone (500 million years). The mountain is located directly opposite the Visitor Centre. Lower Right: The Wadi Rum Visitor Centre contains information and services service including a reception area, interpretation halls, restaurant and craft shops. Source Upper Two and Lower Left: Dowling (Taken in 2010). Lower Right: Allan (Taken in 2017)

desert tourism setting. The study found that there is a significant positive correlation between place identity and education, aesthetics, entertainment and escapism (Allan 2016a). This has importance for planners and marketers providing appropriate marketing strategies in geotourism settings. In addition the study of the Wadi Rum tourists found that the main reasons for visiting the site were to explore new places, for enjoyment and for education (Dowling and Allan 2018). A key variable underpinning their desire to explore new places was their desire to undergo a ‘sense of wonder’. The Wadi Rum geotourists were young

to middle aged and well educated. They are motivated by a high level of intrinsic motivation they want to learn about geosites and be given sound information about the attraction they are visiting. An abandoned phosphate site in Ruseifa, Jordan is being developed as a geoheritage park museum as part of the country’s first geopark (Al Rayyan et al. 2019). The city of Ruseifa, in the Zarqa governorate, is located around 15 km to the north of Jordan’s capital city, Amman. In 1935 the region was a thriving mining area but today it is the site of abandoned mines and neglected buildings and closed

16

tunnels. Phosphate outcrops display the story of their genesis and paleo-environment with remnants of various fossils and other sedimentary features. A proposal has been generated to create a geotourism attraction on the site of the abandoned mines to restore the heritage buildings and build a geological educational centre. The project’s focus is to create local awareness about the history of mining, preserve some of the old mines, explain phosphate formation, composition, and use, and showcase the role the mining industry played in the lives of people. The overall goal is to add to the existing tourism attractions in the city by developing a new type of museum that will generate both economic and social benefits for the city and its surroundings (Fig. 1.10). A point of difference is that it is located in the heart of the modern city of Ruseifa on a 12.6 ha site which is bounded on one side by the Zerqa River. The main aim of the project is to transform the site into a geopark with emphasis on the geological heritage, the history of phosphate mining in Jordan and its importance to local communities. Architecturally, the site will focus on the user experience through exploration which will create a journey that illustrates the story behind the site in an innovative and interactive way. The key interpretive goal is that it will be designed in such a manner as to allow visitors of all ages to be able to explore the site and learn more about its history in an informed, entertaining way. To facilitate that, the site will be divided into three zones, linked together by various pathways, bridges, and visual points. The first zone created will use a former water tower building as a focal point for activities. From here visitors will be able to choose to walk to either the museum, to the mines or to another

R. Dowling

section in which various activities will take place. Along the mine tunnel entrances, a meshed wall will be created exposing geological layers and in-situ fossils. One of the mine tunnels will be transformed into an interactive gallery showcasing the historical aspects of mining operations and equipment. Visitors will wear mining clothes and safety mining hats to enhance their experience. The second zone will focus on the heritage buildings which will become a phosphate museum showcasing the story of phosphate and mining through interactive multi-media and the display of artefacts. The third zone will be a tourist area with restaurants and cafes as well as informative, interactive children’s exhibitions. The creation of a phosphate museum in the core of this geopark within the abandoned Ruseifa mines will create a new experience in Jordan, add diversity to its tourist attractions, and provide hands-on educational opportunities for children of all ages to interact with this import resource. It is hoped that by working with the local community to develop the geopark, the associated educational material for local guides and schoolchildren and souvenir products will allow the project to become a source of knowledge, income, and pride in a place that is currently an urban waste (Al Rayyan et al. 2019). It has recently been suggested the southeastern Dead Sea region offers the potential to create a geopark (Al-Halbouni et al. 2022).

1.5.5 Kuwait Failaka Island lies 20 km off the coast of Kuwait City in the northern part of the Persian Gulf. It represents a focal point

Fig. 1.10 Proposed Phosphate Mine Museum, Ruseifa, Jordan. Design of the proposed phosphate mine museum and interpretation panels. Source Architect Kawthar Rayyan

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

for regional geography and history, including natural wonders and archaeological sites dating to the Bronze, Iron, Hellenistic, Christian and Islamic periods. Together with local authorities the authorities are developing an urban plan and the island is set to become the first tourist destination for the State of Kuwait (Hassan et al. 2020). A geographic information systems (GIS) database is being built which includes the construction of tourist geographic information which could be incorporated into a proposal to develop geotourism (Aziz 2018).

1.5.6 Morocco Morocco is endowed with a diversity of landforms and picturesque landscapes making it a paradise for geologists (Michard et al. 2008). Its geoheritage has been the focus of a number of recent studies in relation to identifying potential geosites for geoconservation, as well as the sustainable development of sites for geotourism and/or geoparks. One example is a study of the Demnate commune and High-Tessaout valley located in the central High-Atlas Mountains. The mountains have diversified geological and geo-morphological heritage and exceptional landscapes. Features include canyons, a natural bridge, spectacular waterfalls and scree slopes. However, at present the region is not a tourist destination as limited promotion has occurred. Therefore it has been suggested that the development of geotourist routes or trails could help popularise the area (Bouzekraoui et al. 2018). A similar study was undertaken around the Bine El Ouidane dam located in central Morocco in the Azilal Mountain Province within M’Goun UNESCO Global Geopark. It found that the area has significant potential for the development of geotourism due to its historic, geological, biological, and cultural heritage (Rais et al. 2021). Eight geosites were highlighted according to their geological characteristics, scientific and contextual interests, and relevance. The geosites present scientific interesting topics regarding sedimentology, stratigraphy, paleontology, magmatism, structural geology, geomorphology, hydrogeology, and karstification, belonging to the central High Atlas sedimentary and structural evolution (Rais et al. 2021). As a result two georoutes were developed based on the accessibility, touristic attraction and trekking opportunities. Essaouira Province, central western Morocco, is best known for its landscape and environment. However, its geoheritage is not as well known. However, a recent survey of the region’s geoheritage identified one primary geosite, six secondary ones and a further 15 tertiary sites (Arrad et al. 2020). It has been suggested that whilst protecting the

17

geosites it might be possible to promote the geoheritage of the area through geo-education and geotourism. In the southeastern part of the country the Hirnantian tunnel valleys in the Foum Larjamme region have been always known for their archaeological and historic heritage. Recently, however, the paleo-tunnels have been assessed for their geotourism and geo-education potential as part of a broader Bani Geopark project (Lahmidi et al. 2021). One such survey was carried out in the Central Massif where 22 geosites were identified representing the geological history of the region (Mehdioui et al. 2022). Most of the sites have high scientific and educational values and will be useful to support a future geopark project in the Central Morocco region.

1.5.7 Saudi Arabia The Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage (SCTH), the peak tourism body in the Kingdom, has offered specialized programs to activate geological and environmental tourism all over the country. Geotourism is viewed as a niche market with considerable growth prospects sustaining or enhancing the distinctive geographical character of a place along with its environment, heritage, aesthetics, culture and the well-being of its residents. It has a number of established geological tourism products such as Jabal AlFil (Elephant Rock) in the Medina Region in the north-west of the country (Fig. 1.11). Geotourism links the act of enjoyable viewing of geologic and geomorphic features while gaining knowledge about the intrinsic value of the site. A key aspect of geotourism development in Saudi Arabia is its sustainable focus based on developing geosites within the framework of geoconservation, thus attaining wise use of the country’s geological resources. The Al-Qassim Province is one of the 13 provinces of Saudi Arabia. It is located at the heart of the country near the geographic centre of the Arabian Peninsula. The landforms here contain some of the world’s richest petroleum deposits and also contain unique fossil remains. The Paleozoic formations exposed in the Al-Qassim Province in Saudi Arabia are well-suited to become important sites for geotourism (Kaminski et al. 2019). The rock formations are wellexposed and easily accessible, thus making them suitable to develop as geotourism destinations. Eight geotourist sites are identified and their significance as potential educational sites for geology and palaeontology are described. The Asir Mountains is a mountainous region in southwestern Saudi Arabia running parallel to the Red Sea. Regarded as the roof of Saudi Arabia, the high peaks create

18

R. Dowling

Fig. 1.11 Geotourism in Saudi Arabia. There are a number of well established geological tourism attractions in Saudi Arabia. Jabal AlFil (Elephant Rock) is a geomorphological wonder located near Al-Ula the Medina Region of north-western Saudi Arabia. The natural formation looks like an elephant with a ground-bound trunk, and it is surrounded other hundreds of rock monoliths. It is a spectacular example of natural erosive forces of water and wind over a period of millions of years, this natural wonder rises 52 m into the air with mountains looming in the background. The Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage (SCTH) has launched a Geological Tourism Development Program in

the country. The Commission has assigned an international consulting firm to prepare a comprehensive study of the geological sites in the Kingdom. KSA defines geeotourism as linking the act of viewing the beauty of geological and geomorphic features with the enjoyment of a site’s beauty, arousing a sense of wonder while gaining knowledge about the intrinsic value of the site. Photos—Potential geosites in Saudi Arabia. Top photos: Elephant Rock, Al-Ula. Lower Left: Wadi Ashar, near Al Ula. Lower Right: An ancient oasis at Khaybar, 155 km north of Medina. Source Upper Left: visitsaudi.com; All Others, Tony Charters (Taken in 2018)

the highest rainfall in the country. The mountains cover approximately 100,000 km2 and comprise mountains, plains, and valleys of the Arabian highlands. Geotourism development in the areas has been proposed in five main areas (Elassal 2020). These are the Coastal Plain, Tihama Asir, The Escarpments, Sarat Mountain Region, and the Eastern Plateau. It is proposed that all of these geosites should be conserved and developed through geotourism for the use of scientists and students and tourists and other casual recreationalists in Asir Mountains.

1.5.8 Sultanate of Oman The Sultanate of Oman has great geological diversity with mountain ranges reaching 3000 m high in the north, green oases in the south, and a desert plain in between. It has been described as a geologist’s paradise from the jagged peaks of the Al Hajar Mountains and the deep inlets of the Musandam Peninsular to the wide Wahiba sand sea and the sabkhas of the Empty Quarter (Whaley 2018).

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

It is the only country in the world composed mostly of oceanic crust and rocks that originated from the mantle— deep below the earth's surface. In addition, evidence can be seen of continental drift and geological processes that have dominated the earth's surface for many millions of years. first three global geotourism conferences in Australia, Malaysia and Oman. A pioneering keynote presentation on Geotourism in Oman was given at the Australian conference (Al Musharfi and Lawrence 2008) with another given two years later at the Malaysian Conference (Al-Toobi 2010). A chapter in the book Global Geotourism Perspectives (Dowling and Newsome 2010) on Geotourism in Oman further cemented the pioneering work (Lawrence 2010). The Third Global Geotourism Conference held in Muscat November 2011 brought geotourism to the Middle East (Dowling 2012). The Conference held over three days included a one day field trip. Many papers were presented about tourism in the Middle East including 14 presentations from Oman with others from Egypt, Iran and UAE. Around the same time the potential of geotourism was examined in regard to how to meet the challenges of undertaking geoconservation in Oman (Roepert et al. 2012). Today there is an appetite to build geotourism in Oman as the country capitalises on its wealth of ancient geological features. The Ministry of Tourism (www.omantourism.gov. om) has identified 30 geosites for development in the Muscat area including the implementation of a smart guide for geotrails (Fig. 1.12). Some are located in the city, eg. Mutrah in Muscat, whilst others are in the country eg. Al Jabal Aswad and Wadi Mijlas. He multi-lingual geological guide features a smart e-application which offers a range of information about the geological, environmental and cultural features of the area. It also includes maps and sign-boards in both Arabic and English.

1.5.9 United Arab Emirates The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has many geological and geomorphological features including desert landscapes, fossil sand dunes and ancient wadi systems. In addition it has a number of potential geological features which could be developed for geotourism. These include the Western Hajar Mountains on the country’s eastern border with the Sultanate of Oman, Hafeet Mountain, Seer Bani Yas, and Dalma Island. Benefits from such development include economic, socio-cultural, environmental and tourism diversification (Allan 2016b). A major geotourism attraction in the UAE is Jabal Hafeet (sometimes referred to as Jebel Hafit) translates literally as empty mountain. It lies in the region of Tawam, on the border of the United Arab Emirates and Oman, and is considered an outlier of Al Hajar Mountains. It is The only

19

mountain in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and is one of the highest mountains in the country. It comprises many ridges and caves and includes geothermally heated hot springs. In 2011, UNESCO recognised the Jebel Hafit Desert Park area as being a vital component of the World Heritage Site of Al Ain, the UAE’s first World Heritage Site. The park not only preserves the area’s rich history but also its unique biodiversity and geodiversity.

1.5.10 Yemen The Arhab District lies in the Sana’a Governorate in western Yemen. It includes good elements of natural and cultural heritage. The area contains dinosaur footprints representing one of the most important geological heritage features in the region and in the Arabian Peninsula. In order to protect the footprints and grow the economy of the region, it has been suggested that a geopark be established in the area (Al-Wosabi and Al-Aydrus 2015). Establishing a geopark in the region will safeguard and preserve the geological, paleontological and archaeological heritage and improve the quality of life for the local communities. It is suggested that the Government of Yemen, the local council of the Arhab area, and international communities should work together to promote, support and establish an aspiring geopark.

1.6

Outline of the Book

This handbook has been compiled to bring together much of the latest thinking about and information on geotourism in the Middle East. It is divided into three parts. Part One— Introduction and Setting the Scene; Part Two—Country Case Studies; and Part Three—Conclusions. Part One comprises five chapters which set the scene for geotourism and explore a number of issues relating to it. The Chap. 1 Geotourism—a global overview is written to provide the reader with an introduction to the subject. This includes its intersection between geology and tourism; its relationship to geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation; and most importantly the shift in emphasis from its original ‘geological’ focus to the more accepted ‘geographical’ character. How geotourism is interpreted is explained followed by a detailed account of geotourism’s global growth. Finally the chapter ends with an introduction to geotourism in selected Middle Eastern countries. Chapter 2 examines The significance of geotourism through the lens of geoethics. It frames geotourism within geoethical thought, emphasising its formative contribution for the human being. In a geoethical vision, the protection of geodiversity is fundamental, since both it and biodiversity are irreplaceable components of a non-renewable social and natural ‘capital’. Thus this chapter

20

R. Dowling

Fig. 1.12 Geotourism Trail, Sultanate of Oman. A Geoheritage Trail in the mountains near Muscat. It includes 30 geological attractions developed for a unique Geotourism experience. The trail was launched at the Third Global Geotourism Conference held in Muscat in 2011. It provides tourist information about the geology in the capital city of Muscat and its surrounding region. The project is a digital program that can be transmitted via smart phones in four languages—Arabic, English, German and French. The program includes maps and information about geosites for selected sites on geotrails where sign

boards also provide further interpretation of the surrounding landforms and geology. Photos—Upper Left: Delegates at the Third Global Geotourism Conference arriving at the Geoheritage Trail Site. Upper Right: Digital and Geological Experts introduce the trail. Lower Left: Trail sign board. Centre: Mobile phone screenshot of Trail. Lower Right: Mobile phone screenshot of map showing trail location. Source Upper photos Dowling (Taken in 2011). Lower photos Henning Schwarze, INTEWO World Habitat Society, GmbH, Germany (2012)

argues that geotourism is a tool that can help change the approach of human beings towards nature. The Chap. 3 examines the potential of geotourism in sand and dunes. Sand is typically encountered in the world’s hot deserts which occupy 30% of the Earth’s land surface. Sand cover is extensive in Middle Eastern countries where massive sand dunes provide a dramatic reminder of the power of the wind to fashion and create iconic arid landscapes. These landform features have the power to attract tourists through the development of geotourism and the final part of this chapter provides a ‘snapshot’ practical guide to interpreting sandy landscapes, dunes and sand itself. Chapter 4 explores geotourism development in Türkiye with the specific focus

of assessing caves for tourism using a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) based multi-criteria approach. Using a case study based in provincial land of Zonguldak, it found that 42% of caves in the area are located in highly sensitive areas in regard to geotourism potential. Thus there is a possibility of developing geotourism based on cave geosites linked by geotrails. These cave based geotourism attractions will thus be an important contribution to a broader Zonguldak Tourism Action Plan. It is also emphasized that GIS is a powerful method for generating geotourism potential maps. The final chapter in Part I introduces geotourism in the Middle East, which is well positioned on a global stage to

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

attract international tourists, due to its proximity to three continents. The region has an array of existing natural, cultural, heritage and religious tourism assets, all of which could be amalgamated with geological features to foster geotourism development. Several countries are already promoting their geological heritage for geotourism purposes. For example, the Sultanate of Oman promotes more than 30 geosites in the capital city Muscat to attract geotourists from regional and international countries. Notwithstanding that, there are also a number of challenges in the development of geotourism in the region. There is only limited research on the subject, infrastructure deficiencies, and a perception by those outside the region of it having political instability. The chapter concludes that whilst geotourism is a new trend in the region it has many opportunities for its development. Part II forms the major part of the book and comprises eleven country case studies. These include geotourism in: Iran, Iraq, Jordan, The Sultanate of Oman, Qatar, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine and the United Arab Emirates. Whilst most of the contributions present a whole of country coverage some are more specific in their focus. For example, Chap. 7 reports on a survey of 266 residents on Qeshm Island in relation to their perceptions of geotourism development as the island already has geotourism occurring in its UNESCO Global Geopark. A key overall finding is that geotourism generates economic benefits through the creation of jobs. Positive socio-cultural impacts include making friends with tourists; learning from different cultures; meeting new people; an increased responsibility towards protecting geopark for future generations; increased community pride; the empowerment of women; and the protection of local culture. However, negative socio-cultural impacts noted include the need for greater security for tourists and locals, traditional customs being lost amongst youth, and the rudeness of tourists. Another chapter on Jordan focuses on the potential for developing geotrails in a number of wadis (valleys or ravines that are dry except in the rainy season). It is argued that these geotrails have the potential to enhance the social, economic and environmental aspects for the local communities adjacent to the selected geosites and that in addition the geotrails could enrich the nature and scope of the geotourist’s experiences. Obviously the findings here could have direct application to a number of other Middle Eastern countries. Part III comprises one final chapter written by the editors which reviews geotourism in the Middle East across all the countries outlined in Part Two of the book. It then draws six final conclusions.

21

References Abdou MYK (2013) Studying the challenges of geotourism development as new form of tourism. MSc in tourism studies thesis. Fayoum University, Egypt Abdou MYK, Hassan SB, Wafik GM (2017) The challenges of geotourism in Egypt: a case study of Wadi Al-Hitan. Int J Hospit Tour Syst 10(2) Abdou MYK, Hassan SB, Wafik GM (2019) Assessment of geotourism features in Hassana Dome Protected Area as a geosite. Int J Herit, Tour Hospital 13(2):173–192 Abdou MYK, Hassan SB, Wafik GM (2020) Jebel Qatrani as geotourism sites in Egypt: an exploratory study. J Indonesian Tour Develop Stud 8(3):199–208. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jitode. 2020.008.03.10 Adriansyah D, Busu I, Eva H, Muqtada M (2015) Geoheritage as the basis for geotourism development: a case study in Jeli District, Kelantan. Malaysia. Geoj Tour Geosit 15(1):25–43 Albani RA, Mansur K, dos Santos WFS (2022) New approach on the quantitative assessment of geotouristic potential: a case study in the northern area of the Rio De Janeiro Cliffs and Lagoons geopark project. Geoheritage 14:72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-02200707-7 Albert G, Pál M (2022) Geological maps for geotourism in Hungary. Paper Presented at the EGU General Assembly. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijgeop.2022.06.001 Alexandrowicz WP, Alexandrowicz Z (2022) Geosites in tourist areas: the best method for the promotion of geotourism and geoheritage (an example from the Polish Flysch Carpathians). Geoheritage 14:45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00655-2 Allan M (2011) Toward a better understanding of motivations for a geotourism experience: a self-determination theory perspective. Dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Australia Allan M (2012) Geotourism: Toward a better understanding of motivations for a geotourism experience: A self-determination theory perspective. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken Allan M (2013) Disability tourism: Why do disabled people engaging in tourism activities? Eur J Soc Sci 39(3):480–486 Allan (2014) The motivations for visiting geosites: The case of Crystal Cave, Western Australia. Geo J Tourism Geosites 16(2):141–152 Allan M (2015) Geotourism: an opportunity to enhance geoethics and geoheritage appreciation. In: Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (eds) Geoethics: the responsibility of geoscientists. Geological Society, London, Special, pp 25–29 Allan M (2016a) Place attachment and tourist experience in the context of desert tourism – the case of Wadi Rum. Czech J Tour 5(1):35–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjot-2016-0003 Allan M (2016b) Exploring the potential for geotourism development in the United Arab Emirates. Anatolia 27(3):401–404. https://doi. org/10.1080/13032917.2016.1191772 Allan M (2021) Accessible geotourism: Constraints and implications. In: Sadry BN (ed) Mining heritage as geotourism attractions in Brazil. The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 473–479 Allan M, Dowling RK, Sanders D (2015) The motivations for visiting geosites: the case of crystal cave, Western Australia. GeoJ Tour Geosit IX 2(16):141–152

22 Al-Halbouni D, Al Rabayah O, Nakath D, Rüpke L (2022) A vision on a UNESCO global geopark at the Southeastern Dead Sea in Jordan —How natural hazards may offer geotourism opportunities. Land 11:553. https://doi.org/org/10.3390/land11040553 Al Musharfi SK, Lawrence A (2008) Geotourism in Oman. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Proceedings of the inaugural global geotourism conference, ‘Discover the Earth Beneath our Feet’, Fremantle, Western Australia, 17–20 August 2008. Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd, Perth pp 21–28 Al Rayyan L, Hamarneh C, Sukkar H, Ghaith A, Abu-Jaber N (2019) From abandoned mines to a labyrinth of knowledge: a conceptual design for a geoheritage park museum in Jordan. Geoheritage 11:257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0266-8 Al-Toobi M.bH (2010) How the geological features of the Sultanate of Oman have helped form the basis of its tourism development. In: Proceedings of the second global geotourism conference, ‘Making unique landforms understandable’, Mulu, Sarawak, Malaysia, 17– 20 April 2010. Sarawak Tourism Board, Kuching, pp 12 Al-Wosabi M, Al-Aydrus AA (2015) Dinosaur footprint sites in the Arhab Area, an aspiring geopark in Yemen. In: Errami E, Brocx M, Semeniuk V (eds) From geoheritage to geoparks: case studies from Africa and beyond. Springer, Heidelberg, pp p167-182 Amrikazemi A (2008) Aesthetics in geotourism. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. In: Proceedings of the inaugural global geotourism conference, ‘Discover the Earth Beneath our Feet’, Fremantle, Western Australia, 17–20 August 2008. Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd, Perth, pp 79 Amrikazemi A, Mehrpooya A (2006) Geotourism resources of Iran. In Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 78–92 Anifowose AYB, Kolawole F (2014) Appraisal of the geotourism potentials of the Idanre Hills. Nigeria. Geoheritage 6(3):193–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0100-5 Antić A, Vujičić MD, Dragović N, Cimbaljević M, Stankov U, Tomić N (2022a) Show cave visitors: An analytical scale for visitor motivation and travel constraints. Geoheritage 14:53. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-022-00686-9 Antić A et al (2022b) Towards sustainable karst-based geotourism of the Mount Kalafat in Southeastern Serbia. Geoheritage 14(11):16– 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00651-6 Aquino RS, Schänzel HA, Hyde KF (2017) Analysing push and pull motives for volcano tourism at Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Geoheritage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0254-z Arrad TA, Errami E, Ennih N, Ouajhain B, Ettachfini EM, Bouaoud MS (2020) From geoheritage inventory to geoeducation and geotourism implications: Insight from Jbel Amsittene (Essaouira province, Morocco). J African Earth Sci 161. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2019.103656 Asfawossen A, Demissie M, Mogessie A (2008) Geotourism in Ethiopia: archaelogical and ancient cities, religious and cultural centres. Shama Books, Addis Ababa AsaadISh, Balaky SM (2021) Geotourism potential of Akre area, Duhok Governorate, Iraqi Kurdistan region. Bull Geolog Soc Malaysia 71:99–112. https://doi.org/10.7186/bgsm71202109 Aziz MA (2018) GeoTourism GIS: Case study Failaka Island, Kuwait. Canadian Int J Soc Sci Educat 16:137–156 Baker A, Genty D (1998) Environmental pressures on conserving cave speleothems: effects of changing surface land use and increased cave tourism. J Environ Manage 53:65–17 Ballesteros D et al (2022) A GIS-supported multidisciplinary database for the management of UNESCO global geoparks: the courel mountains geopark (Spain). Geoheritage 14:41. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12371-022-00654-3 Began M, Višnić T, Djokić M, Vasiljevic DA (2017) Interpretation possibilities of geoheritage in Southeastern Serbia — Gorge and

R. Dowling canyon study. Geoheritage 9:237–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-016-0197-9 Bendaoud A, Chabou MC, Kolli O, Bouzidi O, Djemaï S, Kaabeche H (2015) Use of website and GIS databases for enhancement of geosites in Algeria. In: Errami E, Brocx M, Semeniuk V (eds) From geoheritage to geoparks: Case studies from Africa and beyond. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 145–156 Boretto G, Gordillo S, Cioccale M, Benitez Y, Morán G (2022) Geosite assessment in northern Patagonia (Argentina): a case study of the coastal geomorphology of the Caleta de Los Loros Natural Protected Area. Geoheritage 14:73. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-022-00703-x Borghi A, D’Atri A, Martire L, Castelli D, Costa E, Dino G, Favero Longo SE, Ferrando S, Gallo LM, Giardino M, Groppo C, Piervittori R, Rolfo F, Rosetti P, Vagelli G (2014) Fragments of the Western Alpine Chain as historic ornamental stones in Turin (Italy): enhancement of urban geological heritage through geotourism. Geoheritage 6:41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-0130091-7 Bortnyk SY, Lavruk TM, Kovtoniuk OV, Kravchuk IV (2021) The attractive geosites and perspective of geotourism development in the Chorna Tysa River Basin (Ukrainian Carpathians). Geoheritage 13:22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00540-4 Bouzekraoui H, Barakat A, El Youssi M, Touhami F, Mouaddine A, Hafid A, Zwoliński Z (2018) Mapping geosites as gateways to the geotourism management in central high-Atlas (Morocco). Quaest Geograph 37(1):87–102. https://doi. org/org/10.2478/quageo-2018-0007 Brahmantyo B (2013) Geotourism in Indonesian perspective. Paper presented at the HAGI-IAGI Joint Convention, Medan, Indonesia from 28–31 October 2013 Brick G (2017) Caves and geotourism. In: Proceedings of the 17th international congress of speleology, vol 2. Union Internationale de Spéléologie, Sydney, pp 197–198 Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8:119–134. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12371-014-139-3 Brilha J (2018) Geoheritage and geoparks. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection and management. Elsevier, Berlin, pp 323–335 Brilha J (2022) Celebrating 50 years of global initiatives promoting Geoconservation and geological heritage. Parks Stewardship Forum 38(1):31–38. https://doi.org/10.5070/P538156111 Brilha J, Reynard E (2018) Geoheritage and geoconservation: the challenges. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection and management. Elsevier, Berlin, pp 433–438 Burlando M (2018) Geotourism in Beigua UNESCO Global Geopark, Italy. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 305–319 Cable TT Interpreting mining: A case study of a coal mine exhibit. In: Sadry BN (ed) Mining heritage as geotourism attractions in Brazil. The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 229–245 Castanera D, Pascual C, Ignacio Canudo J, Luis Barco J (2017) Bringing together research, geoconservation and reaching a broad public in the form of a geotourism project: The Ichnite Route of Soria (Spain). Geoheritage online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371017-0249-9 Cayla N (2021) In: Sadry BN (ed) Mining heritage as geotourism attractions in Brazil. The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 450–472 Chabou MC, Laghouag MY, Bendaoud A (2015) Dinosaur track sites in Algeria: a significant national geological heritage in danger. In:

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

Errami E, Brocx M, Semeniuk V (eds) From geoheritage to geoparks: case studies from africa and beyond. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 157–166 Chen A, Lu Y, Ng YCY (2015) The principles of geotourism. Springer and the Science Press Beijing, Heidelberg Chlachula J, Zhensikbayeva NZ, Yegorina AV, Kabdrakhmanova NK, Czerniawska J, Kumarbekuly S (2021) Territorial Assessment of the East Kazakhstan Geo/Ecotourism: Sustainable travel prospects in the Southern Altai Area. Geosciences 11(4):156. https://doi.org/10. 3390/geosciences11040156 Cheung LTO (2016) The effect of geopark visitors’ travel motivations on their willingness to pay for accredited geo-guided tours. Geoheritage 8:201–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0154-z Citiroglu HK, Isik S, Pulat O (2017) Utilizing the geological diversity for sustainable regional development, a case study - Zonguldak (NW Turkey). Geoheritage 9:211–223 Crawford K (2018) The Maltese Islands: Developing and managing geotourism. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 404–416 Del Lama EA (2018) Urban geotourism with an emphasis on the city of São Paulo, Brazil. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 210–220 Del Lama EA, Costa AG (2022) Global heritage stones in Brazil. Geoheritage 14:25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00661-4 Del Lama EA, de La Corte BD, Martins L, da Glória Motta Garcia M, Dehira LK, (2015) Urban geotourism and the Old Centre of São Paulo City, Brazil. Geoheritage 7:147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-014-0119-7 Dowling RK (2008) The emergence of geotourism and geoparks. J Tour 9(2):227–236 Dowling RK (2009) Geotourism’s contribution to local and regional development. In: de Carvalho C, Rodrigues J (eds) Geotourism and local development camar. Municipal de Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal, pp 15–37 Dowling RK (2011) Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0024-7 Dowling RK (2012) Conference report: the third global geotourism conference, 30 Oct – 1 Nov 2011. Sultanate of Oman Geoheritage 4 (3):221–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-0061-5 Dowling RK (2013) Global geotourism – an emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech J Tour 2(2):59–79. https://doi.org/10. 2478/cjot-2013-0004 Dowling RK (2015) Geotourism’s contribution to sustainable tourism. In: Hughes M, Weaver D, Pforr C (eds) The practice of sustainable tourism: resolving the paradox. Routledge, London, pp 207–227 Dowling RK (2018a) New Zealand: a diverse array of geotourism resource. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 462–474 Dowling RK (2018b) Geotourism and geoparks. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 276–291 Dowling RK (2021a) Geotourism. In: Jafari J, Xiao H (eds) Encyclopedia of tourism. Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-01669-6_93-2 Dowling RK (2021b) Interpreting geological and mining heritage. In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: the origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic Press, Florida, pp 277–298 Dowling RK, Allan M (2018) Who are geotourists? A case study from Jordan. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 76–86 Dowling RK, Allan M, Grünert N (2021) Geological tourist tribes. In: Pforr C, Dowling RK, Volgger M (eds) Consumer tribes in tourism. Springer Nature, Singapore and Science Press, Beijing, pp 119–136

23 Dowling RK, Grünert N (2018) Namibia: Geotourism in the arid zone. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 433–447 Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) (2006) Geotourism. Elsevier butterworth Heinemann, Oxford Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) (2008) Geotourism. proceedings of the inaugural global geotourism conference, ‘Discover the Earth Beneath our Feet’, 17–20 August, 2008. Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd, Fremantle, Western Australia, p 478 Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) (2010) Global geotourism perspectives. Goodfellow, Oxford Dowling RK, Newsome D (2017) Geotourism destinations - visitor impacts and site management considerations. Czech J Tour 6 (2):111–129. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjot-2017-0006 Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) (2018a) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford Dowling RK, Newsome D (2018b) Geoheritage and geotourism. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection and management. Elsevier, Berlin, pp 305–321 Dowling RK, Pforr C (2017) Geotourismus in Australien und Neuseeland. In: Pforr C, Reiser D (eds) Tourismus in Australien und Neuseeland. De Gruyter, Oldenbourg, Berlin, pp 206–223 Dowling RK, Pforr C (2021) Geotourism – a sustainable development option for Namibia. J Ecotour 20(4):371–385. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14724049.2021.1910699 Duarte A, Braga V, Marques C et al (2020) Geotourism and territorial development: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Geoheritage 12:65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00478-z Elassal M (2020) Geomorphological heritage attractions proposed for geotourism in Asir Mountains, Saudi Arabia. Geoheritage 12:1(78). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00505-z Erfurt P (2022) Volcano tourism and visitor safety: Still playing with fire? A 10- year update. Geoheritage 14:56. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-022-00691-y Erfurt P (2018) Geotourism development and management in volcanic regions. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 152–167 Erfurt-Cooper P (ed) (2014) Volcanic tourist destinations. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16191-9 Erfurt-Cooper P, Cooper M (eds) (2010) Volcano and geothermal tourism: sustainable geo-resources for leisure and recreation. Earthscan, London Erikstad L (2009) Geo-Art. Progeo News 3:1 Errami E, Andrianaivo L, Ennih N, Gauly M (2012) The first international conference on African and Arabian geoparks – aspiring geoparks in Africa and Arab world. Episodes 25(2):349– 351 Errami E et al (2015) Geoheritage and geoparks in Africa and the middle- east: challenges and perspectives. In: Errami E, Brocx M, Semeniuk V (eds) From geoheritage to geoparks: case studies from Africa and beyond. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–24 Escorihuela J (2017) The role of the geotouristic guide in earth science education: towards a more critical society of land management. Geoherit Online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0236-1 Escorihuela J, Dowling RK (2015) Analysis of the geotouristic activity in the geologic park of Aliaga, Spain: progress, threats and challenges for the future. Geoheritage 7:299–306. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12371-014-0137-5 Evans D, Brown E, Larwood J, Prosser C, Townley, H, Wetherell A (2021) Geoconservation: principles and practice. Natural England, York, UK. ISBN 978–1–78354–896–5 Farsani NT, Bahadori SR, Mirzaei SA (2020) An introduction to mining tourism route in Yazd Province. Geoconserv Res 3(1):33– 39. https://doi.org/10.30486/gcr.2020.1903237.1022

24 Farsani NT, Coelho COA, Costa CMM, Neto de Carvalho CN (2012) Geoparks and geotourism: new approaches to sustainability for the 21st century. Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton Farsani NT, Coelho COA, Costa CMM (2014a) Analysis of network activities in geoparks as geotourism destinations. Int J Tour Res 16:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1879 Farsani NT, Coelho COA, Costa CMM, Amrikazemi A (2014b) Geo-knowledge management and geoconservation via geoparks and geotourism. Geoheritage 6:185–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-014-0099Farsani NT, Mortazavi M, Bahrami A, Kalantary R, Bizhaem FK (2017) Traditional crafts: a tool for geo-education in geotourism. Geoheritage 9:577–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0211-2 Gaidzik K (2021) Urban geotourism in Poland. In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: the origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 93–116 Gaidzik K, Chmielewska M (2021) In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: the origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 507–526 García-Rodríguez M, Fernández-Escalante E (2017) Geo-climbing and environmental education: The value of La Pedriza Granite Massif in the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park, Spain. Geoheritage (9):141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0187-y Garofano M (2015) Geowatching, a term for the popularisation of geological heritage. Geoheritage 7:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-014-0114-2-z Garofano M (2018) Developing and managing show caves in Italy. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 126–138 Gates A (2018) Generating interest in geotourism near urban areas through integration with historical sites: Iron Mine Trail, Sterling Forest, New York, USA. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 202–209 Geraldes J, Ferreira R (2009) Tourism ‘tectonics’ and geo-bakery. In: De Carvalho CN, Rodrigues J (eds) New challenges with geotourism.Proceedings of the VIII European geoparks conference, Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal, 14–16 September 2009, pp 100–103 Ghazi JM, Olafsdottir R, Tongkul F, Ghazi JM (2013) Geological features for geotourism in the western part of Sahand Volcano, NW Iran. Geoheritage 5:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-0120071-3 Gibson RL, Blom M (2008) Geotourism potential of the Vredefort dome, South Africa – Challenges, opportunities, progress and recommendations (3112pdf). Large meteorite impacts and planetary evolution IV conference, held Vrede- fort Dome, South Africa, 17– 21 August 2008 Gordon JE (2018) Geotourism and cultural heritage. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 61–75 Gordon JE (2019) Geoconservation principles and protected area management. Int J Geoherit Parks 7(4):199–210. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijgeop.2019.12.005 Gordon JE, Crofts R, Gray M, Tormey D (2021) Including geoconservation in the management of protected and conserved areas matters for all of nature and people. Int J Geoherit Parks 9(3):323– 334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.05.003 Gray M (2018) Geodiversity, geoheritage, Geoconservation and their relationship to geotourism. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 48–60 Gray M (2021) “Simply the best’: the search for the world’s top geotourism destinations. In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 207–226

R. Dowling Hamoud A, El Hadi H, Tahiri A, Chakiri S, Mehdioui S, Baghdad B, El Maidani A, Bejjaji Z, Aoufa M (2021) Mauritanian geological resources: aA lever for sustainable regional development via geotourism. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 9 (4):415-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.11.003 Bejjaji Z, Aoufa M (2021) Mauritanian geological resources: a lever for sustainable regional development via geotourism. Int JGeoherit Parks 9(4):415–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.11.003 Härtling J, Meier I (2010) Economic effects of geotourism in Geopark TERRA.vita, Northern Germany. The George Wright Forum 2(1):29–39 Hassan A, Almatar MG, Torab M, Allen CD (2020) Environmental urban plan for Failaka Island, Kuwait: a study in urban geomorphology. Sustainability 12:7125. https://doi.org/10.3390/su121 77125 Hassan SS, Kowalczyk A, Einafshar A (2012) A tourism demand based method of geosites assessment on geotourism prioritization modelling: the case of Razavi Khorasan Province. J Hospit Manage Tour 3(5):82–94 Herrera-Franco G, Montalván-Burbano N, Carrión-Mero P, Apolo-Masache B, Jaya-Montalvo M (2020) Research trends in geotourism: a bibliometric analysis using the scopus database. Geosciences 10(10):379–408. https://doi.org/10.3390/ geosciences10100379 Hose TA (1995) Selling the story of Britain’s stone. Environ Interpret 10(2):16–17 Hose TA (1996) Geotourism, or can tourists become casual rock hounds? In: Bennett MR, Doyle P, Larwood JG, Prosser CD (eds) Geology on your doorstep. Geological Society, London, pp 207–228 Hose TA (2021) Geotrails. In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 247–275 Hunter WC (2010) Groomed spaces on Jeju Island: a typology of photographic representations for tourism. Int J Tour Res 12(6):680– 695. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.783 Hurtado H, Dowling RK, Sanders D (2014) An exploratory study to develop a geotourism typology model. International Journal of Tourism Research (6):608–613. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1954 IIEC (2017) An economic review of the Irish geoscience sector. In: A report prepared for the geological survey Ireland by Indecon international economic consultants. IIEC, Dublin, p 91 Jaya A, Sumantri I, Bachri DI, Maulana BR (2022) Understanding and quantitative evaluation of geosites and geodiversity in Maros-Pangkep, South Sulawesi. Indonesia. Geoherit 14:40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00678-9 Jeon Y, Woo KS (2018) Geotourism in Jeju Island UNESCO Global Geopark, South Korea. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 329–340 Jing L, Halim SA, Unjah T (2022) Sustainable geoheritage tourism: bridging geoheritage and culture through the UNESCO Global Geopark framework. In: Abdullah SA, Leksono AS, Hong S-K (eds) Conserving biocultural landscapes in Malaysia and Indonesia for sustainable development. Springer Nature, Singapore. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7243-9 Kaminski MA, Garrison TF, Yoder CE (2019) The Paleozoic formations of the Al-Qassim Province in Saudi Arabia as potential sites for geotourism. Geotourism 3–4:58–59. https://doi.org/10. 7494/geotour.2019.58-59 Kharazian P (2015) Assessment of geo-tourism structure in Bojnoord City sustainable tourism development. Eur J Sustain Develop 4 (2):175–184. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2015.v2n2p175 Kim SS, Kim M, Park J, Guo Y (2008) Cave tourism: Characteristics, motivations to visit, and the segmentation of their behaviour. Asia

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

Pacif J Tour Res 13(3):299–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941 660802280448 Kim AK, Brown G (2012) Understanding tourist perspectives on geotourism experience: implications for destination development. Tour Rev Int 16:24–57. https://doi.org/org/10.3727/ 154427212X134315683211546 Komoo I, Azman N, Ahmad N, Ali CA, Bukhari AMM (2022) An integrated geoproduct development for geotourism in Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark: a case study of the Kubang Badak Biogeotrail. Geoheritage 14:37. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-022-00664-1 Koudelková J, Urbanec V, Korandová B, Hummel M (2022) Geomontaneous tourism and the possibilities of utilizing abandoned mine workings in the Czech Republic. Geoheritage 14:29. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00670-3 Kubalíková L (2013) Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech J Tour 2(2):80–104. https://doi.org/10.2478/cjot2013-0005 Kubalíková L (2018) Czech Republic: the planning and management of geotourism’s hidden resources. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 417–432 Kubalíková L, Kirchner K (2016) Geosite and geomorphosite assessment as tool for geoconservation and geotourism purposes: a case study from Vizovizká vrchovina Highland (Eastern Part of the Czech Republic). Geoheritage 8:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-015-0413-2 Lagally U (2018) Earth sciences for everybody as promotion of geotourism: the ‘Day of Geosites’ in Germany. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp p254-273 Lahmidi S, Lagnaoui A, Berrada I, El Adnani A, Saadi M, Bahaj T (2021) The Ordovician Foum Larjamme Tunnel Paleo-valleys from Bani Geopark Project — Assessment of geological heritage for geo-education and geotourism pur- poses. Geoheritage 13:104–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00630-3 Larwood J, Durham E (2005) Involving people in geodiversity. In: Publication compiled after the earth heritage: world heritage conference held in September 2005, Wareham, Dorset UK Lawrence A (2010) Geotourism in the sultanate of Oman. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Global geotourism perspectives. Goodfellow, Oxford, pp 93–112 Lee C-T (2013) Geodiversity and geotourism development in Caoling Geopark, Yunlin County, Taiwan. In: Paper presented at the Third Asia Pacific geoparks network symposium, for the innovation of the APGN. Jeju Island, South Korea, 7–13 September 2013 Liccardo A, Mantesso-Neto V, Nascimento MAL (2021) In: Sadry BN (ed) Mining heritage as geotourism attractions in Brazil. The geotourism industry in the 21st century: the origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 117–144 Lima EA, Machado M (2021) Establishing an appropriate methodology for the management of geological heritage for geotourism development in the Azores UNESCO Global Geopark. In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 189–206 Lima EA, Machado M, Nunes JC (2013) Geotourism development in the Azores archipelago (Portugal) as an environmental awareness tool. Czech J Tour 2(2):126–142. https://doi.org/10.2478/cjot-20130007 Lotfo H, Shams M, Pourali R (2010) Alisadr: an important geotourism attraction in Hamedan, Iran. In: Proceedings of the second global geotourism conference, ‘Making unique landforms understandable’, Mulu, Sarawak, Malaysia, 17–20 April 2010. Sarawak Tourism Board, Kuching, p 20

25 Luan F, Wang F (2022) Classification, spatial distribution pattern, forming reasons, and driving forces of national geoparks in China. Geoheritage 14:52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00675-y Kumar A, Deshmukh B (2015) A review on ‘geo-ecological studies’ – an interdisciplinary approach for evaluation and sustainable management of ‘geoecosystems.’ J Geolog Soc India 86:605–612 Macadam J (2018) Geoheritage: getting the message across. What message and to whom? In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection and management. Elsevier, Berlin, pp 267– 288 Mao I, Robinson AM, Dowling RK (2009) Potential geotourists: an Australian case study. J Tour 10(1):71–80 Martini G et al (2021) UNESCO Global Geoparks in the “World After”: A multiple-goals roadmap proposal for future discussion. Episodes. J Int Geosci 45(1):29–35. https://doi.org/10.18814/ epiiugs/2021/021002 Mehdioui S, El Hadi H, Tahiri A, El Haibi H, Tahiri M, Zoraa N, Hamoud A (2022) The Geoheritage of northwestern central Morocco area: inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites for geoconservation, geotourism, geopark purpose and the support of sustainable development. Geoheritage 14:86. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12371-022-00712-w Memmi L, Ben Haj Ali M (2015) El Kef, conservatory of the memory of earth and humans in Tunisia: A geodiversity to discover and a heritage to protect. In: Errami E, Brocx M, Semeniuk V (eds) From geoheritage to geoparks: Case studies from Africa and beyond. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 135–143 Maghsoudi M, Moradi A, Moradipour F, Nezammahalleh MA (2019) Geotourism development in world heritage of the Lut Desert. Geoheritage 11:501–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-0180303-2 Michard A, Saddiqi O, Chalouan A, de Lamotte DF eds (2008) Continental evolution: the geology of Morocco: structure, stratigraphy, and tectonics of the Africa-Atlantic-Mediterranean triple junction. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-54077076-3 Migón P (2018) Geo-interpretation: how and for whom? In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp p224-233 Migón P, Pijet-Migón E (2017) Viewpoint geosites — values, conservation and management issues. Proc Geologists’ Assoc 128:511–522 Migón, P, Różycka M, Michniewicz A (2017) Conservation and geotourism perspectives at granite geoheritage site of Waldviertel, Austria. Geoheritage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0219-2 Miller R (2018) Geotourism in Stonehammer UNESCO Global Geopark, Canada. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 379–392 Miller RF, Buhay DN (2014) Turning a forgotten geological heritage into a geological park: developing Stonehammer Geopark. Geoheritage 6:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-013-0090-8 Mollá LD, Uriarte JA, Zabaleta A et al (2021) Red Ereño: an ornamental and construction limestone of international significance from the Basque Country (northern Spain). Geoheritage 13:2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00529-5 Mollá LD, Aranburu A, Garcia-Garmilla F et al (2022) Cantera Gorria and Red Ereño: natural and cultural geoheritage (Basque Country, Spain). Geoheritage 14:76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-02200709-5 Moradipour F, Moghimi E, Beglou MJ, Yamani M (2020) Assessment of urban geomorphological heritage for urban geotourism development in Khorramabad City. Iran. Geoheritage 12:40. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12371-020-00466-3 Morrissey C (2006) Thesen zur integration historishcer landscahftspotenziale in geotourismus und geoparkkonzepte – Kurzfassung des beitrags. In: Vogt J, Megerle A (eds) Geopark and

26 geotourism research: results of the international workshop at Karlsruhe 2006, Regional Science Research No. 31, University of Karlsruhe, Frickenhausen, pp 57–58 Moufakkir O, Selmi N (2018) Examining the spirituality of spiritual tourists: A Sahara desert experience. Ann Tour Res 70:108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.09.003 Mukayev Z, Ozgeldinova Z, Dasturbayev S, Ramazanova N, Zhanguzhina A, Bektemirova A (2022) Landscape and recreational potential of the mountainous territories of the Turkestan Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 41(2):362–367. https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.41204-838 Nekouie-Sadry B (2009) Fundamentals of geotourism: with emphasis on Iran. Samt Organization Publishing, Tehran Neto K, Henriques MH (2022) Geoconservation in Africa: state of the art and future challenges. Gondwana Res 111:107–113. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.05.022 Newsome D, Dowling RK (eds) (2010) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscape. Goodfellow, Oxford Newsome D, Dowling RK (2017) Geoheritage and geotourism. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: Assessment, protection and management. Elsevier, Berlin, pp 305–321 Newsome D, Dowling RK, Leung Y-F (2012) The nature and management of geotourism: a case study of two established iconic geotourism destinations. Tour Manage Perspect 2–3:19–27 Newsome D, Ladd P (2022) The dimensions of geotourism with a spotlight on geodiversity in a subdued landscape. Int J Geoherit Parks. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.06.001 Newsome D, Ladd P, Dowling RK (2022) The scope for geotourism based on regolith in southwestern Australia – a theoretical and practical perspective. Geoheritage 14(5): https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-021-00632-1 Norrish L, Sanders D, Dowling RK (2014) Geotourism product development and stakeholder perceptions: a case study of a proposed geotrail in Perth, Western Australia. J Ecotour 13(1):52– 63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2014.938654 Ólafsdóttir R, Dowling RK (2014) Geotourism and Geoparks – a tool for geocon- servation and rural development in vulnerable volcanic environments: a case study from Iceland. Geoheritage 6(1):71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-013-0095-3 Oktay Vehbi B, Mısırlısoy D, Günçe K, Yüceer H (2022) The tourism potential of post-mining heritage sites: the Cyprus Mining Cooperation in Lefka. Cyprus. Geoheritage 14:58. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12371-022-00697-6 Ólafsdóttir R, Tverijonaite E (2018) Geotourism: a systematic review. Geosciences 8(7):234. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8070234 Pająk J, Krobicki M, Golonka J, Słomka T, Van Giang N, Zuchiewicz W (2006) Attractions of inanimate nature of the northern Vietnam as a basis for tourism development. Geotourism 2:167–172 Palacio-Prieto. (2015) Geoheritage within cities: urban geosites in Mexico City. Geoheritage 7:365–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-014-0136-6 Paskova M (2013) Editorial: special issue on geotourism. Czech J Tour 2(2) Paskova M (2018) Editorial: special issue on geotourism. Czech J Tour 6(2) Pásková., Zelenka J, Ogasawara T, Zavala B, Astete I, (2021) The ABC concept - value added to the Earth Heritage interpretation? Geoheritage 13:38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00558-8 Pereira RGFdeA, (2022) Geoparks: Pathways to internalize sustainable development in the State of Bahia. Brazil. Geoheritage 14:48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00684-x Pforr C, Dowling RK (2008) The Potential for Geotourism development in Western Australia – A scoping study. In Presented at Geotour 2008, ‘Geotourism and Mining Heritage’, Krakow, Poland, 26–28 June 2008

R. Dowling Pforr C, Dowling RK, Newsome D (2014) Geotourism: a sustainable development alternative for remote locations in Western Australia? In: Brueckner M, Durey A, Mayes R, Pforr C (eds) Resource curse or cure? On the sustainability of development in Western Australia. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 153–162 Pica A, Reynard E, Grangier L, Kaiser C, Ghiraldi L, Perotti L, Del Monte M (2017) GeoGuides, urban geotourism offer powered by Mobile Application Technology. Geoheritage. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12371-017-0237-0 Planagumà-Guàrdia L, Martí-Molist J, Vila-Subirós J (2022) Conservation of the geological heritage of volcanic fields: La Garrotxa Volcanic Zone Natural Park. Spain. Geoheritage 14:39. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-022-00677-w Pour MG (2018) National Fossil Day in Iran: A report on activities in 2017. Geo-Conservat Res 1(1):42–43. https://doi.org/10.30486/ GCR.2018.540022 Pourahmad A, Hosseini A, Pourahmad A, Zoghi M (2018) Tourist value assessment of geotourism and environmental capabilities in Qeshm Island. Iran. Geoheritage 10:687–706. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12371-017-0273-9 Pralong J-P (2006a) Geotourism: a new form of tourism utilising natural landscapes and based on imagination and emotion. Tour Rev 61(3):20–25 Pralong J-P (2006b) Research approaches concerning the guiding image of ‘Protection through use’ in geoparks and geotouristic destinations. In: Vogt J, Megerle A (eds) Geopark and geotourism research: results of the international workshop at Karlsruhe 2006b. Regional Science Research No. 31, University of Karlsruhe, Frickenhausen, pp. 51–55 Pulido-Bosch A, Martín-Rosales W, López-Chicano M, Rodríguez-Navarro CM, Vallejos A (1997) Human impact in a tourist karstic cave (Aracena, Spain). Environ Geol 31(3/4):142–149 Purdie H (2013) Glacier retreat and tourism: Insights from New Zealand. Mt Res Dev 33(4):463–472. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRDJOURNAL-D-12-00073.1 Rais J, Barakat A, Louz E, AA, (2021) Geological heritage in the M’Goun geopark: a proposal of geo-itineraries around the Bine El Ouidane dam (Central High Atlas, Morocco). Int J Geoherit Parks 9 (2):242–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.02.006 Rangnes K (2013) Communicating geological heritage through art – a cooperative project between geologists, artists and schools. In: Paper presented at the Third Asia Pacific Geoparks Network Symposium, For the Innovation of the APGN. Jeju Island, South Korea, 7–13 September 2013 Ranjbaran M, Zamanzadeh SM, Sotohian F (2020) Geotourism attractions of Hormuz Island. Iran. Geoj Tour Geosite 28(1):232– 245. https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.28118-465 Rassios AE, Krikeli A, Dilek Y, Ghikas C, Batsi A, Koutsovitis P, Hau J (2022) The geoheritage of Mount Olympus: ancient mythology and modern geology. Geoheritage 14:15. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-022-00649-0 Riganti A, Johnston J (2018) Geotourism – A focus on the urban environment. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 192–201 Rocha F, Ferreira da Silva E (2014) Geotourism, medical geology and local development: Cape Verde case study. J Afr Earth Sc 99:735– 742. https://doi.org/org/10.1016/j.afrearsci.2014.04.015 Roepert A, Zacke A, Hoffmann G (2012) The potential of geotourism to meet the challenges of geoconservation in Oman. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 14 (EGU2012–14133) Vienna, Austria, 22–27 April 2012 Ruban DA (2018) Some characteristics of the geotourism literature. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 87–93

1

Geotourism—A Global Overview

Sadry BN (2009) Fundamentals of Geotourism: with a special emphasis on Iran. Samt Organization Publishing, Tehran Sadry BN (2021) Space and celestial geotourism. In: Sadry BN (ed) Mining heritage as geotourism attractions in Brazil. The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, p 481–506 Sadry, BN (ed) (2021) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: the origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada Sallam ES, Ponedelnik AA, Tiess G, Yashalova NN, Ruban DA (2018) The geological heritage of the Kurkur - Dungul area in southern Egypt. J Afr Earth Sc 137:103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jafrearsci.2017.10.012 Santangelo N, Romano P, Santo A (2015) Geo-itineraries in the Cilento Vallo di Diano Geopark: A tool for tourism development in Southern Italy. Geoheritage 7:319–3354. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-014-0133-9 Schumann A, Muwanga A, Lehto T, Staudt M, Schlüter T, Kato V, Nam- Boyera, A. (2015) Ugandan geosites. Geol Today 31(2):59–67 Schutte, I.C. (2006a) Geotourism and geopark research in South Africa. In: Vogt J, Megerle A (eds) Geopark and geotourism research: Results of the international workshop at Karlsruhe 2006a. Regional Science Research No. 31, University of Karlsruhe, Frickenhausen, pp 59–64 Schutte IC (2006b) Guidelines for the sustainable development of geotourism in South Africa. In: Vogt J, Megerle A (eds) Geopark and geotourism research. Results of the international workshop at Karlsruhe 2006b. Regional Science Research No. 31, University of Karlsruhe, Frickenhausen, pp 65–69 Sergeyeva AM, Abdullina AG, Akhmet GZh, Koshim AG, Saparov KT, Yegin- bayeva AY (2022) Protection of the geological heritage of the aktobe oblast and its use for the development of geotourism. GeoJ Tour Geosit 40(1):111–119. https://doi.org/10. 30892/gtg.40113-809 Serjani A (2021) Geoheritage and geotourism in Albania. In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 169–188 Shi Z, Xin C, Liu H, Jiao Z, Wang L (2022) Geoheritage geomorphology of an Alpine Region in Northwest China: Introduction to the Yeliguan National Geopark. Geoheritage 14:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00690-z Sissakian VK, Ahad ADA, Al-Ansari N, Knutsson S (2016) Tourism in North and Northeastern Parts of Iraq. J Earth Sci Geotech Eng 6 (3):90–107. ISSN: 1792–9040 Soares RC, Filho WFS, Lopes LSO, Guimarães ES (2018) Geotourism in Araripe UNESCO Global Geopark, Brazil. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 393–403 Soliman MSA, Abou-Shouk MA (2017) Predicting behavioural intention of international tourists towards geotours. Geoheritage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0200-5 Soltan BH (2021) Characteristic features of the proposed Jabal Sanam Geopark. Southern Iraq. Geoheritage 13:77. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-021-00599-z Stokes A, Cook S, Drew D (2003) Geotourism: the new trend in travel. In: The Travel Industry Association of America (TIA) and National Geographic Traveler. National Geographic, Washington DC Štrba L, Kolackovská J, Kudelas D, Kršák B, Sidor C (2020) Geoheritage and geotourism contribution to tourism development in protected areas of Slovakia— Theoretical considerations. Sustainability 12:2979. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072979 Szczęch M, Cieszkowski M, Szczęch S, Chodyń R (2020) Geotouristic bicycle path around Nowy Targ (Carpathians, Poland).

27 Geotourism/geoturystyka 17(3–4):62–88. https://doi.org/10.7494/ geotour.2020.3-4(62-63).3 Tessema GA, van der Borg J, Minale AS et al (2021a) Inventory and assessment of geosites for geotourism development in the Eastern and Southeastern Lake Tana Region. Ethiopia. Geoheritage 13:43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00560-0 Thomas MF, Asrat A (2018) The potential contribution of geotourism in Africa. In: Dowling RK, Allan M, (2018) Who are geotourists? A case study from Jordan. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Oxford, pp 168–191 Tourtellot JB (2000) Geotourism for your community. National Geographic, Washington DC, p 2 UNESCO (2022) UNESCO Global Geoparks. https://en.unesco.org/ global-ge-oparks Accessed 4 April 2022 Veras ASS, Vidal DG, Wahaj Z, Ahmed W, Barros NA, Dinis MAP (2022) BR-174 highway, geotourism and socio-environmental conflicts in the northern remote regions of the Amazon. GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10699-0 Wang L, Tian M, Wang L (2015) Geodiversity, geoconservation and geotourism in Hong Kong Global Geopark of China. Proc Geologists’ Assoc 126:426–437. https://doi.org/org/10.1016/j. pgeola.2015.02.006 Warowna J, Zgłobicki W, Kołodynska-Gawrysia R, Gajek G, Gawrysiak L, Telecka M (2016) Geotourist values of loess geoheritage within the planned Geopark Małopolska Vistula River Gap, E Poland. Quatern Int 399:46–57. https://doi.org/org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.064 Welling JT, þorvarður Á, Ólafsdottír R, (2015) Glacier tourism: a scoping review. Tour Geogr 17(5):635–662. https://doi. org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1084529 Whaley J (2018) The best geological site in the Middle East. GEOExPro 15(1). www.geoexpro.com/articles/2018/03/the-bestgeological-site-in-the-middle-east Williams FM (2020) Safeguarding geoheritage in Ethiopia: challenges faced and the role of geotourism. Geoheritage 12:31. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-020-00436-9 Witherspoon W, Rimel J (2021) In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: The origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic, Burlington, Canada, pp 325–353 Wojtowicz B, Wotjowicz P (2016) The prospects for the development of geotourism in the area of the Wadi Rum Desert. J Tour Hospit Manage 4(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1726/2328-2169/2016.02.001 Wolniewicz P (2022) Classification and quantification of urban geodiversity and its intersection with cultural heritage. Geoheritage 14:63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00693-w Yalgouz-Agaj AG, Ardebil L, Karimdoust S (2010) Identification of some of the geotourism sites in Iran. World Appl Sci J 11 (11):1342–1347. ISSN 1818-4952 Ross Dowling AM is Emeritus Professor of Tourism in the School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia. He has a B.Sc., (Geology), M.Sc., [Hons] (Geography) and PhD (Environmental Science). Professor Dowling conducts international research in the fields of geotourism, ecotourism and cruise ship tourism and has over 200 publications in these fields including sixteen books. He has a deep interest in the development of Geotourism and Geoparks and he is a passionate advocate for the establishment of UNESCO’s Global Geoparks in Australia and around the world. He is the Foundation Chair of the Australian Geoparks Network. He fosters regional development through Geotourism globally and he convened the world’s first three conferences on Geotourism in Australia (2008), Malaysia (2010) and the Sultanate of Oman (2011). For his contributions to tourism education and development, conservation and higher education he has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia (2011) as well as being made a Member of the Order of Australia (2019).

2

The Geotourism Potential of Sand and Dunes—From Theory to Practice David Newsome

Abstract

Sand cover is extensive in Middle Eastern countries where massive sand dunes provide a dramatic reminder of the power of the wind to fashion and create iconic landscapes. Sand is also a huge topic of human interest and provides immense scope for a sand focused geo-guide who can offer a range of learning opportunities for the tourist. Because the occurrence, origin, and expression of sand in the environment is complex manifesting as sheets or sandplains of various depth and/or as different types of dunes, engaging a tourist demands some simplification of the science. This can be achieved by the tour guide gaining some understanding of relevant theory and exploring interpretive themes with tourists. Such themes can include mega geomorphological landscape features, macro level landforms, such as dunes, and investigation at the micro scale, where individual grains of sand can be examined with the assistance of visual aids. Keywords

Sand dunes arid landscapes engagement

2.1




Middle east




Educational

Introduction

Sand can be found in the many different places that people live, but for most their first ‘real’ encounter with sand is during a visit to the beach. Sand is also typically encountered in the worlds hot deserts which occupy 30% of the Earth’s land surface. Sand cover is extensive in Middle

Eastern countries where massive sand dunes provide a dramatic reminder of the power of the wind to fashion and create iconic arid landscapes. Sand cover can be expressed in different ways such as sheets or sandplains of various depth and/or as different types of dunes. In Southwestern Western Australia, which has a Mediterranean climate, sand is a common feature of the landscape and extensive areas of sand (sandplains) owe their origin to the predominance of quartz rich rocks such as granite, gneiss, and sandstones. Erosion, transport, and the subsequent deposition of such weathered rocks, combined with the relative resistance of the common rock forming mineral quartz, has result in a build-up of sand in the landscape. Furthermore, sand throughout Western Australia has accumulated because of wind action and sea level change, occurs in desert regions towards the north and interior, or represents the in-situ breakdown of sand-stones (Newsome 2000). Clearly not every account of sand in the landscape is as in the case of Western Australia and, depending on where you are in the world, sand will reveal its own story of origin, journeying, and its resting place. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is help the geo- tourism guide and their clients embark on their own journey of discovery about sand. The journey commences with the provision of some theoretical background as to the origin and occurrence of large bodies of sand in the global context. The relevance of a theoretical context is exemplified by Newsome et al. (2022) who posit that academic considerations provide a platform for understanding and interpreting regolith such as sand and sandy landscapes for the tourist. Following on from this the chapter also briefly considers sand and dunes as one of the most noticeable and characteristic landscape features of the Middle East. The final part provides a ‘snapshot’ practical guide to interpreting sandy landscapes, dunes and sand itself.

D. Newsome (&) College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_2

29

30

2.2

D. Newsome

The Global Occurrence of Sand and Dune Landscapes

The occurrence of large expanses of sand are referred to as sand seas and sand sheets by various authors (e.g., McKee 1979). In some parts of the world these have subsequently been re-worked and are now manifesting as desert aeolian type terrains. Such deposits occur in both tectonically active and more stable areas, many of which have not been glaciated. (e. g. Snead 1972; Thomas 1989). A large proportion of this sand occurs in the arid climatic regions, including the desert environments of the Sahara, Arabia, Central Asia, Southern Africa and Australia. In these areas sand can cover up to 45% of the land surface (Lancaster 1989). The landforms associated with these areas of sand include ripples, dunes, mega dunes, sand sheets and sand seas or ergs. Thomas (1989) offers a size and bed-form-type classification for these aeolian depositional landforms, ripples being the smallest and ergs or sand seas the largest. Landforms which constitute flat expanses of sand with few or no dunes are referred to as sand sheets. The term erg (sand sea) was introduced by Wilson (1973) to describe areas where sand deposits cover at least 20% of the land surface, while Fryberger and Ahlbrandt (1979) and Thomas (1989) specify that for an accumulation of sand to be classed as an erg it needs to cover an area of some 125 km2. Wilson (1973) also stated that Saharan ergs can range from 21–43 m in depth, while at the other end of the scale the Selima sand sheet in south Egypt in part measures only a few cm in depth (Breed et al. 1987). Dunes also vary greatly in spatial coverage, morphological type and size. For example, dunes can range from a few centimetres up to 150 m in height, while some linear dunes can be up to 300 km long (Lancaster 1982). In many situations it appears that large areas of sand contain a range of aeolian modified landforms and a diversity of dune types (Fryberger and Goudie 1981; Pye and Tsoar 2008; Thomas 1989).

2.3

Origin of Sandy Landscapes—A Global Perspective

2.3.1 Planetary Scale Forces Williams (1994), in a review of Cenozoic climate change in deserts, explores the role of tectonic and volcanic activity in the formation of African and Australian sand sea environments. For example, in the Sahara, Tertiary tectonic activity resulted in uplift and provided conditions suitable for the erosion of early Tertiary deeply weathered mantles. These materials subsequently provided a sediment source for sand sea development. Further tectonism resulted in the formation

of basins that facilitated the accumulation of sand, which characterises parts of the Sahara Desert today. By contrast, the situation in Australia is largely characterised by a lack of major mountain building or rifting events during the Tertiary. Tectonics has, however, played an indirect role in the evolution of Australian sand seas through the action of continental plate movement which forced climatic change. The complex interplay and relative importance of tectonic events and associated regional plus global climate changes are summarised by Frakes et al. (1987) and Williams (1994). From a global climatic perspective, it is aridity that is seen as a major issue in the development of sand seas over time. This is highlighted by Lancaster (1995) who emphasizes the episodic nature of sand sea development due to Quaternary climate change. During periods of aridity, vegetation coverage may be sporadic so sand can be transported, resulting in the formation of dune fields in depositional settings. Mobile sand seas are especially prominent today in the Sahara Desert, Namib Desert and Arabian Peninsula. In these cases, sand is generally considered to be transported long distances in the manner as described and originally proposed by Wilson (1971). Many sand sea-like accumulations of sand are, however, presently fixed by vegetation. Thomas and Goudie (1984) report on the occurrence of fossil sand seas in Africa, South America and Australia. Sand dunes currently fixed by humid tropical forest in Zaire in central Africa are a good example of a continuous continental-wide expanse of sand, that stretches from southern to central Africa, they are thought to have been mobile during both the Tertiary and Late Pleistocene (Lancaster 1995; Thomas 1987a). The fossil sand seas described by Thomas and Goudie (1984) emphasize the role of re-working of sand and sand dunes during the Pleistocene. Many authors have supported this view and especially the importance of aridity during the last glacial maximum as a prominent feature in the evolution of sand seas (Lancaster 1995; Thomas 1989; Williams 1994).

2.3.2 Aeolian V In-Situ Origins of Sand Dominated Landscapes—A Global Overview Aeolian transport figures very strongly in relation to the development of ergs as evidenced by the widespread dune systems, sand sheets and sand flow pathways discussed by Wilson (1971, 1973) in north Africa and other authors elsewhere (e.g., Pye and Tsoar 2008; Thomas 1989). In terms of sand terrain dynamics Lancaster (1989) views sand seas as depositional systems with inputs, transfers, storages and outputs. Many authors have established that aeolian sand can be derived from sources such as fluvial, lacustrine

2

The Geotourism Potential of Sand and Dunes—From Theory to Practice

and littoral systems, the sand being ultimately derived from the weathering of rocks dominated by quartz, such as granite, gneiss and arenites. The transfer component of the sand sea model involves the transport of sand by wind from source to sink (the sand body). Transport takes place by saltation of sand particles and by sand dune migration. The Sahara is a classic example of a constantly moving sand sea involving the long-distance transport of sand by wind (Wilson 1971). Non-mobile sand is stored in dunes, interdunes and mega dunes. The loss of sand from the sand body or the net movement of a sand sea within a landscape, from one area to another, reflects the transport, storage and output components of the sand sea as a depositional system. Pye and Tsoar (2008), in a major review of aeolian sand, recognised that the formation of large sand seas and dune fields requires a large supply of sand, sufficient energy to transport the sand and suitable topographic and climatic conditions to allow the accumulation of large thicknesses of sand. Topographic depressions and/or obstacles can allow the build-up of sand seas, derived from fluvial and aeolian inputs, over time. Although sand seas do occur in flat terrain and can be subject to movement in a downwind direction, Wilson (1973) reported that nearly all ergs or sand seas occur in topographic depressions. Not all sand is thought to be derived from long-distance transport. Local fluvial and/or lacustrine sediments often provide nearby sources of sand. This has been shown to be the case in the central Australian desert zone where Wasson et al. (1988) and Pell and Chivas (1995) provide evidence and arguments against the long-distance transport of sand. Lancaster (1995) also acknowledges this evidence for local sources and short-distance transport for sands occupying the Australian desert zone. While transport may be the dominant phase in mobile sand seas, storage is the dominant component in fixed or stable sand seas. In North America, Southern Africa and Australia there are large areas of sand dunes and sand sheets that are currently inactive because the present-day environmental conditions do not support a dominance of aeolian processes (Thomas 1989; Williams 1994). Sand sheets varying in size from relatively small areas of only a few km to vast expanses of sand, occur in parts of the arid zones of North America (Fryberger et al. 1979; Kocurek and Nielson 1986), Africa (Bagnold 1954; Wilson 1973; Haynes 1982, Breed et al. 1987) and Australia (Carroll 1939; Beard and Sprenger 1984; Mabbutt 1988; Newsome 2000). Work on sand sheets in the arid parts of the USA and Africa raise several important considerations about sand sheets in the arid zone. Fryberger et al. (1979) provide a detailed account of sand sheets near the Great Sand Dunes Monument in Colorado, USA. Important conclusions arising from this study are that sand sheets are of aeolian origin, are currently active, contain sedimentary features, are several metres thick

31

and represent transitional facies between dune deposits, associated with a sand sea, and other non-aeolian facies. Kocurek and Nielson (1986) define sand sheets as areas of mostly aeolian sand, the surfaces of which can be flat, undulating or irregular, with or without ripples. The relationship of sand sheets to sand seas or ergs is also explored by Kocurek and Nielson (1986). These authors include the coarse sand ergs and ripple ergs identified by Wilson (1973) as sand sheets. However, this is consistent with Wilson’s view that ripple and coarse sand ergs have the lowest order of bedform development. In the northern part of Africa there are flat undulating sandplains covering some 100,000 km2. One such area, the Selima sand sheet, comprising some 60,000 km2, has been the subject of study by Haynes (1982) and Breed et al. (1987). The sand sheet ranges from being a few centimetres to several metres in depth, is mobile and contains sedimentary laminae. Remotely sensed data show flat sandy plains and areas consisting of giant ripples. Barchan dunes are also seen to migrate across the sand sheet. These dune sands are thought to be derived from distant alluvial sources rather than from the sand sheet itself (Breed et al. 1987). In situ sources have been recognised as contributing to the sand supply in Iraq (Al-Janabi et al. 1988), in north American and in southern African sand seas (Ahlbrandt 1974; Baillieul 1975; Lancaster 1989). In addition, Thomas and Shaw (1993) point out that they doubt whether the Kalahari has a wholly aeolian origin. Also in southern Africa, Besler (1996) has re-emphasized the importance of the underlying Tsondab sandstone in contributing sand to large parts of the Namib Sand Sea. It appears therefore that, although the long-distance transport of sand by wind is the major process by which many sand seas develop, local and in situ sources of sand may also form sand seas. Fixed sand seas occur throughout the central arid zone of Australia and extend into adjacent semi-arid and more humid coastal regions. Sand sheets or sandplains are common features of sand seas and are also widespread in central Australia and Western Australia. At first glance the gently undulating sandplains with occasional dunes and minor dune fields of Western Australia appear to demonstrate very similar characteristics. Apart from variations in depth and colour the sandy soils all look the same. The sandplains are mainly yellow but there also extensive areas of red sands. Of interest is that some sands show subtle variations in particle size from site to site, while other sites are significantly different in the amount of clay present in the profile (Newsome and Ladd 2003). The clay occurs as coatings around quartz grains and is often in association with iron oxides. This is what gives the sand its colour. Perhaps of greater significance in terms of understanding the origin of the sands, which has been a topic of debate (see Newsome 2000), is the varying heavy mineral signature that can be detected in the

32

D. Newsome

sands (Newsome 2000; Newsome and Walden 2000). The reported variations in heavy mineral signature suggest that the sandplain is a heterogeneous collection of sand bodies that form one extensive landscape feature. Furthermore, the evidence also points to an in-situ origin for many of the sands, resulting from the decomposition of sandstone parent materials which occur in upper landscape positions. Sand has been linked to underlying bedrock and where dunes occur a linkage has been demonstrated between a dune and local sandplain and bedrock sources reflecting only very localised movements of sand (Newsome 2000).

2.4

Sand in the Middle East

The Middle Eastern countries are the setting for iconic dune landscapes and vast areas of sand. For example, much of the Arabian Peninsula comprises spectacular desert landscapes which extend from the Persian Gulf to Yemen in the south (Fig. 2.1). Standing out as the centre piece sand sea is the Rub’ al Khali which is a continuous body of sand covering some 650,000 km of the Arabian Peninsula extending across southern Saudi Arabia, east into Oman and the UAE and south into Yemen (Table 2.1, Fig. 2.1). The Rub’ al Khali has a complex environmental history and while considered to be hyper arid (rainfall > 50 mm per annum) today there is evidence of alternating arid and humid condition dating back

Fig. 2.1 Countries mentioned in the text. Source Google Maps (2022)

to the Miocene period (about 15 million years ago) (Singhvi et al. 2012). Furthermore, the dune systems are situated in topographic depressions such as the Rub’ al Khali Basin where aeolian sands have been deposited for at least 800,000 years (Singhvi et al. 2012). The Rub’ al Khali Sand Sea in the UAE has giant barchan dunes and multi generations of dunes superimposed on one another. The sand itself is fine in texture and sub-rounded to sub-angular in shape (El-Sayed 2000). El-Sayed (2000) also reports that the sand is derived from various sources including the Oman Mountains and the Arabian shield. The geological complexity surrounding the origin and characteristics of dune sands, which occupy about 50% of the land surface, in Saudi Arabia has been investigated by Benaafi and Abdullatif (2015). Sand dune types comprise longitudinal or linear dunes in the western region of Saudi Arabia, and barchan or crescent dunes in the north-western part of the Rub’ al Khali Sand Sea. Where sand accumulates due to changes in wind velocity and variations in roughness of the land surface vegetated linear dunes, transverse, barchan, star and dome dunes also form. Star dunes are prominent in central parts of Saudi Arabia indicating different wind directions during their formation. In terms of the grains that make up these dunes they are well sorted however the dominant size fraction varies from place to place and includes fine (Sakaka, northern Saudi Arabia), medium (central Rub’ al Khali) and coarse sand (Al-Nafūd Desert)

2

The Geotourism Potential of Sand and Dunes—From Theory to Practice

Table 2.1 Major bodies of sand in the Middle East

33

Country

Sand body

Approximate extent

Major dune Types and sand sheets

Saudi Arabia

Rub’ al Khali

Arabian Peninsula 650,000 km2

Transverse Linear Barchan Star

Al-Nafūd Sand Sea

57,000 km2

Linear Barchan

UAE

Ar Rub al Khali Sand Sea

3694 km2

Barchan

Oman

Wahiba Sand Sea

12,500 km2

Yemen

Al-Sa ‘atayn Dunes

26,000 km

Linear transverse

Jordan

Wadi Araba Desert

172 km2

Barchan transverse linear

2

2

Linear sand sheets

Israel

Negev Desert

12,000 km

Linear

Egypt

Sinai Desert

60,000 km2

Linear

2

Iran

Yallan Sand Sea Lut Desert

10,700 km

Linear transverse star barchan

Iraq

Western Desert

168,000 km2

Sand sheet

sand sizes. In terms of shape and roundness the Rub’ al Khali exhibits dominantly rounded and sub-rounded shapes while the central Arabian sands are dominated by sub-angular and angular shapes. Grains with more angular shapes indicating origin from nearby sources of sand. Benaafi and Abdullatif (2015) investigated the mineralogical composition of the dune sands in Saudi Arabia. The dominant occurrence of quartz is not surprising as it is very resistant to weathering and mostly derived from quartz arenites (sandstones) but feldspar and calcite are also present. Larger amounts of calcite are found in coastal sands. The complexity surrounding the sources and composition of sands occurring on the Arabian Peninsula includes the dunes of the Wahiba Sand Sea, Oman. For example, northern parts of the sand sea comprise linear dunes and mega-ridges (very tall dunal features). Furthermore, northern sands have a high concentration of mafic minerals, giving the sands a reddish colour, and are derived from the adjacent Hajar mountains. In contrast pale yellow sands of southern parts of the sand sea, comprising linear dunes and sand sheets, are quartz rich with carbonate grains derived from coastal sands. Sphericity and roundness of the sand grains also indicates repeated cycles of transportation and deposition (Gheith et al. 2021). The final body of sand worthy of mention in this brief and targeted account of sand in the Middle East is the Yallan Sand Sea that forms part of the Lut Desert World Heritage Property in Iran. This sand sea comprises several readily identifiable dune fields such as the West Lut Dunefield (migrating barchans), Central Lut Dunefield (star and linear dunes) and the Fahraj and Rigan Dunefield (Maghsoudi 2021). Of particular interest is that the Lut Desert has dunes up to 450 m in height comprising some of the largest dunes in the world (UNESCO 2022).

2.5

Connecting the Tourist with Sand and Dunes

Desert landscapes and large dune fields have always inspired awe and held place in the human psyche. For the people that live in arid and desert environments immense dune fields have presented considerable challenges to survival and have been barriers to human movement. In the modern context, and particularly in the Middle East, many such environments are now the setting for mineral resource exploitation and cinematic projects such as the 2021 Hollywood film Dune. They also comprise important nature reserves for endangered species and are settings for a range of adventure and tourism activities. While much of the current tourism activity involves sandboarding, quad bike tours, camel safaris, off-road vehicle ‘dune bashing’ and adventure racing (e.g. https://extremedunestourism.com/ and https://www. reddunestourism.com/) the intention here is to promote authentic geotourism as a prime tourism experience in the sandy deserts of the Middle East. Authentic geotourism has been comprehensively described by Dowling and Newsome (2006, 2018), Newsome and Dowling (2010). The vital role of visitor engagement via learning is emphasized throughout the geotourism literature. Furthermore, although the focus is not specifically on sand and dune systems, previous work from Iran, Iraq, Oman and Saudi Arabia indicates the geotourism potential of these countries for example, see Amrikazemi and Mehrpooya (2006), Lawrence (2010), Sissakian et al. (2016), Ziaee and Ferdowsi (2020) and Elassal (2020). Desert landscapes are also being recognised as World Heritage Sites and this will further promote the tourism potential of impressive dune fields as examples of on-going geological processes (Goudie

34

D. Newsome

and Seely, 2011). One such area is the Lut Desert in Iran. Maghsoudi et al. (2019) provide an account of geotourism opportunities based on the identification of suitable geosites, tourism access and degradation risk. Several locations on the edge of the impressive Yallan Sand Sea are subsequently identified as prime sites for tourism development where services can be provided that facilitate the educational requirements of geotourism. Although a range of interpretive techniques can be applied in the dissemination of geotouristic information to tourists, by far the most effective approach is via face-to-face tour guiding (e.g., Migon 2018). In addition, the interpretation of sand seas, dune systems and the sand itself can be realised by taking a mega, macro and micro scale view of the environment (Table 2.2). Navigating a tourist through the complexities of arid zone geomorphology and especially aeolian processes can be achieved by first looking at the big

picture and then engaging the tourist by scaling things down and directly involving them in the process of discovery. When visiting a sand sea vista, (Fig. 2.2) the guide can place the landscape within a world picture of arid zone geomorphology and environmental change. The theoretical background given earlier provides some discussion around sand seas, notably their occurrence and origin. Additional information can be obtained from comprehensive texts such as Pettijohn et al. (1972), Pye and Tsoar (2008) and Thomas (2011). Tourists could be encouraged to share experiences of their own travels in different countries and consider the global context of the sand sea they are viewing at the time. The Rub’ al Khali for example is a mega feature in the sense that it is considered to be the largest sand sea in the world. At the macro level, sand dunes are of immense tourism significance and an explanation of their scientific importance can add considerable value during a visit and hike onto a

Table 2.2 Mega, macro, and micro scale approaches for the guided Interpretation of sand and dunes for the tourist Feature

Theme

Field programme supported with the use of visual aids

Suggestions for knowledge requirements and delivery of information during guided tours

Sand sea

Land-scape scale features

Visit to sites (e.g., Rub’ al Khali) where landscape vistas can be observed and photographed

Understanding of terminology e.g., erg which is derived from Arabic.Discuss global context, sources of sand, climatic influences, and climate change

Dune fields and dunes

Formation of dunes and different types of dunes

Laminated sheets with diagrams indicating how a dune is formed and how different types of dunes, such as barchan and transverse dunes, result from differing wind regimes and conditions of sand supply

Explain that the height of a dune is limited by the height at which wind velocity increases. Make the point that dunes are not stationary and that rolling and saltating grains land on the slip face and an unstable accumulation builds up. Sand then cascades down the leeward side and the dune moves forward

Sand

Aeolian transport and deposition

Laminated sheets with diagrams indicating the processes of saltation, surface creep and suspension

Explain the wind transport process of entrainment which occurs when turbulent air flow of the wind exceeds the force of gravity and surface cohesion. Once a particle is entrained in can be moved as a suspension or saltate across the ground and/or roll across the ground as surface creep

Visit sites under windy condition where saltation is taking place

Sand grains

Size and shape

Handling of sand to feel the grains and to observe the grains closely with the naked eye

Explain the particle size categories of sand, silt and clay and their relationship with wind transport processes

Samples of different textured sands to illustrate contrasting particle sizes

Explain how shape reflects environmental history

Laminated sheets with diagrams indicating grain shape Sand grains

Mineralogy

Handling of sand to feel the grains and to observe the grains at a finer resolution

Consider how grain coatings and different minerals give rise to different coloured sands

Samples of different coloured sands

Explain the dominance of the mineral quartz in sands throughout the world

Laminated sheets with diagrams indicating the features of quartz and other minerals Electron micrographs can be used to show micro weathering features of sand grains and the crystal structure of quartz

Discuss different provenance of sands giving rise to differing sand mineralogy

2

The Geotourism Potential of Sand and Dunes—From Theory to Practice

35

Fig. 2.2 Sossusvlei in the southern part of the Namib Sand Sea. Source Jane Newsome (August 2011)

dune crest (Fig. 2.3). The formation and development of different types of dunes is fully explored by Lancaster (1995) and an important scientific resource for a ‘sand focussed’ tour guide. The amount and complexity of information delivered to the tourist will depend on the degree of specialisation of the tour group in question. As a starting point aeolian transport can be explained followed by the question of what controls dune height and shape (Table 2.2). Depending on the requirements of the tour group issues of climate change and paleoenvironments can be discussed as part of guided journey along a dune crest. Taking a handful of sand to examine its texture and colour with a hand lens commences the journey from macro to the micro level of investigation (Fig. 2.4, Table 2.2). It is at this level that the place of particle size can be considered and aeolian transport can be re-visited. Sand is a size classification with particles in the size range from 60–2000 lm

in diameter. ‘Typical’ desert aeolian sediments, and those capable of being transported some distance, such as dunes, are likely to be well to very well sorted with a mean size range of around 125–250 lm. Sand dunes are thus usually composed of fine sand sizes but wind-blown sands per se’ can be of different sizes. Again, as mentioned previously the detail required when imparting knowledge of sands will depend on the requirements of the audience. Sand colour largely depends on the source of the sediments, and this is where the micro and mega scales of interpreting sand can be combined (Table 2.2). This aspect was considered earlier regarding Wahiba Sand Sea, Oman, where sands from the north are derived from the Hajar Mountains. Examination of collected sand via the use of portable microscopes provides the opportunity for tourists to explore the sand in detail for themselves (e.g., Millette et al. 1996). Grain shape and sorting can readily be viewed and

36

D. Newsome

Fig. 2.3 Large sand dunes are iconic tourism assets and a scientific explanation of their origins will add value to the tourism experience. Source Jane Newsome (August 2011)

appreciated (Fig. 2.5). A well sorted sand is where most of the grains are in the same size range, while a predominance of rounded grains indicates wearing and attrition of angular surfaces during a long period of transportation by wind or water. A tourist may be able to gain further insight into the nature of sand if they are able to view electron micrographs of individual sand grains (Fig. 2.6). High power magnification can reveal microtextural features which can reveal evidence of aeolian and sub-aqueous modification of sand grains arising from mechanical or chemical induced changes (Table 2.2). Microtextures reflect the transportation and depositional environment of sand grains. Mechanical

features include percussion cracks and v shaped patterns while chemical dissolution features include observable etch patterns, triangular shaped etch pits and solution lines. Detailed analysis of such microtextures can help resolve the origin of sand terrains (e.g. Newsome and Ladd 1999; Vos et al. 2014). One of the most important messages that can be imparted to the geotourist is the question of respect for the landscape and the conservation of unique arid zone flora and fauna. The previously mentioned progress towards World Heritage (Goudie and Seely 2011) highlights the natural values of arid landscapes. The World Heritage 2020 Conservation Outlook for the Lut desert in Iran

2

The Geotourism Potential of Sand and Dunes—From Theory to Practice

Fig. 2.4 A handful of sand that can be examined closely with a hand lens and portable microscope. Source Jane Newsome (December 2021)

Fig. 2.5 Rounded and irregular shaped sand grains. Source Newsome (1998)

37

38

D. Newsome

Fig. 2.6 Illustration of sand grain microtextures by reference to an electron micrograph. Source Newsome (1998)

(https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/explore-sites/wdpaid/ 555622047) flags areas of concern which apply to many desert environments. Problems include desertification caused by over-grazing and firewood collection from sparsely vegetated areas. Further declines in rainfall are predicted to occur across the Middle East due to climate change impacting on water availability, agriculture and the livelihoods of resident populations (Evans 2009; Waha et al. 2017). The geo-tour guide and practitioner thus has a responsibility to articulate the unique nature of sand and dune environments, have knowledge of their environmental history and the geological processes that created them, and at the same time foster awareness for their conservation and sustainable development.

2.6

Conclusion

It is important to acknowledge that sand is a huge topic of human interest. Its place in human geography, culture, art, as a construction and building material, in shaping the unique ecology of arid and sand rich environments, in fostering advances in technology, its place in geology and

geomorphological science and as a focal point of tourism and leisure ties it in deeply with the record of human history, development, learning and enjoyment (e.g., Siever 1988; Welland 2009). Acknowledging and knowing this provides immense scope for a sand focused geo-guide and offers a range of learning opportunities for the tourist. The occurrence, origin and expression of sand in the environment is complex and may present challenges to guides and tourists alike in understanding the different international and regional contexts that surround an apparently uniform body of sand and its constituent dunes. Sand may be derived from different sources and have contrasting mineralogy. Dune fields may be fossil aspects of Cenozoic climate change, they may be currently fixed by vegetation or active and moving across the landscape. This realisation demands some simplification of the situation for geo-guiding and the people visiting countries that have extensive expanses of sand in the landscape. In an attempt to create a platform for further work this chapter has briefly described the global occurrence and origin of sand seas, considered aeolian versus in-situ origins of sands, provided a brief account of sand in the Middle East and has explained in simple terms how a guide can connect a visitor with sand

2

The Geotourism Potential of Sand and Dunes—From Theory to Practice

and dunes. Sand and dunes are potentially overlooked in relation to scientific explanation, perhaps at the expense of adventure tourism activities, but the science reveals so much more and goes a long way towards enhancing the tourism experience of sand.

References Ahlbrandt TS (1974) The source of sand for the Killpecker sand-dune field, southwestern Wyoming. Sediment Geol 11(1):39–57 Al-Janabi KZ, Ali AJ, Al-Taie FH, Jack FJ (1988) Origin and nature of sand dunes in the alluvial plain of southern Iraq. J Arid Environ 14 (1):27–34 Amrikazemi A, Mehrpooya, (2006) Geotourism resources of Iran. In: Newsome D (ed) Dowling R. Geotourism Elsevier/Heineman Publishers, Oxford, UK, pp 106–120 Bagnold RA (1954) Physical aspects of dry deserts. Biology of Deserts 7:12 Baillieul TA (1975) A reconnaissance survey of the cover sands in the Republic of Botswana. J Sediment Res 45(2):494–503 Beard JS, Sprenger BS (1984) geographical data from the vegetation survey of Western Australia: With Map of Aeolian Landforms 1:3000 000. Vegmap Publications Benaafi M, Abdullatif O (2015) Sedimentological, mineralogical, and geochemical characterization of sand dunes in Saudi Arabia. Arab J Geosci 8(12):11073–11092 Besler H (1996) The Tsondab Sandstone in Namibia and its significance for the Namib Erg. S Afr J Geol 99(1):77–87 Breed CS, McCauley JF, Davis PA (1987) Sand sheets of the eastern Sahara and ripple blankets on Mars. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 35(1):337–359 Carroll D (1939) Movement of sand by wind. Geol Mag 76(1):6–23 Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) (2006) Geotourism. Elsevier/Heineman Publishers, Oxford, UK Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) (2010) Global geotourism perspectives. Goodfellow Publishers Limited, Oxford, UK Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) (2018) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK Elassal M (2020) Geomorphological heritage attractions proposed for geotourism in asir mountains. Saudi Arabia. Geoheritage 12(4):1–18 El-Sayed MI (2000) The nature and possible origin of mega-dunes in Liwa, Ar Rub’Al Khali. UAE. Sedimentary Geology 134 (3–4):305–330 Evans JP (2009) 21st century climate change in the Middle East. Clim Change 92(3):417–432 Frakes L A, Burger D, Apthorpe M et al (1987). Australian Cretaceous shorelines, stage by stage. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 59:31–48. Fryberger S, Goudie AS (1981) Arid geomorphology. Progress in physical geography 5 (3):420–428 Fryberger SG, Ahlbrandt TS (1979) Mechanisms for the formation of aeolian sand seas. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 23:440–460 Fryberger SG, Ahlbrandt TS, Andrews S (1979) Origin, sedimentary features, and significance of low-angle eolian sand sheet deposits, Great Sand Dunes National Monument and vicinity. Colorado. J Sediment Res 49(3):733–746 FrybergerS, Goudie AS (1981) Arid geomorphology. Progress Phys Geography 5(3):420–428 Gheith A, Al-Balushi A, Hereher M et al (2021) Petrography and heavy minerals analysis for recognition of the depositional history of the Wahiba Sand Sea, Sultanate of Oman. Arab J Geosci 14(15):1–13

39

Goudie A, Seely M (2011) World heritage desert landscapes: potential priorities for the recognition of desert landscapes and geomorphological sites on the World Heritage List. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Haynes CV Jr (1982) Great sand sea and Selima sand sheet, Eastern Sahara: geochronology of desertification. Science 217(4560):629– 633 Kocurek G, Nielson J (1986) Conditions favourable for the formation of warm-climate aeolian sand sheets. Sedimentology 33(6):795–816 Lancaster N (1982) Linear dunes. Prog Phys Geogr 6(4):475–504 Lancaster N (1989) The Namib Sand Sea; Dune forms, processes and sediments, A.A. Balkema. Rotterdam Lancaster N (1995) Geomorphology of desert dunes. Routledge Lawrence A (2010) Geotourism in the Sultanate of Oman. In: Dowling R, Newsome D. (eds) Global geotourism perspectives. Goodfellow Publishers Limited, Oxford, pp 93–112 Mabbutt JA (1988) Australian desert landscapes. GeoJ 16(4):355–369 Maghsoudi M (2021) Geopark and geotourism potential in desert landforms. In: Desert landscapes and landforms of Iran, pp 165–196 Maghsoudi M, Moradi A, Moradipour F, Nezammahalleh MA (2019) Geotourism development in world heritage of the Lut Desert. Geoheritage 11:501–516 McKee ED (1979) A study of global sand seas. In: Geological survey professional paper, vol 1052. US Government Printing Office. Washington Migon P (2018) Geo-interpretation: how and for whom? In: Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 224–233 Millette J, Hopen T, Brown R (1996) Collecting and examining beach sand: getting started. Microscopy Today 4(5):18–21 Newsome D (1998) A contribution to the origin of sandplains: A case study from the Victoria Plateau, Western Australia. Doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia Newsome D (2000) Origin of sandplains in Western Australia: a review of the debate and some recent findings. Aust J Earth Sci 47(4): 695–706 Newsome D, Ladd P (1999) The use of quartz grain microtextures in the study of the origin of sand terrains in Western Australia. CATENA 35(1):1–17 Newsome D, Ladd PG (2003) The relative importance of pedogenic processes in deep sandy regolith in Western Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 47(4):499–519 Newsome D, Walden J (2000) Mineral magnetic evidence for heterogeneous sandplain regolith in Western Australia. J Arid Environ 45(2):139–150 Newsome D, Dowling R (eds) (2010) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscape. Goodfellow Publishers Limited, Oxford, UK. Newsome D, Ladd P, Dowling R (2022) The Scope for Geotourism Based on Regolith in Southwestern Australia—a Theoretical and Practical Perspective Geoheritage 14 (1): 1–21 Pease PP, Tchakerian VP (2002) Composition and sources of sand in the Wahiba Sand Sea, Sultanate of Oman. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92 (3):416–434 Pell SD, Chivas AR (1995) Surface features of sand grains from the Australian continental dunefield. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 113(1):119–132 Pettijohn FJ, Potter PE, Siever R (1972) Production and provenance of sand. In: Pettijohn FJ, Potter PE, Siever R (eds) Sand and sandstone. Springer, New York, pp 294–326 Pye K, Tsoar H (2008) Aeolian sand and sand dunes. Springer Science & Business Media Siever R (1988) Sand. Scientific American Library, Freeman and Company, New York

40 Singhvi AK, Bhatt N, Glennie K et al (2012) India, Arabia and adjacent regions. In: Metcalfe S, Nash D (eds) Quaternary environmental change in the tropics. Wiley, New York, pp 151–198 Sissakian V, Ahad AA, Al-Ansari N et al (2016) Tourism in North and Northeastern Parts of Iraq. J Earth Sci Geotech Eng 6(3):90–107 Snead RE (1972) Atlas of world physical features. Wiley, New York Thomas DS (1987) Discrimination of depositional environments using sedimentary characteristics in the Mega Kalahari, Central southern Africa. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 35 (1):293–306 Thomas DS (ed) (1989) Arid zone geomorphology: process, form and change in drylands. Wiley Thomas DS (ed) (2011) Arid zone geomorphology: process, form and change in drylands. Wiley Thomas DS, Goudie AS (1984) Ancient ergs of the southern hemisphere. In: Vogel J (ed) Late Cenozoic Paleoclimates of the Southern Hemisphere. Belhaven Press, London, pp 407–418 Thomas DS, Shaw PA (1993) The evolution and characteristics of the Kalahari, southern Africa. J Arid Environ 25(1):97–108 UNESCO (2022) Lut Desert https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1505/ (accessed 26/1/22) Vos K, Vandenberghe N, Elsen J (2014) Surface textural analysis of quartz grains by scanning electron microscopy (SEM): from sample preparation to environmental interpretation. Earth Sci Rev 128:93– 104

D. Newsome Waha K, Krummenauer L, Adams S et al (2017) Climate change impacts in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region and their implications for vulnerable population groups. Reg Environ Change 17(6):1623–1638 Wasson RJ, Fitchett K, Mackey B et al (1988) Large-scale patterns of dune type, spacing and orientation in the Australian continental dunefield. Aust Geogr 19(1):89–104 Welland M (2009) Sand: a journey through science and the imagination. Oxford University Press Williams MAJ (1994) Cenozoic climatic changes in deserts: a synthesis. In: Geomorphology of desert environments. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 644–670 Wilson IG (1971) Desert sandflow basins and a model for the development of ergs. Geogr J 137:180–199 Wilson IG (1973) Ergs. Sediment Geol 10:77–106 Ziaee M, Ferdowsi S (2020) A systematic review of Iranian research in the field of geotourism studies. Geoheritage 12(4):1–13

David Newsome is Emeritus Professor of Environmental Science at Murdoch University, Australia. His research interests focus on the sustainability of tourism in national parks and nature reserves, geological tourism, and wildlife tourism. David is a member of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and has a particular interest in undertaking projects that will aid in the development of sustainable tourism in the Middle East.

3

The Significance of Geotourism Through the Lens of Geoethics Silvia Peppoloni and Giuseppe Di Capua

Abstract

Geoheritage and geodiversity visually and symbolically express the link between the physical and biological environment and cultural world. In the geoethical vision, their protection is fundamental since they are irreplaceable components of a non-renewable social and natural ‘capital’. Geoheritage and geodiversity become points of reference to redefine the intimate connection between human beings and Earth, thus assuming a value meaning to be placed at the basis of a new way of experiencing the territory. Initiatives such as geoparks or geotourism represent their concrete implementation, as activities capable of enhancing the environment and its geological landscape. Furthermore, their learning and enjoyment also foster a broader understanding of the significance of geosciences and their importance for the functioning of societies, as well as promoting interactions with local human communities, and the expansion of one’s spiritual and aesthetical dimension while living the interaction with nature. Responsible geotourism enhances sites and landscapes of geological significance, assuring their protection and the sustainable development of surrounding areas. Moreover, the use of those sites by citizens can increase their awareness and understanding of key issues to be faced by society, such as the sustainable use of geo-resources, the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change effects, and the reduction of risks related to natural and anthropogenic phenomena. Geotourism, therefore, also represents the common ground on which geosciences and social sciences can interact, offering undoubted advantages. Geotourism S. Peppoloni (&)
G. Di Capua Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] G. Di Capua e-mail: [email protected] S. Peppoloni
G. Di Capua International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), Rome, Italy

makes multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work and cross-boundaries national and international collaboration visual and tangible; it produces an increase in public awareness and scientific knowledge; it improves the quality of life of the local population by creating incentives for economic development; finally, it drives society to behave and act more responsibly towards geodiversity and biodiversity. This chapter frames geotourism within geoethical thought, emphasising its formative contribution for the human being. Keywords




Geoethics Geotourism Sustainability

3.1




Geoparks




Responsibility




Introduction: The Contribution of Geotourism to Address the Ecological Crisis

In this chapter we argue that geotourism is a tool that can help change the approach of human beings towards nature. The way and the forms that characterize the current relationship between human beings and the Earth system do not work, as they are ecologically unsustainable. This is creating an ecological crisis, the main effects of which are global warming, the loss of biodiversity, deforestation, desertification, alteration of biogeochemical cycles. These phenomena are part of a more general process of alteration of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the planet, due to the anthropogenic action (Jouffray et al. 2020; Ripple et al. 2020, 2021; Head et al. 2021). In this context, it is necessary to face the ecological crisis by moving from theoretical dissertations to practical and shared solutions, capable of defining new and more sustainable trajectories of development for human life on the planet. But for practical interventions to have effective

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_3

41

42

results, they must be rooted in a new vision of community human relations and be based on a different idea of how the human being should interact with nature in space and time, overcoming individualistic egocentrism, consumerist utilitarianism and the presentism of the objectives of action. Ultimately, there is a need for a cultural change that also becomes political, economic, social, and legal change (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2021a). Change should affect all sectors of human development, including tourism (and in particular that of geotourism), which more than others has to do directly with the natural environment. This change should take place starting from some considerations: (1) The environmental and social impact of human activities is inevitable: it cannot be eliminated, but it can be minimized. This impact affects biodiversity and geodiversity, as well as all the relationships that humans establish with the natural environment. As it is well known, the impact of tourism activities can be deleterious for the territory since it can profoundly alter the balance of social-ecological systems involved, namely those complex adaptive systems, in which human communities are embedded in nature (Virapongse et al. 2016; Preiser et al. 2018; De Vos et al. 2019). In its usual forms, tourist activity seems to be exercised without considering the consequences it can produce in the long term and without awareness of its potential educational, training, ecological value, privileging only its evasive/recreational dimension. Geotourism can and must offer itself as an alternative to this type of tourism. (2) The now evident ecological unsustainability of most human societies on the planet is the reflection of a general crisis of the human being (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2021a). This crisis manifests itself in inattention to the territory in which one lives, in disinterest in the community to which one belongs, and in a general lack of responsibility for the future consequences of one’s actions. Geotourism can effectively contribute to changing such attitudes, as it is capable of wisely linking respect for the identity of the territory and its communities to the tourist experience, leading the geotourist to grasp the spatial and temporal evolution of places, and the deep connections existing between the biotic and abiotic components of the visited territory. (3) Geotourism, precisely because it is linked to the specific geological environment of a place, can spread widely in the territories and evolve into a form of ‘proximity tourism’ (Rantala et al. 2020). After all, geology is everywhere and so scientifically significant and attractive geotourism destinations can be found in many areas.

S. Peppoloni and G. Di Capua

Based on these considerations, firstly it is important to avoid that the anthropic impact becomes unsustainable to the point of preventing the maintenance on the planet of environmental conditions compatible with human life and with that of many other living species. Secondly, ethical-oriented best practices and adequate legal reference frameworks are necessary, but not sufficient conditions to favour a responsible, socially sustainable and ecologically oriented geotourism. In fact, to preserve the forms and processes of the geological environment and local biodiversity, to enhance tourist areas and promote their socio-economic development, a cultural change is also needed, which geotourism can help achieve. In fact, in addition to its recreational, regenerative and aesthetic value, geotourism has great formative and educational potential for people, especially when it is practiced to promote and regulate the enjoyment of geoparks by the public. For this purpose, geotourism can be rethought in its instrumental function, as a useful experience for human beings to reconstitute their connection with the biotic and abiotic forms of the environment in which they are immersed, to perceive themselves as an integral part of nature again and rediscover their own role and responsibility as human beings on Earth (that perception of being nature for nature), as Élysée Reclus (1830–1905) had already guessed at the beginning of the twentieth century, when he affirmed: L'Homme est la nature prenant conscience d'elle meme (Man is nature that becomes aware of itself) (Reclus 1905, 1908).

3.2

The Vision of Geoethics at the Basis of the Geotourism Experience

Geoethics deals with the relationship between humans and the Earth System, seeking those principles and values on which to base this relationship (Peppoloni et al. 2019; Peppoloni and Di Capua 2021b). Originally born in the geoscientific field, geoethics focuses on the ethical, social and cultural implications of knowledge, research, practice, education and communication of the Earth sciences (or geosciences) (Peppoloni et al. 2019). With reference to the current global environmental problems, geoethics, as ethics, questions what the most correct human behaviours and the most functional practices should be to face and overcome the ecological crisis. It is now clear that the anthropic impact on ecosystems has reached such a level that the induced changes can lead to irreparable consequences for the survival of many living species. Therefore, it becomes necessary to make changes to the economic, social, political, legal and cultural models, which are responsible for these alterations, to allow human communities to identify and undertake new development

3

The Significance of Geotourism Through the Lens of Geoethics

43

trajectories that are no longer guided by an exclusively instrumental vision of nature. Geosciences are a tool of knowledge and action, indispensable for building human practices that are able to integrate with natural dynamics in a respectful way, that is, without irreversibly altering planetary processes and preventing current ecosystems from collapsing (Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015). Geoethics is based on three fundamental principles: dignity, freedom and responsibility (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2020, 2022). They constitute the starting point for rebuilding the human-Earth system nexus on a new basis. Giving dignity to animal and plant organisms (biodiversity), as well as to minerals, rocks and fossils (geodiversity), involves recognizing their irreplaceable value within natural architecture, their right to existence and evolution regardless of the human being. As components of the Earth system, they are its essence and necessity. Such a vision has many consequences: first of all, the apical role of the human being in ecosystem architecture is demolished. After all, the traditional anthropocentric vision, centred on the role of domination of human beings over natural entities and processes, has also proved to be a failure for the human species, which today finds itself experiencing a profound ecological crisis, with unpredictable outcomes, and dangerous for its very survival. The attribution of dignity to natural entities is the first step for human beings to build respect for what is other than themselves, to regenerate themselves ethically and become capable of ecologically oriented action. The principle of dignity is the bedrock on which to build an articulated ecological vision, which at the same time considers:

or certain consequences of one’s actions. In the view of geoethics, acting responsibly implies taking responsibility for assessing the possible human impacts on ecosystems and the consequences that the decisions made may have on human communities, both current and future ones, and on the environment. With reference to the earth, the principle of responsibility is implemented by shaping one’s own actions on reference values and concepts such as stewardship, sustainability, minimization of anthropogenic impacts, environmental protection and conservation, enhancement of ecosystems, respecting geodiversity and biodiversity, and social-ecological systems (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2020, 2021a). The solution to the ecological crisis can benefit from, and be accelerated by, scientific and technological advances, but must find its epistemic root in the redefinition of the ethical purposes of human action. Geoethics favours the development of an ecological humanism (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2021a, b), which implies the centrality of the human being in terms of ecological responsibility and not of egological affirmation, a responsibility in the modifying/constructing action of human planetary vital niche. In this perspective, the geological elements (geosites, geological landscapes and landforms) are not considered simple components of the territory, which stimulate human curiosity. They are the witnesses of the evolution of the earth, our home; they guard the secret of the origin of life, our origin; they constitute the abiotic identity of the places we live, the bedrock of those social-ecological systems in which forms and processes of human communities are interpenetrated in the forms and processes of natural ecosystems. And for these reasons, they express the natural vocation of the territory. They are geomorphological expressions of a planetary reality made up of continuous exchanges, material and immaterial, of flows of matter and energy between its constituent biological and mineral parts. Finally, they are the tangible elements through which we understand the role and responsibility we as humans have towards the planet, as in them we find answers to some of the existential questions we have always asked ourselves.

(a) The anthropological/ontic inevitability of the anthropocentric human vision. (b) The need for responsible anthropogenic action in the creation of the human vital niche on the planet. (c) The importance for the human beings of adopting a biocentric and ecocentric attitude that guides them to create a system of respectful relationships towards the abiotic and biotic components of the Earth system. (d) The cultivation of a geocentric vision of humanity that favours the development of a species identity, as a necessary condition to achieve a more supportive and just society, overcoming the anachronistic and anti-scientific inequalities in the recognition of human rights. The principle of freedom is the prerequisite for ethical action. Human beings who are deprived of freedom are not in a position to be able to choose between different possibilities, they cannot act in accordance with their moral references. The principle of responsibility is central when implementing one’s choices in the awareness of the possible

3.3

Geodiversity, Geoheritage, Geoconservation and Geotourism Through the Lens of Geoethical Thought

Geoethics grasps the socio-cultural significance, even before the scientific significance, of geoheritage and the importance of geodiversity and geoconservation, through which it is possible to recover the sense of place and strengthen the feeling of belonging to one’s spaces of existence.

44

Geoheritage, geodiversity, and geoconservation, respectively identify the object of attention of humans’ actions on the abiotic natural environment (geoheritage), its intrinsic and peculiar qualities (geodiversity), and the actions that safeguard its existence (geoconservation) even in a context of natural instability (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2022). “Geoheritage comprises those elements of Earth’s geodiversity that are considered to have significant scientific, educational, cultural/aesthetic, ecological or ecosystem service values” (Woo 2017), meaning those elements which are priceless and irreplaceable assets, not only of each nation, but of humanity as a whole (WHC 2021, p. 11). Geodiversity has been defined as “the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorphological (landforms, topography, physical processes), soil and hydrological features. It includes their assemblages, structures, systems and contributions to landscapes” (Gray 2013, p. 12). In ProGEO (2017), geodiversity is defined as “the variety of nature elements, such as minerals, rocks, fossils, landforms and their landscapes, soils, and active geological/geomorphological processes”, that form and alter them and sustain life. Brilha (2016), Brocx and Semeniuk (2019), Gray and Gordon (2020) and Gray (2021) provide discussions on the meaning of the term ‘geodiversity’. Together with biodiversity (SEP 2021), geodiversity constitutes the natural diversity and complexity of planet Earth. Geoheritage and geodiversity visually and symbolically express the existing link between the physical, biological, and cultural worlds. In the geoethical vision, their conservation is fundamental, as they are irreplaceable elements of a non-renewable social and natural “capital (Gray 2019; Peppoloni et al. 2019). They become points of reference to redefine the intimate connection between human beings and Earth, thus assuming a meaning of value to be placed at the basis of a new way of living the earth (Peppoloni et al. 2019). Geoconservation consists of a set of actions to ensure that the planet—the set of rocks, landscapes, waters, soils, but also human forms, cultures and activities that locally shape the territory—is adequately protected from those human interventions that degrade and damage the geosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere, compromising its use in the future (Bobrowsky et al. 2017; ProGEO 2017). Geotourism is based on the concepts of geoheritage, geodiversity and geoconservation (Gray 2018; Williams et al. 2020). The evolution of the definitions of geotourism over time, its historical framework and its relationship, sometimes complementary, other times superimposed, to other forms of tourism oriented towards the enjoyment of natural contexts are the subject of an extensive thematic literature which includes authors who have thought of geotourism from a mainly geological perspective, authors who

S. Peppoloni and G. Di Capua

have instead adopted a geographical perspective, and authors who have illustrated different types of geotourist destinations (Hose 1995, 2005, 2008, 2011; Newsome and Dowling 2006, 2010; Pralong 2006; Farsani et al. 2010, 2013; Dowling 2011, 2013; Erfurt-Cooper 2011; Garofano and Govoni 2012; Koh et al. 2014; Nita and Myga-Piątek 2014; Chylińska and Kołodziejczyk 2018; Dowling and Newsome 2018; Gray 2018, 2021; Ólafsdóttir and Tverijonaite 2018; Štrba et al. 2018; Beretić et al. 2019; Chylińska 2019; Coutinho et al. 2019; Gałka 2019; Migoń and Pijet-Migoń 2019; Duarte et al. 2020; Welc and Miśkiewicz 2020; Kubalíková et al. 2021; Maghsoudi et al. 2021). Among the various existing definitions of geotourism, in our reasoning we will refer mainly to the one formulated by Newsome and Dowling (2006, 2010): these authors focus on the geological elements of the territory as the main objects of interest of geotourism. Therefore, geosites, geological processes, geological landscape and their forms are included among the geotourist destinations. The abiotic component of the territory becomes central, which sustains biodiversity, as well as cultural diversity, and which stimulates aesthetic and emotional human experiences. The definition of geotourism that was formulated starting from a geographical perspective, even if more generic than the one based on geological features, is equally fundamental to identify the peculiar characteristics of a territory that geotourism values in its mainly abiotic component. National Geographic has defined geotourism as “tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character of a place—its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and the well-being of its residents.” (“Environment” includes geology, of course, but it is not explicit.) This concept is an approach, rather than a focus on a single topic” (Tourtellot 2011). The two perspectives, geological and geographical, gradually converge in the concept of geoparks (described later) and in the international movement that promotes their establishment and verification within UNESCO. Newsome and Dowling (2006) clearly affirm that “geotourism sits within a spectrum of definitions” and from a geological perspective they state it is “a niche form of natural area tourism based on geology and landscape.” The same authors give the following definition of geotourism (Newsome and Dowling 2010, p. 3): “a form of natural area tourism that specifically focuses on geology and landscape. It promotes tourism to geosites and the conservation of geodiversity and an understanding of Earth sciences through appreciation and learning. This is achieved through independent visits to geological features, use of geo-trails, and viewpoints, guided tours, geo-activities and patronage of geo-visitor centres”. This broad definition clarifies what geotourism consists of, what its purposes are, the activities that allow its use and the different forms in which it can be expressed. The

3

The Significance of Geotourism Through the Lens of Geoethics

45

reference to the concept of ‘conservation of geodiversity’ is certainly significant, which gives geotourism a meaning that goes beyond the mere scientific, aesthetic, cultural, recreational and regenerative use of the landscape by the individual, necessarily becoming a proposal of concrete action in defence of those abiotic components that constitute its main object of interest, the reason that motivates its own practice. As stated by Allan (2015) “Geotourism … has great potential to sustain and conserve our geological heritage, which represents the collective memory of Mother Nature.” Another important aspect is that the ‘geological features’ used to describe a geological touristic attraction of landscape, or landform, do not refer only to objects in their natural environmental context (including the concepts of ‘form’, ‘morphogenetic process’ which shapes it and ‘geological time’ needed for creating that form), but also to those geological elements inserted in urban contexts (Newsome and Dowling 2010; Chylińska and Kołodziejczyk 2018; Kubalíková et al. 2021), such as the constituents of some anthropogenic artefacts (i.e., walls and columns). Hose (2012) introduces the ‘3G’s’ (geoconservation, geohistory, geo-interpretation) formula to characterize modern geotourism, underlining the geological foundation of geotourism not only in terms of ‘geo-objects’ (which are the ends and means of the geoturistic experience), but expanding the meaning of geotourism to also include the actions that ensure its conservation, narration, and interpretation for current and future generations (Hose and Vasilievic 2012). It is clear that geology, as a historical and interpretative science (Frodeman 1995), underlies the cultural dimension of geotourism: it is in fact scientific and historical reading and interpretation of the geological fact through on-site observation. The geotouristic experience is rich and satisfying not only when it captures the final result, the form produced by the events that took place in geological time (such as outcrops, geologic landscapes, fossils, minerals), but also the entire ‘historical’ process, geodynamic, lithogenetic and/or morpho-evolutionary, that created that form, and that ultimately intersects and merges with the history of humanity itself. Grasping the temporal evolutionary process restores the sense of the grandeur of the geological phenomenon and redefines in humans the perception of their position, their influence and necessity in the system of terrestrial relations, highlighting the inconsistency of their egocentrism. It is precisely this consideration that allows an ethical value to be associated with the geological elements that are the object of geotourism, expanding their intrinsic value and making geotourism an immediate practical application of geoethics. Dowling and Newsome (2018) outline the development over time of the concept of geotourism, trying to broaden its meaning both in a ‘horizontal’ sense, extending its qualifying features, and in a “vertical” sense, trying to grasp the

specificities of geotourism in depth, not only in relation to its objects of interest, but also with reference to the approach to the abiotic world that characterizes the geotouristic experience. In this regard, the differences with ecotourism (defined as a ‘natural area tourism’) are evident, since geotourism can take place not only in natural areas, but it ‘can occur in either natural or human modified environments’ (Dowling and Newsome 2018). This last statement does not take away value and significance from strictly naturalistic tourism, but rather extends it to those geological elements that, due to human intervention, have been incorporated into the cultural, artistic, architectural and urbanistic heritage, thus creating an ideal bridge to overcome the ancient ontological fracture between human being and the natural environment, between culture and nature. In other words, in geotourism the geological element, by anthropic intervention, becomes a human artefact without this implying denying its intrinsic natural character, as a constituent of the Earth system that originated through a long non-human history. The coexistence of geo-objects and anthropic objects underlines the connection between the natural environment and the anthroposphere and responds effectively to the idea of a complex environment, made up at the same time of abiotic, biotic and cultural components (Dowling 2013), harmonizing the geological conception of geotourism with that developed by geographers, according to whom the natural and anthropic environment are the interpenetrated faces of the same reality. The two concepts have full convergence in the concept of geopark, which can be defined as “single, unified geographical areas where sites and landscapes of international geological significance are managed with a holistic concept of protection, education and sustainable development” (UNESCO 2015). For Dowling and Newsome (2018) geotourism is the ‘driver of geoparks’. The concept of geoparks combines the concepts of geology, territory, human communities and anthropogenic activities (Martini and Zouros 2001; McKeever and Zouros 2005), but it is evident that the vision of the world it transmits is that of a reality in which the geological element is not only central but is fundamental for reality itself. Although this may seem obvious to insiders (especially geologists), it does not seem so obvious for a globalized society, which appears increasingly distant from considering its links with the space and time of the Earth and life. Furthermore, on the UNESCO site we read that “a Global Geopark uses its geological heritage, in connection with all other aspects of the area’s natural and cultural heritage, to enhance awareness and understanding of key issues facing society, such as using our earth’s resources sustainably, mitigating the effects of climate change and reducing natural disasters-related risks. By raising awareness of the importance of the area’s geological heritage in history and society today, UNESCO Global Geoparks give local people a sense

46

of pride in their region and strengthen their identification with the area. The creation of innovative local enterprises, new jobs and high quality training courses is stimulated as new sources of revenue are generated through geotourism, while the geological resources of the area are protected.” This definition/description highlights the formative/ educational purpose of the geopark in relation to some global issues (natural resources and risks). The geopark is the tool to increase social awareness on issues of common interest. It could be added that awareness is the fundamental building block on which to build responsible behaviours by citizenship towards the territory and far-sighted policies on the part of decision-makers. Furthermore, the geopark is an economic opportunity for the development of local communities while respecting natural resources. Therefore, it represents not only an instrument of social, ecological and economic cementation of the communities of the territory, but also a complex social-ecological organism capable of establishing a relationship of mutual benefit with the geotourist. The geopark, in its highest ideal, shows how exemplary geoethical human communities have reconstituted or are trying to establish a virtuous relationship with the territory, protecting the natural and cultural value of geological resources through geoconservation (Hose 2011). At the same time, the geotourist expresses the will to participate in the success of that virtuous operation, enriching his/her individual experience with social and geo-ecological meanings. This enrichment by those who visit a geopark and enjoy its beauty increases the value of the geopark, overcoming the reductive meaning of “recreational geology” often associated with geotourism (Hose 2011). Therefore, geotourism is much more than just looking at landscapes (Schwartz and Mignon 2017) or geosites. Geotourism allows you to go beyond aesthetic appreciation, beyond the recreational, intuitive, relaxing moment, to become an authentic formative/educational moment for the human being. Not only that: while geotourism provides knowledge of the great geological processes, such as extinctions, climate changes, ice ages, crustal movements, eustatic changes, paleogeographic evolution through the observation and interpretation of geological deposits, fossils and rocks, at the same time it favours in the geotourist a reflection on his/her own nature, the awareness of his/her own finitude as a human being, of the transience and vulnerability of the things that make up the Earth system. Geotourism has the potential to perceptively grasp the unity of the elements (Reynard and Giusti 2018), and rationally place them within a systemic interpretative framework. Here the geotouristic experience becomes a moment of unity between sensory perception and rational mediation, which allows us to go beyond the reductionist perspective of modern science that has forged also common thought. The geotourist, through sensory, emotional and rational

S. Peppoloni and G. Di Capua

perceptions, can become the fulcrum where the ontological unity between the perceptive and the rational world is reconstituted. Moreover, geotourism is also the tool to understand human ambivalence, which on the one hand manifests itself as an inevitable anthropocentrism of species, on the other as awareness of the ecological non-centrality of the humans in the great cosmic architecture. In other words, the geotouristic experience can help those who benefit from it to understand that the perception of centrality that one has of oneself on Earth (an anthropological, innate centrality, referred to the position that human beings give to themselves in relation to the other than themselves) is not in contradiction with perceiving ourselves as an integral part of nature and that being respectful of nature and acting responsibly towards it, means to safeguard also ourselves. Thus, the geotourist becomes more aware of the devastating effects of traditional anthropocentrism, an expression of the human will to power and domination over abiotic and biotic nature (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2021a), which results in the impoverishment of natural diversity but also of beauty, which can instead arise when there is harmonic unity between the elements that make up the evolving socialecological systems. Furthermore, through the geotouristic experience one can learn to read the relationship between the natural state of landscapes and their constituent elements, and the order of values, positive and negative, attractive or repugnant, that characterizes them (Panizza and Piacente 2003; Tissier 2003; Giusti 2014; Reynard and Giusti 2018). This interpretative phase is not limited to giving aesthetic value to a site, casting a shadow on its epistemological meaning. Moreover, as Reynald et al. (2009) highlight, there is also beauty in the interpretation, in the elegance of the demonstration, in the clarity of the explanation, as well as in the aesthetics of the geotouristic objects themselves. But it is important to add that geotourism can go even deeper, allowing the geotourist to reach a state of awareness that is not content with feeding on contemplative intellectual and/or aesthetic enjoyment, but through the aesthetic pleasure linked to the geotourist destination goes in search of that sense of individual responsibility capable of triggering the inner energy to make a paradigm shift of the human-nature nexus. In this lies the geoethical value of geotourism. Geotourism has distant roots, traceable in past centuries (Hose 2011, 2015, 2020; Coutinho et al. 2019), however its most recent development seems to be influenced by current economic paradigms, based on an almost instrumental vision of nature to material and spiritual needs of the individual and human society, with inevitable consequences in terms of impact on ecosystems (Coutinho et al. 2019) and pressure on local communities. It is precisely the recognition of its geoethical value that can completely change the forms of

3

The Significance of Geotourism Through the Lens of Geoethics

47

organization and use of the geotourist offer. It is necessary that the significance of geotourism be enriched by the concept of sustainability, like has already happened for geoparks, and therefore become ‘sustainable geotourism’ (Dowling 2013). Sustainable geotourism should be based on the concept of “responsible human development”, as proposed by geoethics (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2021a), and therefore be practiced in a responsible way. In the geoethical view, geotourism is not only an economically and ecologically sustainable activity (for the local community and geotourists), but also becomes a humanistic-ecological experience of growth for the individual. Through a greater geoscientific knowledge of places, the awareness of the value of social-ecological systems and of one’s responsibility in protecting them increases in each individual. Furthermore, through the geotouristic experience, everyone has the opportunity to improve the relationship with their inner dimension, their social relationships even with local realities, and their interaction with the natural environment, which they enjoy with a feeling of maximum sharing and full respect. For these reasons, from a geoethical point of view, geotourism is independent of the type of tourist involved (Grant 2010; Chylińska 2019) and the reasons that push him/her to the experience (Allan 2011, 2015; King 2010; Kim et al. 2008; Cheung 2016), since it is not the geotourist who shapes geotourism, but it is geotourism that can shape the geotourist, as Chylińska (2019) also states.

rather than a conscious recreational, aesthetic and cultural approach to geo-objects and the infrastructures built around them (museums, hospitality and commercial structures). Overtourism can lead to ‘consumption of places’, both in a practical and metaphorical sense (Urry 1995, pp. 1–2). (2) The subordination of the geotourist experience to the commercial needs of tourism, with the consequent affirmation of a consumerist tourism that may not be attentive to the needs of the territory and to the conservation of tourist sites. This phenomenon would involve the thematic selection of the geotourism offer (sectorialization) on the motivations and needs of the tourist rather than on the meanings and values of the geotourism experience, discussed in the previous section, as a social-ecological training activity.

3.4

Towards Responsible Geotourism

Modern societies need geoscientific knowledge. Geotourism can be part of that set of activities that favour the geological/geoscientific literacy of people, fostering the understanding of the concepts of deep time, complex systems and planetary geo-physical–chemical limits that are necessary to understand the responsibility that the human being has on the planet. Geotourism is an opportunity to redevelop tourism activity, promoting those forms of eco-compatible, socio-sustainable and culturally formative tourism, which represent an opportunity for growth and enrichment for all. However, geotourism is not free from two risks: (1) Overtourism (Vagena 2021) and not carefully planned touristification (‘complex processes of territorial transformation brought about by tourism on a determined geographical space’ in Ojeda and Kieffer 2020), lead touristic destinations changing to become objects of tourism consumption, with a strong social and ecological impact on tourist destinations, as a result of an induced need that can lead to compulsive tourism,

In addition, geotourism cannot be the only resource of a territory, since it is always possible that a shock, both local and systemic, may occur (such as the terroristic attack on the Twin Towers or the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic), capable of increasing the economic vulnerability of the community and/or causing a serious tourism crisis, making the geotourism experience useless as an opportunity for development for the territory. Based on the considerations set out so far, the essential points of geotourism are the following: (a) it must have a geological basis (Dowling 2011): its resource (the tourist destination) is a geological object; (b) it is a bottom-up socio-economic stimulus for sustainable development (Brilha et al. 2018) which brings together public bodies, private undertakings, and local communities; (c) it promotes an integrated vision of the various aspects that characterize the set of tourist activities and sites, in which geoconservation is a founding concept and a practice incorporated in the creation of geotourism destinations (Gray 2004; Newsome and Dowling 2010; Hose 2012); (d) it is an instrument of empowerment of the sense of identity, respect and care of local populations towards their territory; (e) it has a geoethical formative value for the individual. Geotourism is not ecologically oriented and sustainable tourism in itself. To be sustainable, geotourism must be practiced through activities carried out in a responsible way (Antić et al. 2020). Therefore, geotourism must be practiced respecting certain requirements and rules, the same that are already applied in the enjoyment of geoparks, requirements that must be implemented even when the geotourist

48

destinations are not included within protected natural areas. Responsible geotourism is: (a) Geoscience knowledge-based: the communication of geoscientific knowledge is a key component of the quality of the geotourism offer. It must be carried out with the contribution of multidisciplinary skills, through an interdisciplinary cooperation of knowledge and with the development of innovative multimedia tools that increase the effectiveness and completeness of the contents. (b) Respectful: not only towards the geo-objects that make up the tourist destinations, but also towards all the other elements of geodiversity and biodiversity present, as well as the local communities that inhabit that territory. The minimization of the anthropogenic impact in tourist destinations and accommodation areas must be adequately designed to avoid overtourism phenomena. (c) Inclusive: the geotouristic offer must be co-designed with local communities and must include the symbolic and cultural meanings that bind local communities to geosites and geological landscapes. The accessibility of places to people with diverse abilities (Henriques et al. 2019) must be guaranteed with the preparation, where possible, of paths to reach the geo-objects in safety conditions or with the creation of dedicated tourist routes equipped with audio-visual tools, designed to guarantee the use of the contents also by tourists with diverse abilities. (d) Locally beneficial and empowering: local communities are the end and the means of the geotourist development of the territory. Geotourism must be a means of strengthening the identity of local communities by enhancing their link with the geology of the place and increasing the attitude of care for their territory, especially in the new generations. Populations must be involved in activities aimed at tourist reception (with the recovery of local buildings and their redevelopment from an energy and aesthetic point of view, and the construction of museum, reception and accommodation facilities), and at catering (which must be based on the enhancement of local products and local food and beverage traditions—UNESCO 2021). The network of geotourism activities must integrate with the other tourist, cultural, commercial and industrial activities present in the area. (e) Educational: geotourist destinations must become ‘attractive’ places for the geotourist, capable of arousing interest in the origin of landforms and geological processes and their evolution over time, and in topical ecological issues such as sustainable land management

S. Peppoloni and G. Di Capua

and the prudent use of georesources, (eg. water, minerals, forests). (f) Formative: geotourism must lead its user to grasp the philosophical meanings and ethical implications that link the life of human beings to the territory. Geotourism becomes an educational experience if it allows the geotourist to become more aware of human responsibility towards the Earth system and future generations. (g) Careful to end-users needs: geotourist destinations must be prepared to adequately accommodate geotourists according to the best reception criteria. In doing this, the destinations must be enhanced, without distorting their natural vocation, altering their social-ecological balance or increasing the anthropic impact. Based upon the previous discussion, from a geoethical point of view, responsible geotourism could be defined as follows: Geotourism is a responsible tourism focused on Earth system’s geo-objects, carried out by following a geoethics-oriented approach to the abiotic, biotic and cultural relationships of an area. It is tied up to the understanding, interpretation and enhancement of geologic forms and processes. It aims to lead the tourist to perceive time that shapes geosites, landscapes, and landforms, and the 'sense of place' of a territory, by appreciating its geoheritage and geodiversity, and pursuing its geoconservation. Geotourism combines a form/type of geological significance tourism with a geographical approach to a sustainable and inclusive tourism, capable of empowering the land identity of local communities and having a geo-environmental educational and formative relevance for current and future generations. Responsible geotourism cannot be separated from adequate geological and geoethical training of geotourist operators.

3.5

Conclusions: Significance and Function of Geotourism for Human Life

Geotourism has undeniable educational, formative, cultural and economic potential. Most of the world’s population lives in large urban agglomerations that create a clear separation between the natural world and the human world. Cities favour the de-humanizing distancing of the individual from natural reality. Technological civilization has a tendency to destroy the direct sensory dimension of human experience, transforming it into experience mediated by the technological device. Nature is conceived as a museum, an attraction, a recreational experience. All this continues to nourish and

3

The Significance of Geotourism Through the Lens of Geoethics

49

increase that detachment between human beings and nature which is at the basis of the ecological crisis of our time, the effects of which are a concrete threat to human civilization. In the evident need to reconfigure the relationship between human beings and nature, geotourism can prove to be an important tool. However, its function as a recreational and aesthetic satisfaction tool must also be accompanied by a formative and responsible function for those who experience it, redeveloping geotourism as an act of knowledge, awareness and ethical training of the individual. Geotourism, as well as other forms of ecological tourism, can bring humans closer to the direct experience (through senses and emotions) of nature, in which the technological means can help in sensory perception and not replace it. The observation and knowledge of the geo-object (be it a geosite, a landscape or a single form of the landscape itself) can help the geotourist to understand the grandeur and complexity of the dynamics and processes, both endogenous and exogenous, responsible for the formation of each geological element, its evolution over time, its spatial continuity despite the mutability of the contiguous sedimentary environments. Each geosite, each geological landscape represents a piece of the history of the planet, it is the trace of the continuity of reality in transformation in the deep time of the Earth. All geological elements have an ontological and epistemological meaning, they are synthesis and diversity, they are the ground under our feet, they are mass and energy of the Universe. After all, human beings, among their best qualities, have the extraordinary ability to give meaning to the matter that surrounds them, and therefore to nature, which supports them. Creativity and spirituality bring humans closer to the impenetrable essence of natural reality, to recognize that absolute, infinite and irrepressible vital harmony in the matter and energy of which we are made and in which we are immersed. Geotourism is a means of trying to develop the ability to grasp the virtuous evolutionary coherence of nature, which always finds a way to assert itself, between balance and imbalance, between movement and stillness, between deposition and erosion. If wrinkles fix the physiognomy of a face as an effect of the perpetuation of an expressive habit that remains imprinted on the skin, in the same way the discontinuities engraved in the rock communicate the expression of the character of those places, their physical identity. Bearing this in mind, then the idea of the natural environment as a simple reality to be exploited, controlled and managed is cancelled in us, and our spiritual and emotional relationship with the physical place emerges overwhelmingly, as well as the perception of its identity, its sacredness, satisfying our ancestral need to establish an emotional and aesthetic bond with the natural environment that surrounds us. Observing a river that digs the hard rock of its bed, a mountain that rises powerfully from the ground revealing its deep layers, a

volcanic stone that flaunts its fiery red colour, up to a simple crystal that grows reaching to break the rock that embeds it, can lead us to understand that all things in nature tend to develop their potential to the maximum, occupying all the space they need and can. And for those who are able to grasp these continuous movements, where the transformation between energy and matter is incessant, it really seems that the aim is the harmony of forms, of the one into the whole and of the whole into the one. The value of this experience lies all in the recognition and enjoyment of that harmony. Even geotourism can make this experience possible. The foundation of geotourism is to be found in the philosophical dimension of geosciences, to which the process of constructing the sense-making associated with the perception of reality through the lens of the geological interpretation of the geological object pertains. After all, geology and more generally geosciences or Earth sciences are creators of the imaginary of society. Through the geologic concepts of time and space, geology shaped and continues to shape people’s mind, vision, and actions. The geotouristic experience, in the geoethical vision and in accordance with some considerations in Chylińska (2019), is a moment of philosophical reflection, identification of scientific, cultural, but also symbolic and metaphorical meanings to give sense to the life of the human being. Geotourism helps to understand that the Earth is a system, that reality can be reduced to its constituent parts only for rational convenience, but its deep meaning can only be grasped through the relationships that link the parts to the whole. In the same way, the human being is an individual immersed in a continuum in transformation and the relationships that bind the individual to the whole are the essence of his/her specificity. This is the significance of geotourism, its function for the human life.

References Allan M (2011) Toward a better understanding of motivations for a geotourism experience: a self-determination theory perspective. Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/438 (Accessed 6 July 2022) Allan M (2015) Geotourism: an opportunity to enhance geoethics and boost geoheritage appreciation, vol 419. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, pp 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1144/ SP419.20 Antić A, Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2020) Applying the values of geoethics for sustainable speleotourism development. Geoheritage 12:73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00504-0 Beretić N, Đukanović Z, Cecchini A (2019) Geotourism as a development tool of the Geo-mining Park in Sardinia. Geoheritage 11:1689–1704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00379-w Bobrowsky P, Cronin V, Di Capua G et al. (2017) The emerging field of geoethics. In: Gundersen LC (ed) Scientific integrity and ethics: with applications to the geosciences. Special Publication American

50 Geophysical Union. Wiley Inc, pp 175–212. https://doi.org/10. 1002/9781119067825.ch11. Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8:119–134. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3 Brilha J, Gray M, Pereira DI et al (2018) Geodiversity: an integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environ Sci Policy 86:19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2018.05.001 Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2019) The ‘8Gs’ - a blueprint for geoheritage, geoconservation, geo-education and geotourism. Aust J Earth Sci 66 (6):803–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2019.1576767 Cheung LTO (2016) The effect of geopark visitors’ travel motivations on their willingness to pay for accredited geo-guided tours. Geoheritage 8:201–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0154-z Chylińska D (2019) The role of the picturesque in geotourism and iconic geotourist landscapes. Geoheritage 11:531–543. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-018-0308-x Chylińska D, Kołodziejczyk K (2018) Geotourism in an urban space? Open Geosci 10:297–310. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0023 Coutinho ACA, Urano DG, Mate AJ et al (2019) Tourism and geotourism: a conceptual problem. Rosa dos Ventos – Turismo e Hospitalidade 11(4):754–772. https://doi.org/10.18226/21789061. v11i4p754 De Vos A, Biggs R, Preiser R (2019) Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: a review of place-based studies. Ecol Soc 24(4):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11236-240416 Dowling RK (2011) Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0024-7 Dowling R (2013) Global geotourism – an emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech J Tourism 2(2):59–79. https://doi.org/ 10.2478/cjot-2013-0004 Dowling R, Newsome D (2018) Geotourism: definition, characteristics and international perspectives. In: Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp 1–22 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785368868.00009 Duarte A, Braga V, Marques C, Sá AA (2020) Geotourism and territorial development: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Geoheritage 12:65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00478-z Erfurt-Cooper P (2011) Geotourism in volcanic and geothermal environments: playing with fire? Geoheritage 3(3):187–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0025-6 Farsani NT, Coelho C, Costa C (2010) Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas. Int J Tour Res 13(1):68–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.800 Farsani NT, Coelho C, Costa C (2013) Rural geotourism: a new tourism product. Acta Geoturistica 4(2):1–10 Frodeman R (1995) Geological reasoning: geology as an interpretive and historical science. GSA Bull 107(8):960–968. https://doi.org/ 10.1130/0016-7606(1995)107%3c0960:GRGAAI%3e2.3.CO;2 Gałka E (2019) Geotourism regions – delimitation, classification, basic concepts. Geograph Cassovien 13(2):180–195. https://doi.org/10. 33542/GC2019-2-05 Garofano M, Govoni D (2012) Underground geotourism: a historic and economic overview of show caves and show mines in Italy. Geoheritage 4:79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-0055-3 Giusti C (2014) Deux dimensions du beau en géomorphologie. Essai sur le critère esthétique dans les sciences du relief. L’Information géographique 78(3):80–102. https://doi.org/10.3917/lig.783.0080 Grant C (2010) Towards a typology of visitors to geosites. In: Paper presented at the second global geotourism conference, making unique landforms understandable. Mulu, Sarawak, Malaysia, 17–20 April 2010

S. Peppoloni and G. Di Capua Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, Chichester Gray M (2013) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 2nd edn. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, UK Gray M (2019) Geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation for society. Int J Geoher Parks 7(4):226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijgeop.2019.11.001 Gray M (2021) Geodiversity: a significant, multi-faceted and evolving, geoscientific paradigm rather than a redundant term. Proc Geol Assoc 132(5):605–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2021.09.001 Gray M, Gordon JE (2020) Geodiversity and the ‘8Gs’: a response to Brocx & Semeniuk (2019). Aust J Earth Sci 67(3):437–444. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2020.1722965 Gray M (2018) Geodiversity, geoheritage, geoconservation and their relationship to geotourism. In: Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp 48–68. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785368868.00012 Head MJ, Steffen W, Fagerlind D et al. (2021) The great acceleration is real and provides a quantitative basis for the proposed Anthropocene Series/Epoch. Episodes, online first. https://doi.org/10. 18814/epiiugs/2021/021031 Henriques MH, Canales ML, García-Frank A et al (2019) Accessible geoparks in Iberia: a challenge to promote geotourism and education for sustainable development. Geoheritage 11(2):471– 484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0300-5 Hose TA (1995) Selling the story of Britain’s stone. Environ Interpret 10(2):16–17 Hose TA (2005) Geo-tourism - appreciating the deep time of landscapes. In: Novelli M (ed) Niche tourism: contemporary issues, trends and cases. Elsevier, pp 27–37 Hose TA (2011) The English origins of geotourism (as a vehicle for geoconservation) and their relevance to current studies. Acta Geogr Slov 51–2:343–360. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS51302 Hose TA (2012) 3G’s for modern geotourism. Geoheritage 4:7–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-011-0052-y Hose TA (2015) Three centuries (1670–1970) of appreciating physical landscapes. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 417:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP417.15 Hose TA, Vasiljevic D (2012) Defining the nature and purpose of modern geotourism with particular reference to the United Kingdom and South-East Europe. Geoheritage 4:25–43. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12371-011-0050-0 Hose TA (2008) Towards a history of geotourism: definitions, antecedents and the future. In: Burek CV, Prosser C (eds) The history of geoconservation, vol 300. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, pp 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP300.5 Hose TA (2020) Historical viewpoints on the geotourism concept in the 21st century. In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: the origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic Press, pp 23–92. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429292 798-3 Jouffray JB, Blasiak R, Norström AV, Österblom H, Nyström M (2020) The blue acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. Perspective 2:43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019. 12.016 Kim SS, Kim M, Park J et al (2008) Cave tourism: tourists’ characteristics, motivations to visit, and the segmentation of their behavior. Asia Pacif J Tour Res 13(3):299–318. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10941660802280448 King LM (2010) Geotourism in the Hawaiian Islands. In: Newsome D, Dowling R (eds) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscape. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford, pp 114–123. https://doi.org/10. 23912/978-1-906884-09-3-1087

3

The Significance of Geotourism Through the Lens of Geoethics

51

Koh YK, Oh KH, Youn ST et al (2014) Geodiversity and geotourism utilization of islands: Gwanmae Island of South Korea. J Marine Island Cult 3(2):106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imic.2014.09. 002 Kubalíková L, Drápela E, Kirchner K et al (2021) Urban geotourism development and geoconservation: is it possible to find a balance? Environ Sci Policy 121:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021. 03.016 Maghsoudi M, Moradi A, Moradipour F (2021) Aerial geotourism: new branch of geotourism for promoting geoconservation (examples from Iran). Geoheritage 13:4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-02000526-8 Martini G, Zouros N (2001) European geoparks: geological heritage and european identity - co-operation for a common future. In: Frey ML (ed) European geoparks magazine, p 4. http://www. europeangeoparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/26308912EGN-Magazine-Issue-1.pdf McKeever PJ, Zouros N (2005) Geoparks: celebrating earth heritage, sustaining local communities. Episodes 28(4):274–278. https://doi. org/10.18814/epiiugs/2005/v28i4/006 Migoń P, Pijet-Migoń E (2019) Natural disasters, geotourism, and geo-interpretation. Geoheritage 11:629–640. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12371-018-0316-x Newsome D, Dowling RK (2006) The Scope and Nature of Geotourism. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier, pp 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-6215-4. 50009-9 Newsome D, Dowling RK (2010) Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscape. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford. https://doi.org/10. 23912/978-1-906884-09-3-21 Nita J, Myga-Piątek U (2014) Geotourist potential of post-mining regions in Poland. Bull Geography-Phys Geography Ser 7(1):139– 156. https://doi.org/10.2478/bgeo-2014-0007 Ojeda AB, Kieffer M (2020) Touristification. Empty concept or element of analysis in tourism geography? Geoforum 115:143–145. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.06.021 Ólafsdóttir R, Tverijonaite E (2018) Geotourism: a systematic literature review. Geosciences 8:234. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences 8070234 Panizza M, Piacente S (2003) Geomorfologia culturale. Pitagora Bologna Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2020) Geoethics as global ethics to face grand challenges for humanity. In: Di Capua G, Bobrowsky PT, Kieffer SW, Palinkas C (eds) Geoethics: status and future perspectives, vol 508. Geological Society of London, Special Publications, pp. 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020146 Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2021a) Geoethics to start up a pedagogical and political path towards future sustainable societies. Sustainability 13(18):10024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810024 Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2021b) Current definition and vision of geoethics. In: Bohle M, Marone E (eds) Geo-societal narratives contextualising geosciences. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8_2 Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2022) Geoethics: manifesto for an ethics of responsibility towards the earth. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-98044-3 Peppoloni S, Bilham N, Di Capua G (2019) Contemporary geoethics within geosciences. In: Bohle M (ed) Exploring geoethics: ethical implications, societal contexts, and professional obligations of the geosciences. Palgrave Macmillan, pp 25–70. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_2

Pralong JP (2006) Geotourism: a new form of tourism utilising natural landscapes and based on imagination and emotion. Tour Rev 61 (3):20–25 Preiser R, Biggs R, De Vos A et al (2018) Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecol Soc 23(4):46. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446 ProGEO (2017) Geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation - the ProGEO simple guide. In: ProGEO - the European association for the conservation of the geological heritage. https://www.iucn.org/ sites/dev/files/progeo_leaflet_en_2017.pdf Rantala O, Salmela T, Valtonen A, Höckert E (2020) Envisioning tourism and proximity after the anthropocene. Sustainability 12 (10):3948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103948 Reclus E (1905–1908) L’Homme et la Terre; Librairie Universelle: Paris, France Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (2009) Geomorphosites. Verlag Dr, Friedrich Pfeil, München Reynard E, Giusti C (2018) The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection, and management, pp 147–166. Elsevier. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00008-3 Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR, 11,258 Scientist Signatories from 153 Countries (2020) World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience 70(1):8–12. https://doi. org/10.1093/biosci/biz088 Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Gregg JW, Lenton TM et al (2021) World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency 2021. Bioscience 71(9):894–898. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab079 Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472– 475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a Schwarz S, Migoń P (2017) When science and leisure meet: a geotourist itinerary in southern Tierra Del Fuego, Argentina. In: Rabassa R (ed) Advances in geomorphology and quaternary studies in Argentina. Springer International Publishing, Cham pp 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54371-0_2. SEP (2021) Biodiversity. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, https:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/biodiversity/ (accessed 6 July 2022). Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855–1259855. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1259855 Štrba L, Kršák B (2018) Sidor C (2018) Some comments to geosite assessment, visitors, and geotourism sustainability. Sustainability 10(8):2589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082589 Tissier JL (2003) Paysage. In: Lévy J. et Lussault M., Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l’espace des sociétés, pp 697–701 Tourtellot JB (2011) Blog-a-thon: UNESCO’s Geoparks ‘Clarify’ Geotourism. https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2011/11/ 20/blog-a-thon_unescos_geoparks_clarify_geotourism/amp/ (accessed 28 December 2021) UNESCO (2015) UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGp), https://en. unesco.org/global-geoparks (accessed 6 July 2022) UNESCO (2021) IGCP 726 GEOfood for sustainable development in UNESCO Global Geoparks, https://en.unesco.org/internationalgeoscience-programme/projects/726 (accessed 6 July 2022) Urry J (1995) Consuming places. Routledge, London Vagena A (2021) Overtourism: definition and impact. Acad Lett Article 1207. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1207 Virapongse A, Brooks S, Covelli Metcalf E, Zedalis M, Gosz J et al (2016) A social-ecological systems approach for environmental

52 management. J Environ Manage 178:83–91. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.028 Welc E, Miśkiewicz K (2020) The concept of the geotourism potential and its practical application: a case study of the Prządki (the Spinners) nature reserve in the Carpathians. Poland. Resources 9 (12):145. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9120145 WHC (2021) Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (accessed 6 July 2022) Williams MA, McHenry MT, Boothroyd A (2020) Geoconservation and geotourism: challenges and unifying themes. Geoheritage 12:63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00492-1 Woo KS (2017) Role of IUCN WCPA geoheritage specialist group for geoheritage conservation and recognition of world heritage sites, global geoparks and other protected areas. In: Geophysical research abstracts, vol 19, EGU2017–1137

S. Peppoloni and G. Di Capua Silvia Peppoloni is a Ph.D. Geologist, researcher at the Italian Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, her scientific activity concerns engineering geology, natural risks and hazards, and ethical, social, and educational aspects of Earth sciences. She is an international leader of geoethics, past Councillor of the International Union of Geological Sciences, founding member and Secretary General of the International Association for Promoting Geoethics, Director of the School on Geoethics and Natural Issues, Editor in Chief of the SpringerBrief in Geoethics and of the Journal of Geoethics and Social Geosciences. Giuseppe Di Capua is a Geologist, technologist at the Italian Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, with experience in the field of applied geology, seismic hazard, and risk. He is involved in European projects on the themes of ethics in geosciences, founding member and Treasurer of the International Association for Promoting Geoethics, member of the Executive Council of the International Council of Philosophy and Human Sciences, and of the Publications Committee of the International Union of Geological Sciences.

4

Geotourism in the Middle East Mamoon Allan

Abstract

Recently, Geotourism (tourism with a geological base) has flourished on a global context and its demand has increased considerably. This tourism phenomenon is still new and has not gained traction in some world regions, such as the Middle East. Thus, exploring the scope of geotourism development in the Middle East is an urgent need and so far, few studies have investigated aspects of geological tourism in this region. Taken together, the Middle East is renowned for its outstanding and distinctive 'abiotic' (non-living) attractions and there is a great potential to provide holistic tourism experiences in a variety of geosites. An overview of the geotourism development in the Middle East is outlined in this chapter, including the characteristics of geotourism and geotourists, the main challenges for geotourism development, and geotoruism business and industry in the Middle East. Keywords





Tourism Geotourism Geoparks Geodiverity

4.1





Geotourists Geoheritage








Geosites The Middle East

Introduction

The term ‘Middle East’ appears to have created in the British India Office during the 1850. It was established in a Eurocentric world, just as other older terms ‘The East’, ‘Far East’ and ‘Near East’ had been. The region is located in the center of the world around the connection of the three continents Africa, Asia, and Europe (Beaumont et al. 1988). M. Allan (&) Faculty of Archeology and Tourism, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan e-mail: [email protected]

Collectively, the Middle East shapes a geographical area which extends over Southwestern Asia and Northeastern Africa. It has no defined borders and is frequently utilized as a synonym to Near East, in opposition to Far East (Hinnebusch 2003). The Middle East has diverse geography and topography and is generally marked either by a low rate of rainfall or full desert conditions. The region has abundant and varied mineral resources, and its oil resources has been exploited on a large scale in different countries in the recent times (Kent 1978). It is acknowledged that the tourism industry in the Middle East has grown considerably in recent (pre-pandemic) years and the region is now one of the main emerging global tourism markets. According to the World Tourism Organization the Middle East region was the fastest-growing area in both arrivals and receipts worldwide in 2019 (UNWTO 2020). Accordingly, it is estimated that about 65 million tourists have visited the Middle East and generate USD 81 billion in 2019, an increase of more than 5 million tourists from 2018, the previous year. The main tourism destinations in the region were Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Egypt in 2019 (Table 4.1). Furthermore, it is forecasted that the influx of the regional and international tourists will increase broadly in 2022 due to the Region’s hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Steiner (2010) argues that there is a fundamental transformation in the tourism industry in the Middle East from heritage and historical tourism destinations such as Petra in Jordan and the Nile valley in Egypt, to the ‘artificially’ developed destinations comprising iconic resort hotel complexes with big waterfront development projects, such as Dubai city. Geological tourism experiences and activities are relatively new to the tourism industry in the Middle East and have only developed in recent decades. Despite the growing attention to the significance of geoheritage and its role in the tourism context, the status quo of geotourism developments in the region is still marked with many gaps and uncertainty.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_4

53

54

M. Allan

Table 4.1 International tourists arrival by country in the main destinations in the Middle East in 2018 and 2019

Country

International tourists arrival 2019/Million

International tourists arrivals 2018/Million

Turkey

51.2

45.8

Saudi Arabia

17.5

15.5

United Arab Emirates

16.7

15.9

Egypt

13.0

11.3

Iran

9.1

7.3

Jordan

4.5

5.2

Bahrain

3.8

3.6

Oman

2.5

2.3

Qatar

2.1

1.8

Lebanon

1.9

1.9

Source World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2020) Note Turkey is classified as a part of Europe in the classification of UNWTO

Therefore, the popular knowledge of geological heritage is obviously tied to Europe and Southeast Asia (Sallam et al. 2018), whereas it is not as developed in the context of the Middle East. Overall, this chapter seeks to provide an overview about geotourism developments in the Middle East from both the theoretical and practical perspectives. It also covers the characteristics of the geotourism products and the main limitations and challenges for geotourism development in the Middle East.

4.2

Geotourism in the Middle East

In recent years numerous countries have begun to develop geotourism based on their geological tourism attractions and features (Allan 2015). Accordingly, the nature and scope of tourism studies, research, and projects has grown intensively in a quantitative and qualitative way (eg. Ruban 2015; Herrera-Franco et al. 2020). Additionally, a large number of geotourism journals have been launched from different countries and in different languages in the last decades. Africa and the Middle East comprises an abundant and distinctive geodiversity, which is still reasonably unknown. The main reason for this is largely due to the lack of research and studies focusing on geoheritage and geoconservation in these areas (Errami et al. 2015). In the same vein, Allan (2016) postulates that despite the richness of geological and geomorphic resources in the Middle East, there is much less information and knowledge about geotourism in this region. However, it should be noted that geotourism has witnessed some development in several countries of the Middle East in recent years. Developments which have occurred in the context of geotourism and geoheritage include:

1. Many countries in the Middle East have aimed at enhancing their economy through developing the tourism and travel industry. According to UNWTO (2021), tourism is a major pillar for some countries in the Middle East. Even some oil-based economies are opening up for tourism development. Consequently, there is a growing awareness of the significance of geotourism destinations and abiotic tourism attractions to enhance the tourism development. This will attract a new type of tourist and help to improve the overall tourism development. Several international case studies have shown that geotourism activities appeal to tourists and they could be beneficial to enhance the overall tourism revenues for countries and improve the wellbeing of local communities adjacent geosites. Examples include the development of geotourism in Iceland, Norway, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, and Japan. This has led to a number of economic benefits for local peoples comprising revenue generation, job creation, and infrastructure development (Dowling 2013a). 2. The development of UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGps) in the Middle East has occurred in recent years. In 2021, there were three UNESCO Global Geoparks in the region. They comprised Kula Volcanic UGGp, in Turkey, Qeshm Island UGGp in Iran, and Troodos UGGp in Cyprus. Now Turkey has applied to add Ida Madra to the UNESCO Global Geoparks list, and its application is in the evaluation process (UNESCO 2021). Other countries in the region have inspired to add one or more of their geosites to the UNESCO Global Geoparks list, for example, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq. 3. Middle Eastern countries have hosted a number of conferences, exhibitions, and other types of geoheritage and geotourism events. For example, the Sultanate of Oman

4

Geotourism in the Middle East

hosted the Third Global Geotourism Conference in 2011 (Dowling 2013b). Holding this important global geotourism event played a vital role in attracting the attention of the international geotourism experts and businesses to the region and helped to share knowledge and experiences for different geotourism dimensions. 4. The growth of tourism studies in general, and geotourism research in particular, has increased in the Middle East in recent years. Research projects, international studies, university theses, and academic papers have been intensively conducted in the region. This movement helps to improve the nature and scope of geotourism phenomenon in the region and raise the awareness toward such tourism activities.

4.3

Characteristics of Geotourism in the Middle East Countries

Geotourism in the Middle East is characterized by many outstanding features which offer potentially distinctive geotourism experiences. These include: Geological Tourism Destinations with Diverse Themes Tourism Destinations in the Middle East include an immense array of natural, cultural, heritage and religious tourism assets. The region has diverse attractions including sun and sea, cultural, sports, shopping, cruise, meetings, and medical tourism along with artificial (human-made) attractions (UNWTO 2019). Thus, these tourism destinations have the ability to provide multithemes for different types of tourism. This could enhance the nature of geotourism experiences in the region. However, in order to widen the appeal of geological features, attention should be given to offer a holistic and attractive experience for visitors. This can be achieved through appropriate interpretation about the formation of landscapes in geosites to help in better understanding their significance whilst developing a sense of ‘wonder’ for them (Brozinski 2009). According to Chylińska (2019, p. 5), ‘In sum, geotourism is therefore a type of tourism which exists at the interface of cultural tourism (due to cognitive cultural motives and the cultural character of parts of geosites), leisure tourism, adventure tourism, and ecotourism, whereas both by itself and within these forms, it occurs as so-called sustainable tourism’. Similarly, an effective method to achieve geoconservation is to enhance public awareness around the value of geoheritage sites comprising the aesthetic, scientific, educational tourism, and economic aspects by employing promotion and interpretation processes through geotourism (Burek and

55

Prosser 2008). A most important characteristic of geotourism is to interpret geoheritage for the public. This entails precise scientific knowledge and understanding shared through efficient interpretation (Dong et al. 2014). The management of geotourism in the Middle East countries could provide geosites with a number of contexts and themes (Fig. 4.1). These include: 1. Cultural themes—including the historical backgrounds of the adjacent geosites, the archeological remains and sites, the mythological contexts for the area and geosites which have been used as movie locations. 2. The religious themes—such as significant Islamic and Christian related sites. Based on sacred sites they describe the sainthood and divinity of the geological site. This connection between the religious beliefs and the geological heritage might constitute a new geotourism product that may be considered as ‘Theo-geotourism’ (theology and geotourism). It is the unity of the combination of spiritual, religious, and aesthetic aspects of the place, which lead to an attachment to a place and a feeling of wonder. Natural landforms and rock formations often have correlated spiritual or religious values. They also characterized in local folklore and legends (Gordan 2018). 3. Adventure themes—adventure activities were the most common recovering segment in relation to an online search activity during the pandemic of COVID 19 on a global context. This is because tourists were inclined to undertake nature-based activities in order to avert crowded sites as well as to enhance their mental and physical wellbeing. This tendency is expected to endure in the medium and long term (World and Travel Tourism Council 2021). Many geositess in the Middle East present opportunities for visitors or tourists to connect geoheritage to adventure activities. 4. Health themes—the connection between health and wellness activities and geotourism exists in a large number of countries. The evolution of the tourism industry and the growing desire of individuals to stay well as they grow older has sparked a renewed interest in the use of geothermal springs at an international level. As a result, this health and wellness tendency has instigated the redevelopment of some hot spring destinations (Erfurt-Cooper 2010). There is a great potential to promote health and wellness tourism to geosites in the Middle East settings. Several geological destinations in the region could offer this tourism product, such as thermal springs in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Oman. 5. Other themes—for example, rural geotourism. In the Middle East setting, there are numerous villages with

56

M. Allan

Other Themes: Rural Geotourism: e.g. Cappadocia (Turkey),

Archeological Themes: e.g Petra (Jordan)

Adventure Themes: e.g. The Edge of the World in Saudi Arabia

Historical Themes: e.g. Nemrut Dag (Turkey)

Islamic Context: e.g. Mount Uhud (Saudi Arabia) Religious Themes Christian Contest: e.g. Saint Catherine Mountain (Egypt)

Geosites in the Middle East

Cultural Themes Mythological Themes: e.g Majlis Al-Jin Cave (Oman)

Health Themes: e.g. Kani Gravan Mineral Springs (Iran)

Filming Location: e.g. Wadi Rum (Jordan)

Fig. 4.1 The potential themes of geological tourism sites in the Middle East Region

hand-dug houses among the rocks including Cappadocia in Turkey as well as Kandovan and Meymand villages in Iran. These rocky villages are rural geotourism destinations which could provide different geotourism experiences including unique rock and stone accommodation, cave restaurants and facilities, and living in the Stone Age like a cave dweller (Allan and Shavanddasht 2019). Strategic Location It is axiomatic that the Middle East enjoys a strategic location at the heart of the modern world. It occupies a pivotal position as a natural land bridge between Europe, Africa, and Asia. It also occupies a key position in relation to some of the main issue areas of the contemporary time (Kemp and Harkavy 1997). Thus, a contradiction within the Middle East tourism paradox is that the area has constantly been fundamentally attractive, irrespective of its political instability, because of its strategic position at the junction of Asia, Europe, and Africa (Lawton and Weaver 2017). This unique location of the region has facilitated the influx of the inbound tourists to the different Middle East countries, including the flow of the international and regional geotourists.

4.4

Challenges for Geotourism Development in the Middle East

A key challenge is the relative domination of cultural and religious activities on the overall tourism products in the region. Thus, the key trends of tourism demand in the Middle East are mainly based on the religious tourism attractions and cultural and heritage tourism attributes (Steiner 2010; Olsen 2018; Seyfi and Hall 2020; UNWTO 2020). Thus, it is apparent that the mental image of the international tourist undertaking tourism experiences in the Middle East has been linked to archaeological, historical and heritage tourism (Kamel et al. 2017). In the same vein, it is well accepted that the Middle East Region has a lengthy history of pilgrimage and religious tourism activities, which have appealed to international pilgrims and intra-regional tourists for centuries (Olsen 2018). Consequently, it could be argued that the types of nature-based tourism in the Middle East are still limited and the awareness toward such tourism types is still scant. More precisely, the influx of tourists undertaking cultural and religious tourism experiences in the region still prevails in comparison with nature-based tourists. In addition, the tourism discourse in the region pays little

4

Geotourism in the Middle East

57

attention to the abiotic and biotic tourism attractions and activities. As a result, despite the development of various types of tourism in the Middle East, geotourism is still not a major form of tourism in the Region. – Limited research and academic programs Ruban (2018, p. 88) concludes that ‘Geotourism studies are less prevalent but still notable in the Middle East and Australia and Oceania and North America’. What is interesting is that the interest in geotourism studies and research has been positively influenced by the proposal of geopark initiatives in the Middle East. For example, scientific discussion of geotourism was not demonstrated in academic textbooks in Iran until the nomination of the Qeshm Island (for the first time) in the Global Geopark Network (GGN) in 2006 (Sadry et al. 2021). Likewise, suggesting Wadi Al-Mujib as the first geopark in Jordan in 2014, has played a vital role in raising the awareness of local researchers and students to undertake geotourism studies and research in Jordan (Allan 2015). However, the scope and nature of geotourism research in Middle Eastern countries is still limited. Regardless of the development of geotourism in the region, very few studies have explored issues pertaining to it. By reviewing the geotourism literature in the Middle East countries using Scopus database for the last five years (2016–2021), only fifty-one papers have been published on this topic (Table 4.2). Generally, Iran has the largest portion of these studies, followed by Egypt and Turkey. Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledge in specific geotourism related topics such as hot spring destinations. Thus, according to Allan and Shavanddasht (2019, p. 3), ‘Despite the abundance of hot spring destinations in the Middle East in general and Iran in particular, minimal studies have investigated this type of tourism’. – Low level of tourism supply Even if infrastructure investment in the Middle East overall has been robust, there is vast difference across the region in Table 4.2 Number of publications on geotourism in the Middle East in Scopus database from 2016 to 2021 Number of publications

Country

23

Iran

12

Egypt

11

Turkey

2

Saudi Arabia

2

Jordan

1

Iraq

Note The search was conducted in September 2021

the quality and quantity of infrastructure. Therefore, the countries of the Arab Gulf area with its high-income have high quality of infrastructure services in the area, due to its infrastructure investments funded by oil returns. Whereas there are infrastructure deficiencies in the oil importing countries, which have much lower fiscal space than the oil exporting countries in the Middle East (Estache et al. 2013). Thus, the tourism industry in some countries of the region has created only a limited increase in economic benefits and consequent advantages such as modernization, a decrease in poverty and social development. This is also because of unsolved structural problems in such countries. For example, poor tourist infrastructure, weak investment, lack of creativity, extreme bureaucracy, and corruption (Hopfinger and Scharfenort 2020). It is realized that various developing countries in the Middle East Region, for example Iran, lack the adequate infrastructures required for the development of a sustainable tourism industry (Nazmfar et al. 2019). Accordingly, it is suggested that most of the geological tourism sites in the Middle East should develop their infrastructure and the Visitor Centers for geosites (Allan 2013). Based on the report of the International Tourism Competitiveness Index for 2019, tourism infrastructure in the Middle East Region is varied in its degree of development (Table 4.3). The most developed infrastructure in the Region is concentrated in the Arab Gulf States whilst most of the region’s countries have a low or very low level of infrastructure quality, for example Yemen, Iran, and Lebanon (Calderwood and Soshkin 2019). – Political instability in the region The concept of the ‘tourism crisis’ is common to the tourism industry in the Middle East. The area has witnessed wars, political instability and violent conflicts which impede tourism over long years (Steiner 2007). Severe terrorism or political violence actions have serious negative impacts on the demand and supply of the tourism industry whereas a lack of violence generally favours the development of a tourism destination (Araña and León 2008). Due to the fact that most of the tourists consider the region as a whole and transmit their perceived risk assessment of separate countries to the region as a whole (Seabra et al. 2020), where the political unrest is occurred appears insignificant (Steiner 2004). It is obvious that the Middle East is a region known as being connected to high factors of risk because of its cultural differences, lack of an appropriate economic development, and constant wars and political instability (Lepp and Gibson 2008). For example, the Arab Spring outbreak in 2011 had direct consequences for several economic activities such as tourism in the afflicted countries, including the

58 Table 4.3 The Middle East countries ranking regarding the infrastructure components in 2019 (Adapted from Calderwood and Soshkin (2019))

M. Allan

mountains such as Jebel Hafeet and Ain Alfida have been promoted as geotourism destinations. The historical oases of Al Ain, Hili, Al Buraimi, sand dunes, and Aflaj are addiCountry Global rank Score tional geological tourist attractions in the UAE (MOEI UAE 13 5.3 2020). Saudi Arabia predicts that it will become one of the key geotourism destinations in the Middle East and the Arab Qatar 27 4.8 world. To this end they have developed a number of geoTurkey 38 4.4 logical destinations in the country, including Al Qarah Bahrain 39 4.4 Mountain (Al-Ahsa), Al-Wahbab crater (Ta'if), Judah's Saudi Arabia 42 4.3 Thumb (Al-Ahsa), the Yellow Lake (Al-Ahsa), Wadi Oman 52 4.0 Al-Disah (Tabuk), Edge of the Word (Riyad), and Moon Egypt 76 3.3 Valley (Jeddah) (Saudi Tourist Authority 2021). ExploKuwait 77 3.3 ration of Desert Caves will represent one of the main Jordan 83 3.2 tourism activities in the kingdom. In the light of geotourism development in Turkey, caves Lebanon 87 3.1 and geothermal destinations represents the most significant Iran 94 2.8 geological attractions in the country. Turkey has more than Yemen 140 1.7 40,000 caves and caverns, such as Dupnisa Cave, AltinbeNote Scores in this table range from 1 to 7, where 1 is least developed sik, Karain, Damlatas, Karaca, Gilindire, Cukurpinar, and 7 is most developed Ilgarini, Buzluk, and Ballica Cave (Go Turkey Tourism 2021). Turkey is also one of the top seven countries in the serious collapse of the tourism activities in the region world for its geothermal resources. It has major thermal tourism opportunities with more than 1000 thermal springs (Groizard et al. 2021). Based upon the fact that tourism demand is mainly sen- with temperatures ranging from 20 ºC to 110 ºC. Most of sitive to a lack of security and safety (Al-Hamarneh and these thermal springs are located in the Marmara and Aegean Steiner 2004), many geosites in the region might lose a large regions (Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2021). Notwithstanding the advancements in the context of the portion of international visitors and geotourism development in the region could be negatively affected by tourism geotourism business and activities in the Middle East, there demand fluctuation. “Although reformers in the authoritarian are many missed opportunities and the level of investment in regimes of the Middle East can build environmental capac- geotourism industry is still reasonably minimal. Up until ities, some of the economic and political logics associated now several countries in the region have developed their with authoritarian rule limit the sustainability of these geological tourism destinations and are still out of the regional and international list of the geotourism destinations. endeavours” (Sowers 2007, p. 375). Such countries include Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. 4.5 Geotourism Business and Industry Interestingly, it is claimed that there is a considerable in the Middle East potential in the development of a new type of geotourism in the region involving the promotion of the heritage of petSeveral countries in the Middle East have started to promote roleum tourism. This has been suggested for Saudi Arabia, their geological heritage for geotourism purposes. For Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, which example, the Sultanate of Oman promotes more than 30 have the largest oil resources worldwide (Amirkhani et al. geosites in the capital city Muscat to attract geotourists from 2021). regional and international countries. The main geotours have been organized in Bawshar and Al Khawd, Wadi Mayh, Mutrah, Al Khayran, and Al Jabal Aswad and Wadi Mijlas. 4.6 Geotourists in the Middle East Also, a variety of distinctive caves have been added to the list of geological tourism sites in the Sultanate, such as Abu Debate and questions have been raised about geotourism Habban cave, Alhoota cave, Alkittan cave, Jernan cave, participants (geotourists) and their niche market. Despite Majlis Al jinn cave, Muqal cave, Al Marnif cave, and Teeq there having been a considerable amount of literature on cave (Ministry of Heritage and Tourism, Sultanate of Oman geotourism and an understanding of the supply side of 2021). The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has paid much geotourism and geoparks, relatively little has been published attention to its geological heritage to provide a range of on the demand for these products (Ngwira 2019). Nevergeotourism experiences in the country. For example, theless, it is postulated that there are key segments of tourists

4

Geotourism in the Middle East

59

Table 4.4 Studies investigating the geotourists motivations for a sample of the Middle East countries Authors

Date

Country

Motivations

Motivation theory

Study area/s

Allan

2012

Jordan

To escape from the hustle and bustle of the daily life routine, enjoyment, relaxation, sense of wonder

Self-Determination theory (SDT)

Wadi Rum /The Dead Sea

Shavandasht Karubi and Sadry

2017

Iran

Enjoyment, relaxation, novelty seeking,

Self-Determination theory (SDT)

Alisadr Cave

Allan and Shavanddasht

2019

Iran

Geological attractions-novelty seeking

Push and pull theory

Kandovan rocky village

Soliman and Abou-Shouk

2017

Egypt

To explore new places to gain knowledge—refresh mental and physical state- to escape from daily-life routine- Providing social, cultural and recreational advantages

Push motivations

Fayoum, Hurghada, Sharm El-sheikh and Farafra Oasis

such as families, seniors, and educational groups which could be be interested to undertake geotourism activities (Pralong 2006). This segment of tourists is considered as including ‘geo-experts’ or ‘geo-specialists’. It also usually includes professional or amateur geologists who have a better understanding of geology as the motive for their travels and experiences. However, those who look for minerals, gems or fossils are regarded at the extreme level of geological tourist tribes (Dowling 2020). In the Middle Eastern countries, geotourists have received little attention in the tourism industry and tourism research compared with other types of tourists. Up until now, information about the typology of geotourists in the Region’s countries is still scant. Nevertheless, some studies have explored the motivations for different tourists undertaking geotourism experiences in Egypt, Jordan, and Iran (Allan and Shavanddasht 2019; Soliman and Abou-Shouk 2017; Allan 2012). Generally, the common motivations in such studies were ‘to escape from the daily life routine’, ‘novelty seeking’, ‘enjoyment’ and ‘refreshment’ (Table 4.4). Another study has explored the motivations of children aged (14–17) years old visiting geological tourism site in Jordan. The findings of this study indicated that the main motivations for the study cohort were ‘enjoyment’, ‘escape from the pressures of study’, ‘friendship’, and ‘relaxation’ (Allan 2013).

4.7

Conclusion

The tourism industry is indispensable for the countries of the Middle East, and it is predicted that the demand for tourism products and services in the Region will increase in the next few years. The countries of the Region aim at enhancing their tourism offerings and provide different types of tourism to the regional and international tourists. Geotourism is a new trend in the Region and there are many opportunities for its development. The countries of the Middle East Region

include a wide variety of outstanding geological assets which have the potential to appeal to local, regional, and international geotourists. Geosites and geoparks have the ability to provide holistic tourism experiences as they incorporate many distinctive characteristics including their strategic locations, multi-themes, and the opportunity to connect the geotourist experience with the cultural, historical, mythological, religious, health and adventure contexts. As a result, geotourism development in the region could enhance the economic, cultural, and social elements of local communities adjacent to such geosites. However, to date geotourists have no voice in the tourism discourse in the region. The current challenge for geotourism in the countries of the Region is that limited attention has been paid to geotourism in comparison with other types of tourism such as cultural and religious tourism. Geotourism research in the region is still limited, there is only a modest level of geotourism products, and the Region’s political instability limits its appeal for safety conscious international tourists. Having the above in mind, the future of the geotourism development in the region relies on the desire of the governments to increase their interest in the geoheritage assets and promote tourism to their geosites. It is predicted that geotourism activities will be popular and common in the collective tourism discourse in the Region in the next decade. However, several issues should be taken into account in the context of the future geotourism development. They include: – improving the geotourism supply for the countries of the region. According to Ritchie and Crouch (2003), the key elements for improving the tourism destination appeal are infrastructure, accessibility, facilitating resources such as knowledge and financial capital, hospitality attitude for local communities, enterprises, and political will. – increasing the intra-regional influx of the potential geotourism participants in the region. As tourism appears to

60

be becoming more intra-regional in nature (Steene 2016), there is a significant opportunity to increase the flow of mid-eastern geotourists within the region. This might help to enhance the geotourism demand. – as noted earlier, within the field of tourism, insufficient studies have explored the issue of geotourism development and geotourists in the Middle East. Therefore, there is a need to encourage research efforts to bridge the different lacunas in the geotourism literature. Substantially more work could be performed to investigate the nature and scope of geotourism in the Middle East to better understand this phenomenon. – geotourism managers and policymakers should employ the notion of sustainability by creating an equilibrium between the development of geological tourism destinations and their conservation. As there is a need for sustainable usage and management of geoheritage, especially to the advantage of local socio-economic sustainable development targets via the promotion of both geological tourism and the creation of unique geoparks in the region (Errami et al. 2015).

References Al-Hamarneh A, Steiner C (2004) Islamic tourism: rethinking the strategies of tourism development in the Arab world after September 11, 2011. Comp Stud South Asia Afr Middle East 24(1):175–186 Allan M (2012) Geotourism: toward a better understanding of motivations for a geotourism experience: a self-determination theory perspective. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken, Germany Allan M (2013) Geotourism: why do children visit geological tourism sites? In: Dirasat, human and social sciences, pp 653–661 Allan M (2015) Geotourism: an opportunity to enhance geoethics and geoheritage appreciation. In: Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (eds) Geoethics: the responsibility of geoscientists. Geological Society, London, Special Publications Allan M (2016) Exploring the potential for geotourism development in the United Arab Emirates. Anatolia: Int J Tour Hospit Res 27(3): 401–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2016.1191772 Allan M, Shavanddasht M (2019) Rural geotourists segmentation by motiva-tion in weekends and weekdays. Tourism Hosp Res 19 (1):74–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358417694513 Amirkhani S, Torabi FN, Jamshidi H (2021) Future strategies for promoting tourism and petroleum heritage in Khuzestan Province. Iran, J Tour Fut. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2020-0226 Araña J, León C (2008) The impact of terrorism on tourism demand. Ann Tour Res 25(2):299–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals. 2007.08.003 Beaumont P, Blake G, Wagstaff M (1988) The middle east: a geographical study, 2nd edn. David Fulton, London Brozinski A (2009) Geotourism now, terms, development strategies and practical examples, vol 6. University of Turku, Turku. Finland Burek CV, Prosser CD (2008) The history of geoconservation: an introduction. In: Geological society, London. Special Publications 300(1):1–5

M. Allan Calderwood L, Soshkin M (2019) The travel and tourism competitiveness. Report 2019. Travel and tourism at a tipping point. Insight report. World Economic Forum. Chylińska D (2019) The role of the picturesque in geotourism and iconic geotourist landscapes. Geoheritage 11(2):531–543. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0308-x Dong H, Song Y, Chen T, Yu L (2014) Geoconservation and geotourism in Luochuan loess national geopark, China. Quatern Int 334:40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.10.023 Dowling R (2012) Conference report: the third global geotourism conference, 30 Oct ? 1 Nov 2011, Sultanate of Oman. Geoheritage 4:221–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-0061-5 Dowling R, Allan M, Grünert N (2020) Geological tourist tribes. In: Pforr C, Dowling R, Volgger, M (eds) Consumer tribes in tourism contemporary perspectives on special-interest tourism. Springer, Singapore Dowling RK (2013a) Global geotourism - an emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech J Tour 2(2): 59–79. https://doi.org/10. 2478/cjot-2013-0004 Dowling RK (2013b) Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0024-7 Erfurt-Cooper P (2010) The importance of natural geothermal resources in tourism. In: Proceedings world geothermal congress 2010. Bali, Indonesia, 25–29 April 2010 Errami E, Schneider G, Ennih N et al (2015) Geoheritage and geoparks in Africa and the middle-east: challenges and perspectives. In: Errami E, Brocx M, Semeniuk V (eds) From geoheritage to geopark: case studies from Africa and beyond. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–23 Estache A, Ianchovichina E, Bacon R, Salamon I (2013) Infrastructure and employment creation in the Middle East and North Africa. The World Bank EBooks. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9665-0 Go Turkey Tourism (2021) Spelunking and potholing. turkey’s travel, leisure and holiday guide. Retrieved from https://www.goturkey tourism.com/things-to-do/caving-in-turkey.html. Accessed on 10 Nov 2021. Gordon JE (2018) Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences 8:136–160. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8040136 Groizard JL, Ismael M, Santana-Gallego M (2021) Political upheavals, tourism flight, and spillovers: the case of the arab spring. J Travel Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211002652 Herrera-Franco G, Montalván-Burbano N, Carrión-Mero P, Apolo-Masache B, Jaya-Montalvo M (2020) Research trends in geotourism: a bibliometric analysis using the scopus database. Geosciences 10 (10):379. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences1010037 Hinnebusch R (2003) The international politics of the Middle East. Manchester University Press, New York, p 12 Hopfinger H, Scharfenort N (2020) Tourism geography of the MENA region: potential, challenges and risks: editorial. Zeitschrift Für Tourismuswissenschaft 12(2):131–157. https://doi.org/10.1515/tw2020-0018 Kamel M, Hassan S, Wafik G (2017) The challenges of geotourism in Egypt: a case study of Wadi Al-Hitan. Int J Hospit Tour Syst 3 (10):32–46 Kemp G, Harkavy RE (1997) Strategic geography and the changing Middle East. Amsterdam University Press Kent PE (1978) Middle East - the geological background. Q J Eng GeolHydrogeol 11:1–7 Lawton L, Weaver D (2017) Destination brands Dubai and Abu Dhabi: Bitter Rivalry or Strategic. In: Almuhrzi H, Alriyami H, Scott N (eds) Tourism in the Arab World, an industry perspective. Channel View Publications. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781845416157 Lepp A, Gibson H (2008) Sensation seeking and tourism: tourist role, perception of risk and destination choice. Tour Manage 29:740– 750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.08.002

4

Geotourism in the Middle East

Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Turkey (2021) Thermal resorts. Tourism strategy of Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.ktb.gov.tr/ EN-99298/thermal-resorts.html. Accessed on 8 Nov 2021 Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure UAE (MOEI) (2020) Protecting the geological heritage and the geological tourism in the United Arab Emirates. Retrieved from https://www.moei.gov.ae/en/e-participation/ e-participation-policy/blogs/details.aspx?/444. Accessed on 11 Nov 2021. Ministry of Heritage and Tourism, Sultanate of Oman, Sultanate of Oman (2021) Muscat geoheritage. Retrieved from https:// omantourism.gov.om/wps/portal/mot/tourism/oman/home/ experiences/activities/i. Accessed on 10 Nov 2021 Nazmfar H, Eshghei A, Alavi S, Pourmoradian S (2019) Analysis of travel and tourism competitiveness index in middle-east countries, Asia Pacif J Tour Res 24(6):501–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10941665.2019.1590428 Ngwira PM (2019) A review of geotourism and geoparks: is Africa missing out on this new mechanism for the development of sustainable tourism. Geoconservation Research, https://doi.org/10. 30486/ger.2019.66592 Olsen DH (2018) Religion, pilgrimage, and tourism in the Middle East. In: Timothy DJ (ed) Routledge handbook on tourism in the Middle East and North Africa. Routledge, London, pp 109–124 Pralong JP (2006) Geotourism: a new form of tourism utilising natural landscapes and based on imagination and emotion?. Tour Rev 61 (3):20–25 Ritchie G, Crouch J (2003) The competitive destination: a sustainable tourism perspective. CABI Publishing Series, Wallingford, UK Ruban DA (2015) Geotourism - A geographical review of the literature. Tour Manage Perspect 15:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015. 03.005 Ruban DA (2018) Some characteristics of the geotourism literature. In: Newsome D, Dowling R (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 87–93 Sadry B, Mohammadi-Aragh A, Fehrest F, Bayatani A, Haji-Moradi (2021) Identifying and assessing geodiversities around takht-e soleyman world heritage site to propose the territory as the third geopark in Iran. In: Singh S, Wei D, Anand S (eds) Global geographical heritage, geoparks and geotourism. Geoconservation and Development. Springer. Sallam E, Abed El-Aal A, Fedorov Y, Bobrysheva O, Ruban D (2018) Geological heritage as a new kind of natural resource in the Siwa Oasis, Egypt: The first assessment, comparison to the Russian South, and sustainable development issues. J African Earth Sci 144:151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2018.04.008 Saudi Tourist Authority (2021) Destinations. Visit Saudi. Retrieved from https://www.visitsaudi.com/en/see-do/destinations. Accessed on 10 Nov 2021 Seabra C, Reis P, Abrantes J (2020) The influence of terrorism in tourism arrivals: a longitudinal approach in a Mediterranean country. Ann Tour Res 80:102811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2019.10281128 Seyfi S, Hall CM (2020) Cultural heritage tourism in the MENA: introduction and background. In: Hall CM, Seyfi S (eds) Cultural

61 and heritage tourism in the Middle East and North Africa. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp 1–33 Shavanddasht M, Karubi M, Sadry B (2017) An examination of the relationship between cave tourists? motivations and satisfaction: the case of Alisadr Cave. Iran. Geoj Tour Geosit 20:165–176 Soliman M, Abou-Shouk M (2017) Predicting behavioural intention pf international tourists towards geotours. Geoheritage 9(4):505–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0200-5 Sowers J (2007) Nature reserves and authoritarian rule in Egypt embedded autonomy revisited. J Environ Develop 16(10):375–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496507309112 Steene A (2016) From Global to Intra-Regional Tourism. UTMS J Econ 7(2):149–164 Steiner CH (2004) Tourismus in Ägypten - Entwicklungsperspektiven zwischen Globalisierung und politischen Risiko. In G. Meyer (ed.), Die Arabische Welt im Spiegel der Kulturgeographie. Mainz: Zentrum für Forschung zur Arabischen Welt (ZEFAW), 369–375 Steiner C (2007) Political instability, transnational tourist companies and destination recovery in the Middle East after 9/11. Tour Hospit Plan Develop 4(3):169–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/147905307017 33421 Steiner CH (2010) From heritage to hyper-reality? Tourism destination development in the Middle East between Petra and the Palm’. J Tour Cult Change 8(4):240–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14766825.2010.521245 UNESCO (2021) UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGp). List of geoparks and regional networks. Retrieved from https://en.unesco. org/global-geoparks/list. Accessed on 10 Nov 2021 World and Travel Tourism Council (2021) Investment in travel and tourism. Retrieved from https://wttc.org/Portals/0/Documents/ Reports/2021/Investing%20in%20Travel%20and%20Tourism% 20100921.pdf?ver=2021-09-16-112521-367. Accessed on 11 Oct 2021 World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2019) International tourism highlights, 2019 edn, Madrid. https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10. 18111/9789284421152 World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2020) World tourism barometer 2020. Madrid World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2021) International tourism highlights, 2020 Edition, UNWTO, Madrid, https://doi.org/10. 18111/9789284422456. Print Edition Mamoon Allan is Professor of Tourism Marketing in the Tourism Department, Faculty of Archaeology and Tourism, the University of Jordan. Professor Allan was working in tourism and hospitality fields in three countries—Australia, Jordan, and Libya. He completed his Ph.D in Tourism Marketing at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Western Australia. Professor Allan conducts international research in the fields of GeotourismGeotourists, Ecotourism, Volcano Tourism, Adventure Tourism, Accessible Tourism and other topics. He published a book about geotourism in Jordan in Arabic in 2014. He participated in several UNESCO workshops to enhance the geoheritage and geoparks in the Arabic countries. His doctoral thesis (2012) on geotourism was one of the first in the world on this topic.

Part II Country Case Studies

5

Geotourism in Egypt Maha Y. K. Abdou, Ghada M. Wafik, and Suzan B. Hassan

Abstract

Egypt is one of the most important countries in the region for geotourism products which have a great scientific, historical and aesthetic development. These sites are abundant in natural diversity and include Wadi Al-Hitan, which is included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. Geotourism is not widely known in Egypt but the country has many geological sites that can enhance this branch of tourism. As such, it will enhance the competitiveness of the Egyptian tourism product. This chapter describes a number of geological attractions and focuses on five case studies including; Jebel Qatrani, Hassana Dome, Petrified Forest, Wadi Degla and Wadi Al-Hitan. Keywords

Geotourism Egypt

5.1




Geosites




Geoheritage




Protected areas




Introduction

Today, the protection and preservation of natural landscapes, especially places with geological and geomorphological features, has become the focus of the whole world (Brilha 2016; Ghiraldi et al. 2015). The term geotourism refers to places of geological or geomorphological importance, and this refers to geologically or geomorphologically significant places (Premangshu and Rahul 2018; Kubalíková 2013). M. Y. K. Abdou (&)
G. M. Wafik
S. B. Hassan Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt e-mail: [email protected] G. M. Wafik e-mail: [email protected]

Therefore, geotourism represents a recognition process of broader meaning and concept of geographical sites in order to maintain the efficiency of geographical heritage and geographical sites (Tomić and Božić 2014). Although there are many geological sites that contain many unique geological features (Štrba et al. 2016). The terms geographical and geographical heritage are not widely used in Egypt and these sites are not designated as geographical heritage places or are not registered as protected areas (Abdel-Maksou and Abdel-Maksoud 2017; Sallam and Ruban 2017; Abdel-Maksoud et al. 2018). Sallam et al. (2018b) mentioned that tourism programs in Egypt do not offer geography conservation activities and geotourism. However, Egypt has a rich geological diversity and has many unknown geological sites this is due to the lack of studies research that dealt with this issue in Egypt (Abdou 2017). Sallam and Ruban (2017) and Abdou et al. (2020) propose several geosites that reflect the geological history of Egypt such as El-Goza El-Hamra, Jebel Qatrani, Birqash, Khashm El-Galala, Wadi Al-Hitan, Kom El-Shelul, Wadi Araba, Jebel Umm Bisilla, Petrified Forest Protectorate, Hassana Dome, Wadi Degla, Dababiya Quarry, White Desert in Farafra Oasis, and, Sannur Valley Cave.

5.2

Geodiversity and Geoheritage Sites in Egypt

Egypt is characterized by a unique natural and geological diversity that makes it able to compete in the regional, national and international tourism markets (Sallam and Ruban 2017). In addition, there is a variety of landscapes including coasts, beaches, stretching mountains, desert terrain and valleys (Fig. 5.1). Egypt is one of the most important tourist destinations on earth (Abdou et al. 2020). Such sites have significant scientific and scenic value (Abdel Maksoud and Hussien 2016).

S. B. Hassan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_5

65

66

M. Y. K. Abdou et al.

Fig. 5.1 Geodiversity and geoheritage sites in the map of Egypt (Source Sallam and Ruban 2017: 741)

5.3

A Case Study of Egypt

The most important reasons behind selecting the study areas (Jebel Qatrani, Wadi Al-Hitan, Hassana Dome, Petrified Forest, and Wadi Degla) including; • Geological and geomorphological features including topography, deposits and geological elements. • Natural Heritage—Sites of tourist interest, including landscapes and sites of botanical and ecological interest, were selected. The sites show the relationships between the unique and distinct geological, biological and human heritage. • Wadi Al-Hitan—It was established as the first natural world heritage site in Egypt and was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2005.

5.4

A Case Study of Jebel Qatrani

Jebel Qatrani is located in the north of the Lake of Qaroun in Fayoum Governorate, where it contains many excavations and has the oldest road in the world (Sileem et al. 2015; Sallam and Ruban 2017), as well as various quarries, and it is proposed to be included in the World Heritage List (Abdou et al. 2020). The Qaroun Protected Area includes within its borders the Qatrani Mountain. A group of primate fossils was discovered in Jebel Qatrani in Fayoum dating back to the Eocene (Salam and Ruban 2017). These finds include a smashed skull which is the oldest skull found so far in higher primates (Simons 1990). In addition, the Jebel Qatrani formation consists of various sandstones, gravel sandstones, sandy claystone, sandy limestones, and rocks (Abdo et al. 2020). The Qatrani mountain formations are

5

Geotourism in Egypt

67

fossilized and contain the remains of wild animals and shards of polished wood (Salam et al. 2018b).

resource of great economic value. In addition, Jebel Qatrani contains many folds and cracks due to climatic changes in different geological ages (Abdou et al. 2020) (Fig. 5.3).

5.4.1 The Geotourism Features in Jebel Qatrani

5.4.1.3 Rocks The rocks of the area of the fossils of Jebel Qatrani, which date back to the Eocene and Oligocene, are among the richest sites ever. Jebel Qatrani contains several rock formations that were formed as a result of climatic changes. The different shapes of the rocks add an additional aesthetic feature to Jebel Qatrani (Abdou 2020) (Fig. 5.4).

5.4.1.1 Geological Diversity The diversity of natural, geological and geomorphological characteristics is one of the most important features of Jebel Qatrani, as it represents a journey through geological times through which it is possible to read the events of the deep past, especially during the meeting of the Eocene and the Oligocene (Abdou et al. 2020) (Fig. 5.2). 5.4.1.2 Cracks and Folds The geological formations in Jebel Qatrani are among Egypt’s natural treasures, as they are an important natural

5.4.1.4 Colour Mountain Jebel Qatrani contains mountains with beautiful and picturesque colors, for example, the Red Mountains reflect red iron oxides, the White Mountains are made of limestone, and the Black Mountains are made of black basalt (Abdou 2020) (Fig. 5.5).

Fig. 5.2 Geological diversity in Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

68

Fig. 5.3 Cracks and Folds in Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation, 2019)

Fig. 5.4 Rocks—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own Documentation 2019)

Fig. 5.5 Colour Mountains—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

M. Y. K. Abdou et al.

5

Geotourism in Egypt

5.4.1.5 Widan El-Faras and Basalt Mine The lava flows from the deposits of sandstone, limestone, and mudstone led to the formation of Widan El-Faras basalt and some limestone that form the Qatrani Formation (Abdou et al. 2020) (Figs. 5.6 and 5.7). 5.4.1.6 The World’s Oldest Road Jebel Qatrani is characterized by the presence of the oldest road in the world, where the width of the road is about two meters. This road was built to transport basalt blocks from the mines of Widan El-Faras to the shore of the ancient Morris Lake (Bloxam and Storemyr 2002). Where, the basalt was transported across the Yusuf Sea to the Nile and then to the Giza plateau, basalt was used in building coffins and floors of funerary temples around the pyramids of Giza (Abdou et al. 2020) (Fig. 5.8).

69

5.4.1.7 Open Air Museum and the Petrified Forest The Open Air Museum is located in Jebel Qatrani within the petrified forests in the north of Lake Qaroun, near the basalt quarries. This museum was built in 2018 and contains many marine and continental fossils (Abdou 2020). The petrified forests of Jebel Qatrani are considered one of the most famous petrified forests in the world and one of the oldest, as it is 35 million years old (El-Saadawi 2006) (Fig. 5.9). Arsinoitherium It was called the Fayoum animal, and its name is due to Queen Arsino, the queen of ancient Egypt (Abdou et al. 2020). The skeletons were discovered and collected in 1902 by Beadnell in North Lake Qaroun (Fig. 5.10). Aegyptopithecus The Egyptian monkey is one of the animals that live in the forests among the trees. It is believed to be one of the ancestors of the Old World monkeys, hominids, and was discovered in 1965 by Elwyn Simons in Jebel Qatrani (Abdou 2020) (Fig. 5.11). On the other hand there are different types of fossils in Jebel Qatrani (Abdou 2020) such as; Sirenia (Fig. 5.12), Eocene snake (Fig. 5.13), Pleistocene Crocodile Skeleton (Fig. 5.14), Fayoum Yyrax (Fig. 515), Palaeomastodon (Fig. 5.16) and Turtle (Fig. 5.17).

Fig. 5.6 Widan El-Faras–Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

5.4.2 The Geological History (Geoheritage) in Jebel Qatrani The geological ages of Jebel Qatrani, it dates back to the Eocene and Oligocene periods. Where the location of Jebel Qatrani shows the climatic changes that occurred in different geological ages (Abdou et al. 2020) (Fig. 5.18). Jebel Qatrani consists of a variety of various sandstones, gravel sandstones, sandy mudstones, sandy limestones and rocks in addition to basalt stones, which are known as Widan El-Faras basalt (Badawy 2018; Sallam et al. 2018b).

5.5

Fig. 5.7 Basalt Mine-Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

A Case Study of Wadi Al-Hitan

Wadi Al-Hitan is one of the most important natural heritage sites in the world and is considered the first natural World Heritage site in Egypt that was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2005. Wadi Al-Hitan is located in the Fayoum Governorate and forms part of the Wadi El-Rayan

70

M. Y. K. Abdou et al.

Fig. 5.8 The world’s oldest road—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

Fig. 5.9 The Open Air Museum and Fossilized Trees—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

Reserve (WRPA 2006). Wadi al-Hitan is unique in the world as it contains the richest collection of ancient whales found at any excavation site. Wadi Al-Hitan is an open-air museum that contains more than 407 known skeletons of whales (Abdou et al. 2017).

during the Eocene, Dorudon atrox (40–42 million years ago) whales (Fig. 5.20), Sawtooth Fish (Fig. 5.21), Sirenia (Fig. 5.22), and a marine turtle which is the largest of five found in Wadi Al-Hitan.

5.5.1 The Geotourism Features in Wadi Al-Hitan

5.5.2 The Geological History (Geoheritage) in Wadi Al-Hitan

Wadi Al-Hitan has a lot of fossils identifiable as whale and sea cow skeletons and other bones like Basilosaurus Isis (Fig. 5.19) which date back to 37–42 million years ago

Wadi Al-Hitan has undergone many climatic changes that led to the formation of the landscape, where many rocks and sediments appeared (Fig. 5.23).

5

Geotourism in Egypt

71

Fig. 5.12 Sirenia—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

Fig. 5.10 Arsinoitherium—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

Fig. 5.13 Eocene Snake—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

Fig. 5.11 Aegyptopithecus—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

5.6

A Case Study of Hassana Dome

Hassana Dome Protectorate is located in the Giza Governorate and it was declared a Dome Reserve in 1989 and covers an area of 1 km (EEAA 2019). The Dome of Al-Hassana Reserve is classified as a geological reserve and rarely has many plants, animals or wildlife (Abdou et al. 2019a, b). It is considered a scientific museum specializing in geology and various geological formations. Hassana Dome Protectorate is an important site for the study of fossils and ancient life, as well as the climatic changes that the

Fig. 5.14 Pleistocene Crocodile Skeleton-Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

72

M. Y. K. Abdou et al.

Fig. 5.15 Fayoum Yyrax–Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019) Fig. 5.17 Turtle–Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

million years (Abdelhady and Mohamed 2017). The rocks found here date from the Stone Age and are believed to have formed 60 million years ago and from the Stone Age about 40 million years ago (EEAA 2019). Hassana Dome was formed as a result of the folding process that occurred in the late Cretaceous period due to the movement of Syrian arches (EEAA 2019). Topographically of Abu Rawash area has become irregular in the sense that it is high in places such as the Hassana Dome and low in other places (El-Saadawi et al. 2011). As well, the area was exposed to a number of faults and folds (Fig. 5.25) (Abdelhady and Mohamed 2017).

Fig. 5.16 Palaeomastodon—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

region experienced, especially the Cretaceous period (Abdelhady and Mohamed 2017).

5.6.1 The Geotourism Features in Hassana Dome 5.6.1.1 Geological History The diversity of landscape, geology and geomorphology is one of the most important features of the Hassana Dome (Abdo et al. 2019) (Fig. 5.24). It dates back about one

5.6.1.2 Closed Museum There is a closed museum in Hassana Dome that contains different types of rocks and fossils from the tribe of molluscs, including shellfish and sponges (Fig. 5.26).

5.7

A Case Study of Petrified Forest

The Petrified Forest Reserve is located near Maadi, 30 km from Cairo. It dates back to 35 million years and belongs to the Oligocene era (Tolba 2014; Abdou et al. 2019a, b). It was classified as a geological reserve and declared in 1989 (EEAA 2019). It has an area about 7 km. From its small area, it is one of the best natural sites in Egypt, and the forest is known as the Wood Mountain (Sallam et al. 2015).

5

Geotourism in Egypt

73

Fig. 5.18 Geoheritage—Jebel Qatrani (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

Fig. 5.19 Basilosaurus isis—Wadi Al-Hitan (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2017) Fig. 5.21 Sawtooth Fish—Wadi Al-Hitan (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2017)

5.7.1 The Geotourism Features in Petrified Forest

Fig. 5.20 Dorudon Atrox—Wadi Al-Hitan (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2017)

5.7.1.1 Geological Diversity The Petrified Forest is characterized by a diversity of geological and geomorphological features, as it includes unique ancient geological, plant and ecological systems dating back to the Oligocene era (Abdou et al. 2019a, b; EEAA 2019). In addition, the Petrified Forest has an aesthetic significance with geological formations representing a unique form of life on Earth in ancient geological times (Tolba 2014). Thus, this reserve is a unique example of a rare natural remnant area

74

M. Y. K. Abdou et al.

(Tolba 2014). Although the Petrified Forest Reserve is poor in fossils and organic remains, it is extremely rich in the roots and stems of large petrified trees (Sallam and Ruban 2017), which were placed in a panel at the entrance to the Petrified Forest as shown in Fig. 5.2.

5.7.2 The Geological History (Geoheritage) in Petrified Forest

Fig. 5.22 Sirenia—Wadi Al-Hitan (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2017)

and geological features, such as Tel El Zalat (Gravel Hills) as illustrated in Fig. 5.27.

5.7.1.2 Fossilized Trees and Fossils The Petrified Forest consists of the petrified stems and roots of trees dating back to the Eocene era, which contributed to the formation of the wooden mountain (Fig. 5.28), which consists of layers of sand, gravel, clay and petrified wood

The Petrified Forest was formed in the Oligocene era (35 million years ago), as it contains a rare and unique natural treasure as a cultural, scientific and tourist heritage (Tolba 2014). The geological history of the Petrified Forest is represented by the formations of the Eocene era, then sand and gravel layers were formed and many trees were transported through these channels floating on the water to the reserve site (Araffa et al. 2017).

5.8

A Case Study of Wadi Degla

It was declared a reserve in 1999 and covers an area of 60 km (EEAA 2019). This reserve is located in Cairo. The Wadi Degla area is one of the essential valleys that pass through the limestone rocks that survived during the Eocene era (El Khateeb 2006). This reserve contains many valleys formed by rainwater, which also affected the formation of

Fig. 5.23 Geoheritage—Wadi Al-Hitan (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2017)

5

Geotourism in Egypt

75

Fig. 5.24 Geoheritage—Hassana Dome (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

Fig. 5.25 Cracks and Folds—Hassana Dome (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

the so-called canyon Degla, similar to the Grand Canyon in the United States (EEAA 2019). The reserve has many fossils and fossilized wood and many plants and animals that live in caves in the valleys, where the reserve is home to many animals (Wagdy et al. 2008). Wadi Degla reserve is also a very popular destination for tourists and also for people who want to relax, enjoy and get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life, as well as for bird watching (Hegazy et al. 2012).

5.8.1 The Geotourism Features in Wadi Degla 5.8.1.1 Geological Diversity Wadi Degla is distinguished by its geological diversity, as it contains geological formations and Limestone Mountains that contribute to the creation of a rich and diverse ecosystem of some vertebrate fossils (El Khateeb 2006; Hegazy et al. 2012). Wadi Degla has a unique ecosystem of slopes and terraces (Abdou et al. 2020) see Fig. 5.30.

76

Fig. 5.26 Closed Museum—Hassana Dome (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

Fig. 5.27 Tel El Zalat (Gravel Hills)—Petrified Forest (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

M. Y. K. Abdou et al.

5

Geotourism in Egypt

77

5.8.1.2 Caves It is considered an important place for studying the climatic changes that prevailed in the region during ancient times. Wadi Degla contains many caves, ranging in length from 10–50 m. The reserve has more than 6 caves that were discovered around Wadi Degla (Wagdy et al. 2008) (Fig. 5.31). 5.8.1.3 Rocks and Mountain The limestone rocks found in Wadi Degla are rich in diverse fossils as a result of the decline of the Egyptian lands. In addition, Wadi Degla Valley passes through the limestone rocks and also contains high mountainous heights with beautiful scenic beauty (Hegazy et al. 2012). Fig. 5.28 Fossils tress—the Petrified Forest (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

5.8.1.4 Fossils Fossils are defined as the remains of living or plant organisms that lived in ancient times that were buried in sedimentary rocks. Wadi Degla Protected is distinguished by its containment of fossils, fossilized coral reefs and petrified snails (Hegazy et al. 2012).

5.8.2 The Geological History (Geoheritage) Wadi Degla Wadi Degla was formed during the Eocene Epoch approximately 60 million years. The exposed outcrops of its Eocene rocks are characterized by fossils of Nummulites gizehensis and the vertical crevices of the rock are filled with blown sand (Wagdy et al. 2008).

Fig. 5.29 Types of Fossils tress—the Petrified Forest (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2019)

78

M. Y. K. Abdou et al.

Fig. 5.30 Geological diversity—Wadi Degla (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2020)

Fig. 5.31 Cracks and Folds–Wadi Degla (Source the researcher’s own documentation 2020)

References Abdel Maksou MA, Abdel Maksoud KM (2017) Appraisement of the geologic features as a geo-heritage in Abu-roash. Malaysian J Geosci (MJG) 1(2): 24–28. https://doi.org/10.26480/mjg.02.2017.24.28 Abdel Maksoud KM, Al-Metwaly WM, Ruban DA, Yashalova NN (2018) Geological heritage under strong urbanization pressure: El-Mokattam and Abu Roash as examples from Cairo. Egypt. J African Earth Sci 141:86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci. 2018.02.008 Abdelhady AA, Mohamed RS (2017) Paucispecific macroinvertebrate communities in the upper cretaceous of El Hassana dome (Abu Roash, Egypt): environmental controls vs adaptive strategies. Cretac Res 74:120–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2017.02.014 Abdel-Maksoud KM, Hussien MG (2016) Geotourism in Egypt and its economic and culture impact. Arabian J Earth Sci 3(1):1–13. http://doi.org/10.002.2016.003.01.0001.

Abdou MYK, Hassan SB, Wafik GM (2017) The challenges of geotourism in Egypt: a case study of Wadi Al-Hitan. Int J Hospit Tour Syst 2(10):32–46 Abdou MYK, Hassan SB, Wafik GM (2019a) Assessment of geotourism features in Hassana dome protected area as a geosite. Int J Herit, Tour Hospit 13(2):173–192. https://doi.org/10.21608/ ijhth.2019.92794 Abdou MYK, Hassan SB, Wafik GM (2019b) Resources and its effect on increasing the demand of geotourism sites: a case study of petrified forest protectorate. Int J Herit, Tour Hospital 13(2):193– 209. https://doi.org/10.21608/IJHTH.2019.92796 Abdou MYK, Hassan SB, Wafik GM (2020) Jebel Qatrani as geotourism sites in Egypt: an exploratory study. J Indonesian Tour Develop Stud 8(3). https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jitode.2020.008.03.10 Abdou MYK (2017) Studying the Challenges of Geotourism Development as New Form of Tourism. Dissertation, Fayoum University. Abdou MYK (2020) The role of geotourism sites in enhancing Egypt Competitiveness. Dissertation, Fayoum University

5

Geotourism in Egypt

Araffa SAS, Soliman SA, Ghamry E, El Khafif A, Khashba A, Soliman AS (2017) Contribution of geophysical studies on detection of the Petrified Frost Qattamiya, Cairo. Egypt. Egyptian J Petrol 26(1):145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.12.003 Aubry MP, Ouda K (2003) The upper paleocene-lower eocene of the upper Nile Valley: Part 1, Stratigraphy. Micropaleontology: .i-iv Badawy HS (2018) Termite nests, rhizoliths and pedotypes of the Oligocene fluviomarine rock sequence in northern Egypt: Proxies for Tethyan tropical palaeoclimates. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.12.021 Bloxam E, Storemyr P (2002) Old Kingdom basalt quarrying activities at Widan El-Faras, northern Faiyum desert. J Egyptian Archaeol 88 (1):23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F030751330208800103 Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8(2):119–134. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3 Dabous AA, Osmond JK (2000) U/Th isotopic study of speleothems from the Wadi Sannur Cavern, Eastern Desert of Egypt. Carbonates Evaporites 15(1):1 EEAA (2019) Natural protectorates in Egypt. http://www.eeaa.gov.eg/ en-us/topics/nature/protectorates.aspx. Accessed 05 May 2019 El Khateeb S (2006) Interrelations between preserved natural areas and urban environment. Dissertation, Ain Shams University El-Saadawi WE (2006) On the fossil flora of Jebel Qatrani area, Fayoum. Egypt. Taeckholmia 26:131–140 El-Saadawi W, Kamal-El-Din MM, Attia Y, El-Faramawi MW (2011) The wood flora of the Cairo Petrified Forest, with five Paleogene new legume records for Egypt. Rev Palaeobot Palynol 167(3– 4):184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2011.08.003 Ghiraldi L, Bacenetti M, Perotti L, Giardino M, Millemaci P (2015). Methodologies and activities to promote geotourism: the case study of the Cannobina Valley (NW Italy). In: Engineering geology for society and territory, vol. 8. Springer, Cham, pp 269–272 Halliday WR (2003) Caves and karsts of Northeast Africa. Int J Speleol 32(1):2 Hegazy AK, Alatar AA, Lovett-Doust J, El-Adawy HA (2012) Spatial and temporal plant phenological niche differentiation in the Wadi Degla desert ecosystem (Egypt). Acta Bot Croat 71(2):261–277. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10184-011-0057-2 Issawi B, Sallam ES, Salem M (2018) Tectonostratigraphic and sedimentary evolution of the Ubur–Orabi sub-basin, southeast Nile Delta, Egypt. Carbonates and Evaporites, pp 1–19 Kubalíková L (2013) Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech J Tour 2(2): 80–104 Plyusnina EE, Sallam ES, Ruban DA (2016) Geological heritage of the Bahariya and Farafra oases the central Western Desert Egypt. J Afr Earth Sc 116:151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.01.002 Premangshu C, Rahul M (2018) Geotourism mapping for sustainability: a basin oriented approach. GeoJ Tour Geosites 21(1):174–185 Railsback LB, Dabous AA, Osmond JK, Fleisher CJ (2002) Petrographic and geochemical screening of speleothems for U-series dating: an example from recrystallized speleothems from Wadi Sannur Cavern Egypt. J Cave Karst Stud 64(2):108–116 Ruban DA (2015) Geodiversity. Encyclopedia of mineral and energy policy, pp 1–2 Sallam ES, Ruban DA (2017) Palaeogeographical type of the geological heritage of Egypt: a new evidence. J Afr Earth Sc 129:739–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.02.022 Sallam ES, El-Aal AKA, Fedorov YA, Bobrysheva OR, Ruban DA (2018a) Geological heritage as a new kind of natural resource in the

79 Siwa Oasis, Egypt: the first assessment, comparison to the Russian South, and sustainable development issues. J Afr Earth Sc 144:151– 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2018.04.008 Sallam ES, Fathy EE, Ruban DA, Ponedelnik AA, Yashalova NN (2018b) Geological heritage diversity in the Fayoum Oasis (Egypt): a comprehensive assessment. J Afr Earth Sc 140:212–224. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2018.01.010 Sallam ES, Ponedelnik AA, Tiess G, Yashalova NN, Ruban DA (2018c) The geological heritage of the Kurkur-Dungul area in southern Egypt. J Afr Earth Sc 137:103–115. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.10.012 Sallam E, Wanas HA, Osman R (2015) Stratigraphy, facies analysis and sequence stratigraphy of the Eocene succession in the Shabrawet area (north Eastern Desert, Egypt): an example for a tectonically influenced inner ramp carbonate platform. Arabian J Geosci 8(12):10433–10458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-0151969-2 Sileem AH, Sallam HM, Hewaidy AA, Gunnell GF, Miller ER(2015) Anthracotheres (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) from the upper-most horizon of the Jebel Qatrani Formation, latest early Oligocene, Fayoum Depression, Egypt. Egyptian J Paleontol 15:1–11 Simons EL (1990) Discovery of the oldest known anthropoidean skull from the Paleogene of Egypt. Science 247(4950):1567–1569 Štrba Ľ, Baláž B, Lukáč M (2016) Roadside geotourism-an alternative approach to geotourism. E-Rev Tour Res 13 Tolba MM (2014) Land evaluation sales comparison method and its effect on the sustainable development of natural reserves in Egypt: case study of petrified forest in New Cairo. Tomić N, Božić S (2014) A modified geosite assessment model (M-GAM) and its application on the Lazar Canyon area (Serbia). Int J Environ Res 8(4):1041–1052 Wadi El-Rgyan Protected Areas (WRPA) (2006) Wadi Al-Hitan, world heritage site, Periodical Newsletter Wagdy A, El Adway H, El-Gamal M (2008) Vegetation dynamics assisted hydrological analysis for Wady Degla. UNDP/GEF/Cairo University

Maha Y. K. Abdou is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Egypt. She has got a Ph.D. in Tourism Studies, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University. She is a member of the project team (ASRT National Programs & Initiatives), directed by the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Egypt. Ghada M. Wafik is a professor at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Egypt. She has got a Ph.D. in tourism studies, Fayoum University, Egypt. She is a Vice-Dean for education and students’ affairs. She served as the head of the tourism studies department and the dean of Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Egypt. Suzan B. Hassan is a professor at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Egypt. She has got a Ph.D. in tourism management, Helwan University, Egypt. She served as the Vice-Dean of post-graduates and scientific research, Vice-Dean of environmental development and community service and the head of the Tourism Studies Department Fayoum University.

6

Geotourism in Iran Kimiya Sadat Ajayebi and Alireza Amrikazemi

Abstract

This chapter addresses Iran as an initiator of geotourism in the region with incomparable geological features and potential. Geological phenomena and attractions have been classified in a creative system according to their principles. The chapter reviews the geotourism potentials and the outstanding examples among them. The text goes further with the deliberation of opportunities and challenges in developing geotourism in the country. The subject will be discussed from different points of view and a number of suggestions and practical solutions will be provided. Keywords













Aras Geopark Geotourism Geopark Geoeducation Iran Qeshm Island Tabas Geopark UNESCO

6.1




Introduction

Iran is one of the pioneering countries which have been active in the field of geotourism and geodiversity and in fact the first country in the Middle East which has conducted studies on geotourism and geodiversity. Although a great deal of data and information about Iran’s geotourism potentials are available today, no significant practical measures have been taken so far to exploit such potentials. Only some scattered and temporary activities have been carried out in different areas of the country. Of course, in the Qeshm

K. S. Ajayebi (&) Department of Geology, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran e-mail: [email protected] A. Amrikazemi Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark and Geological Survey of Iran, Tehran, Iran e-mail: [email protected]

Island UNESCO Global Geopark and two aspiring geoparks of Aras and Tabas regions, the geotourism activities are being carried out and currently these three territories are considered as focal points of geotourism in Iran. This chapter makes an attempt to review the activities undertaken in the field of geotourism in Iran, so to briefly introduce the main potentials of the country in this field and to discuss the challenges and opportunities it might face in future. Also, suggestions and solutions for the development and growth of this type of tourism will be provided in the following section.

6.2

Iran’s Geodiversity

Iran, with an area of about 1,648,195 km2, is a unique country in the Middle East in terms of geodiversity and geotourism attractions. It is bordered by Armenia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and the Caspian Sea from the north, Afghanistan and Pakistan from the east, Turkey and Iraq from the west, and has 1800 km of coastline in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea in the south (Fig. 6.1). The two great mountain ranges of the Zagros and Alborz and the two vast desert areas of Lut and the Dashte-e Kavir have created a natural geography with different features and a climatic diversity, along with a wide range of flora and fauna. Along with these different attractions, great civilizations have been formed in the historical trajectory of this country. All such features have made this country a famous tourism destination not only for its cultural attractions but also for its nature-based tourism. On the other hand, due to its huge reserves of oil and numerous other mineral reserves, Iran has always been a target for geological studies. These qualities have drawn the interests of governments and those of geologists from around the world aspiring to study the geology of Iran. Iran is so rich in geodiversity that one can possibly say that there is a sample of almost every geological phenomenon in this country; for this reason, many

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_6

81

82

K. S. Ajayebi and A. Amrikazemi

Fig. 6.1 Map of Iran. Source World Map (2016)

geologists who have undertaken research projects in Iran have given it the title of “the geologists’ paradise”. The most important attractions and potentials of Iran’s geotourism will be introduced in rest of this chapter.

6.3

History of Geotourism Activities in Iran

The first major article on geotourism in Iran was presented Nabavi in 1999 at the Geosciences Conference held by the Geological Survey of Iran. After that, in 2000, the Geological Survey of Iran undertook many intensive and extensive measures in studying the geological attractions and potentials of geotourism. Such studies were mainly conducted mostly by Amrikazemi within a period of 10 years. In 2002, he presented his first speech, entitled ‘Introducing Geotourism of Iran’, in the 10th International Ecotourism Conference held in Cairns, Australia. Amrikazemi wrote several publications about geotourism in Iran, thus, he wrote a

chapter that was devoted to introducing the potential of Iran’s geotourism. Atlas of Geopark and Geotourism Potentials of Iran (2009) and Geoheritage Atlas of Iran (2013) were the first books composed after a decade of research and fieldwork and they thoroughly explored the geotourism potentials of the country. These books appeared in both Persian and English languages and introduced the potentials of Iran’s geotourism by presenting many pictures and maps. In 2012, the Geological Survey of Iran established the Department of Geotourism and Geoheritage with a group of experts led by Amrikazemi who continued their geotourism studies and surveys across the country preparing several reports on the potential of geotourism in Iran. Thus, a new era of systematic work in this field has begun. Along with these activities, various studies were conducted at the universities in the form of research projects and postgraduate dissertations in the fields related to geotourism. These studies have both introduced the geosite potentials or conducted assessment in this regard. Likewise, studies on

6

Geotourism in Iran

strategies for geotourism development, economic studies of tourism, the impact of geotourism on local community development, issues related to the geological capacity and protection thereof have also been addressed following such activities. In 2010, Iran’s first non-governmental organization in the field of geotourism was launched by Ajayebi, who studied provincial geotourism, holding formal training courses for geotour guides and training many graduates in this field. Other people who have worked in the field of geotourism include Khoshraftar, Maghsoudi, Sabouri, Torabi Farsani, Nekuie Sadri, Vahdati Daneshmand, Badri, Motlagh and Sayed Younsi; they all have worked in various fields such as conducting research projects, composing books and articles as well as supervising related academic dissertations. After the formation of the Global Geoparks Network in 2004, Qeshm Island was designated as the first geopark of Iran and the Middle East. It was created by the efforts of three activists majorly involved in the field (Haghipour, Darrehshouri and Amrikazemi). In 2006, Qeshm became a member of the Global Geoparks Network. Earlier in 2004, Amrikazemi, in his book Geotourism Atlas of Qeshm Island, which was the first book on the subject of geotourism in Iran, proposed Qeshm as the first global geopark of Iran. Qeshm Geopark was in fact the first region in Iran where real geotourism activities were initiated. It is noteworthy that before the establishment of Qeshm Geopark, most travelers came to the island seeking sales and doing cheap-shopping (Qeshm is a free trade zone), but the percentage of tourists interested in natural and geological attractions gradually increased in such a way that in 2019 solely, and shortly before the Pandemic of COVID-19, around 300,000 domestic tourists and about 15,000 foreign tourists visited Qeshm Geopark. Also, Aras region (in the northeast of Iran, bordering Armenia and Azerbaijan) and Tabas (in the east of the country) have undertaken significant activities in order for preparing their related regions for the geoparks introduction. Both geoparks have received the approval from UNESCO Global Geoparks Council for joining the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network and are currently waiting for the final approval from the UNESCO Executive Board. Considering the fact that in his book, Amrikazemi has introduced 30 areas with definite potential for establishment of new geoparks, it is expected that in the near future more areas in Iran would aspire to be introduced and considered as geoparks by UNESCO. Currently, the activities done in the field of geotourism in the country continue to include studies on the possibility of recognizing and exploiting geopark potentials, conducting regional projects to introduce new geoparks, holding goutour guide training courses by private institutions as well as holding various other tours on related matters in more well-known areas. In fact, though the national strategy for

83

the development of geotourism in the country has not yet been developed, the need for such development is urgent and critical.

6.4

Geotourism Potentials and Attractions of Iran

Regarding its geodiversity, Iran has one of the most special natural regions of the world. The geological situation of this country is very special in that it is in an active plate tectonic zone, and this has caused a wide variety of geological features and phenomena. The history of Iranian geological formations is almost unique wherein samples of the oldest and newest rocks of the planet can be found in them. The country also has several unique geological monuments some of which are: – The longest salt cave in the world (Namakdan Cave in Qeshm Island) – Permian–Triassic boundary; in some parts of the country, especially Julfa, Aras geopark – One of the highest Mega Yardangs (225m) and the largest Yardang expanses of the world with an area of about 7185 square km. – The largest relatively young landslide in the world (Seymareh landslide) – The largest sand dunes (Lut Desert) – Hyrcanian forests (samples of living trees of Jurassic fossils) – The largest intercontinental volcano in the world (Damavand Volcano) – The most beautiful collection of salt domes (salt diapirs) Amrikazemi (2013) devised a method for classifying and categorizing geological phenomena in Iran (Fig. 6.2), according to which these phenomena are divided into 8 main groups and some subgroups. The most significant phenomena in each group are introduced below (6.4.1–6.4.8).

6.4.1 Sedimentary Phenomena Sedimentary phenomena have a wide diversity and their being widespread throughout Iran. Caves are among the phenomena which have initially formed through Karst erosion, then the various cave deposits have formed inside them; therefore, they have had a transition from erosion to sedimentary processes. As the beauty and attractions of caves is mostly due to the existence of cave deposits and their various beautiful forms, the caves are studied under the title of sedimentary phenomena. Iran’s mud volcanoes which have appeared in the south-east region near Oman Sea and north-east region near Caspian Sea are among the phenomena which are attributed

84

K. S. Ajayebi and A. Amrikazemi

Fig. 6.2 Classification and Grouping of Geological phenomena of Iran. Source Amrikazemi (2013)

to have igneous, tectonic, or organic origins, yet what is seen on the surface and attracts the attention of the visitors is their bubbles and sediments. Travertine deposits in various forms and shapes are considered among the other sedimentary phenomena, and the mineral springs which leave such sediments behind are all interesting phenomena which attract the tourists (Fig. 6.3). The sediments deposited in the dry areas and deserts create various graceful forms that are very scenic. Salt polygons, various desert landforms, the vast spread mud cracks and various forms of gypsum and salt crystals are among the phenomena which are very eye-catching and attractive to most visitors.

Deserts in Iran have placed within themselves perfect types of the structures related to Aeolian sand. Siefs, Barkhans, Sand Dunes and Nabkhas due to their being big and widespread are so rare in the world.

6.4.2 Erosion Phenomena The phenomena resulting from the work of erosion include a major part of the beautiful and spectacular geological phenomena in Iran. The impact of various erosion factors such as rains, winds, temperature, humidity, and chemical factors has created various forms and structures all around Iran

Fig. 6.3 Qechi-Qalasi travertine spring, aras aspiring geopark. Source Ajayebi (2017)

6

Geotourism in Iran

which is not only scenic and interesting to the geologists and geomorphologists, but also wonderful to the ordinary people who are willing to visit such phenomena. Some of the phenomena introduced in this part have multi-lateral identities which enjoy some commonalities with the other types (i.e. sedimentary), but as erosion has played the most special role in their formation they are introduced in this part. Erosion is mostly outstanding in the deserts and south coasts wherein it has created various forms. In the locations such as Qeshm Island UGGP, the forms resulting from erosion are so scenic and attractive that one may regard them the works of ‘Erosion Sculpturing’ (Fig. 6.4). Such phenomena are of high aesthetic value and sometimes this aspect of their phenomenal identity is more interesting than the scientific aspect (their formation and the factors resulting in their formation). The material and texture of the formations have also an important share in the work of erosion. The structure of forms and phenomena resulting from erosion are not fixed and they are always changing and transforming. Such forms pass behind the phases of generation, evolution, and annihilation. Most of such phenomena have disappeared within the last decades till now (for example, the chimney rocks in Avaj region which have been destroyed and disappeared as the result of earthquakes and erosion). This point should be considered in attracting more visitors and used as a useful advertising means which may lead to a more thriving tourism. ‘Visiting the phenomena which may no more be tomorrow!’ is a good warning slogan for the proponents of geotourism.

85

6.4.3 Magmatism and Metamorphism Phenomena The vast land of Iran shows a thorough history of magmatism and metamorphic activities which date back to Precambrian. The oldest igneous activities can be found in the central Iran. From the geotourism point of view, Some of Iran’s metamorphic phenomena are so valuable and can be studied as some cases of the geological history of Iran; namely the Alamkooh mass (related to the Miocene igneous occurrence) which has a metamorphic aureole with a radius of 2 km. Iran’s quaternaries volcanoes have had a great influence upon the nature and climate of their surrounding areas. Damavand, Sahand, Sabalan, Taftan and Bazman are the most important volcanoes in Iran. There is also lots of geological phenomenon which are formed because of volcanoes activities such as columnar basalts, ropy lavas, craters, maars and so on (Fig. 6.5). Various metamorphic areas can be seen in the different points of Iran which display a wide array of metamorphic facies and rocks. The largest and most important metamorphic area in Iran is that of Sanandaj-Sirjan that is 1200 km in length that spreads along the north-west to south-east line in Iran.

6.4.4 Structural Phenomena Iran Plateau due to its special and complicated situation in the framework of plate tectonics includes numerous peerless structural phenomena. The fact that this land is ‘not covered’

Fig. 6.4 Erosion forms in Qeshm Island UGGP. Source Amrikazemi (2015)

86

K. S. Ajayebi and A. Amrikazemi

Fig. 6.5 Columnar Basalts around Maku, West Azarbayjan Province. Source Amrikazemi (2001)

by forests, soil and vast lakes has made it more exposed and possible to be directly visited. The mysterious heights of Alborz in the north and the grand Zagros Mountain range in the west and south are two mostly influential phenomena in Iran’s nature, which have formed as the result of dynamic tectonic and involve a major part of the land of Iran. The numerous Zagros anticlines has brought this land the gift of valuable oil and gas resources, sheared in some points by the matchless Salt domes in the south. The beach scarps (shore cliffs) and wonderful wave-cut cliffs in the south-east of Iran, the grand and beautiful graben in Arjan plain along with thousands of other small and big structural phenomena throughout this country has turned the land of Iran into a perfect treasure of structural phenomena which are unique in this regard. These phenomena have created great potentiality for the development of geotourism plans in Iran. Apart from the small structural phenomena, most of the structural phenomena at a close distance due to their great size and wideness may leave no thorough impression, and the best thing to do is to watch them directly through the air using helicopters, little gliders, engine kites, and air balloons. The top view of such phenomena especially anticlines, salt domes, and canyons is so glorious and wonderful. To visit such phenomena, it is suggested to make plans for air touring; in this way, the ‘Aerial Geotourism’ will begin to emerge. Certainly, such tours will face a considerably wide interest among the people. In addition to the above-mentioned instances of geodiversity, another sign of active tectonics in Iran is to be

explored in the high number of salt domes. Only in one province of Iran (Semnan province) about 44 salt domes have been located and reported. Also, in the Zagros orogenic belt, extending over the distance between the Persian Gulf and the southern part of Fars province, there is a significant dispersion of salt domes (about 220 overt and covert diapers in the Zagros (Ghassemi and Roustaei 2021), which have its own unique beauties. These beautiful domes include Jashak salt dome in Bushehr province, Namakdan salt dome in Qeshm Island UGGP and Hormoz salt dome (Hormoz Island). In zanjan Province along the Tabriz Road a collection of amazing structural features is visible. The highway cuts the hills, and several folding and fault forms are exposed there (Fig. 6.6).

6.4.5 Geological Specimens One of the issues of great concern and significance in geotourism is geological specimens. Finding and collecting the beautiful stones and minerals as well as mysterious fossils has always been a source of pleasure for a major group of people. Furthermore, the origin of the gigantic fossils of dinosaurs and mammals are among the most scenic and spectacular areas that are of interest to the tourists. In terms of the value they have in carrying out scientific research and academic trainings, one important challenge is preserving such valuable sources and preventing unofficial removal of the stone, ore, or fossil by the visiting groups and

Fig. 6.6 Normal Fault System in Zanjan Province. Source Amrikazemi (2003)

6

Geotourism in Iran

sometimes the dealers of such merchandise. The preservation and protection of such reserves should be done within the framework of precise and legal plans. The slogan ‘protection before publication’ which was introduced by Amrikazemi (2005) in the Geotour Conference in Poland and can be adopted as a suggested policy on such phenomena. The museums and exhibitions’ refusal in purchasing the fossils which have been exploited through unscientific and unprincipled methods can be a good strategy to prevent the ravaging of such rare cases by unspecialized people, hence discouraging these people from pursuing their job. All throughout Iran, there are many sites for exploring fossils some of which hold the treasures to unearth the geological history of our planet. The site of the vertebrate’s fossils in Maraqé is one of the rare sites in the world wherein a large group of fossils which belong to various vertebrates has been found; many of these fossils due to the animals’ being covered by the volcanic deposits of Sahand have amazingly remained safe and intact. The Environment Protection Organization is now in charge of this site. Establishing an ‘In situ museum’ at the point where the fossils have been explored along with the contributions from GSI experts can turn such a point into a very significant site in the geotourism industry. Similar cases of such type have also been seen in the north areas of East Azarbaijan which makes the widespread research work necessary. Instances of fossilized trees and quaternary elephants whose age goes back to over one million years before having been discovered in Arasbaran area and it is hoped that more instances can be found in future. And eventually somewhere in Iran’s north forest some trees have been found whose fossils only have remained in the other parts of the world. These valuable trees are regarded as living fossils from the third era in Europe and show the living history of the evolution of such plants in this part of Iran. Ore deposits and mines under exploitation are among the other points which not only due to the existence of mineral substances, but also because of the structure of the mine itself and its various specifications are a point of interest in geotourism. The natural springs of oil, gas and tar are all the phenomena included in this group which have good potentialities to attract the geotourists. These phenomena mostly appear to be in the South-west provinces of Iran and sometimes at nights flood their surrounding areas in the light of their fire, which this in itself creates a beautiful landscape.

6.4.6 Engineering Geology Phenomena The active tectonics is the source of all disturbances such as the earthquakes, landslides, and other slope instability in the vast land of Iran. Such occurrences and phenomena mostly

87

happen around the two mountain ranges of Zagros and Alborz, and the movements related to the plate tectonics have considerable influences on these two mountain ranges. Much slope instability including the different types of landslides and subsidence can be seen in different parts of this country which from the engineering geology point of view are of much importance (Fig. 6.7). The rock avalanche of Seymareh is the world’s biggest landslide which has taken place in Zagros’ Mountain range and provided broad bedding for research. Sinkholes, slumps, and fissures in the earth are another group of engineering geology phenomena which not only have research-related significance but also are of much consideration in geotourism. The lakes and natural dams, which are the result of the work of landslide masses, have their own special beauty and appearance. Gahar Lake as the most famous example of such phenomena has been discussed here; in this regard, Tär and Valasht lakes are also to be mentioned. The location and construction of large and strategic structures are among other issues in which this field of geology has its own application. The art and knowledge of our predecessors are good examples to be mentioned in this regard. Three glorious instances of such works are in Tabas, Shushtar, Kalibar, and regions, while hundreds of other dazzling instances exist throughout the country.

6.4.7 Cultural Geology Today it is very helpful and valuable to apply geological knowledge to archeological studies and research. Tracing remains from ancient times under various layers of earth, linking geological features of ancient landscapes, places of establishment and decline of civilizations, and their relationship with geological processes and areas where materials could be provided for building towns, palaces, and fortresses. In Iran there is a great abundance of archaeological sites from important periods in all of human history. Old mining and metallurgy are particularly interesting examples of geo-archaeology for geotourism. The oldest evidence for Iran’s ancient mining and metallurgy is located in Arisman, Kashan, dating back to the fourth millennium before Christ. Aside from this, dozens of mines and old mining relics of gold, silver, lead, zinc, iron, turquoise, and other mineral substances have been discovered all around Iran, especially in areas where ancient civilizations were formed. Iran’s central plateau is perhaps the earliest land in the world where man discovered how to use metal (Momenzadé et al. 2018). Ancient Persians used mineral substances to make containers, jewelry, warfare, and agricultural tools; many artifacts of such materials can be seen in the museums.

88

K. S. Ajayebi and A. Amrikazemi

Fig. 6.7 Rock fall in Maku, West Azarbayjan Province. Source Amrikazemi (2005)

The Naqlak lead and zinc mine is the best example of a relic mine that has enjoyed a long history of use- from the Sassanid period until the present day (2000 years) (Fig. 6.8). The Naqlak mine and its surrounding workshops, used to be used for smelting and separating metal. These historic sites have been carefully studied. Also, there is a mention of the historical town of Anarak which was historically connected with Naqlak and accommodates workers and custodians of Naqlak.

6.4.8 Geological Landscapes The landscapes or beautiful geological sceneries include a major part of the geotourism discussions. In such phenomena, ‘aesthetics’ is of highest significance. The general public is mostly interested in such geological phenomena. This group of phenomena has originated in various geological processes, and in fact each can be included within other groupings of phenomena. The waterfalls, (some) mountains, valleys, glaciers, and the formations’ colorful outcrops all follow such a principle (Fig. 6.9). Perhaps the most common feature between geotourism and ecotourism can be found in this group alone, and that is nothing but the natural sceneries which are the point of much attention in ecotourism as well. However, the goals, functions, and natures of geotourists and ecotourists activities are totally different in such a common environment. Usually, landscapes don’t need to include very specific and unique geological phenomena; the fact that such phenomena are somehow related to geology can place them in the group of

Fig. 6.8 A lean-to dating back to Sassanid period with the metal smelting slags in the foreground. Source Amrikazemi (2002)

landscapes. As it was discussed before, the foremost goal is to attract tourists based on the landscapes’ beauties, and then in the next step it comes to studying the subject and its identity.

6

Geotourism in Iran

89

Fig. 6.9 Beautiful landscape of Kond Formation exposing a part of geological history in Alborz Mountains, Tehran Province. Source Ajayebi (2019)

The landscapes have high value for the artists, especially photographers, painters, poets, and writers. Such artists through choosing a landscape as their subject can create a masterpiece. Also, the feeling within the artist after facing eye-catching scenery and a gracefully glorious landscape can be an effective factor in pushing him/her towards creating new works of art, which may include various subjects other than the intended landscape.

6.5

Beneficiaries

Human beings have always enjoyed touring around nature and exploring its numerous wonders. The emergence of geotourism has provided a new type of tourism for those who are curious about these wonders and its diversity. This has made some tourism agencies active in the field of nature touring to incorporate geotourism programs in their tours. Of course, the new tours are still incipient and at the initial sates of their development and have not achieved full maturity, but they are valuable as a starting point. Mostly, the destinations of these tours are very limited and devoid of any variety, while most of them originate in large cities; however, there are many solo and self-guided tours to geotourism destinations, the exact number of which is still unknown.

Geological Survey of Iran, the non-governmental sectors, private institutions included, as well as academic departments and some regional tourism institutions have also performed activities in this field as follows:

6.6.1 Content Production Many books have been written and published on teaching the principles and concepts of geotourism, geoconservation, and geodiversity, and some internationally renowned books have also been translated into Persian. In addition to the books just mentioned, a five-volume collection for teaching geological tour guides on the topics of geological basics, geological samples, mining heritage as well as introducing caves and mountains of Iran have been composed and published by the Geological Survey of Iran. In addition to the written and translated books, short and long documentaries have also been produced in order for introducing more aspects of Iran’s geotourism attractions. These documentaries have either been shown on the national television or made available to public on CDs and DVDs. Reports and articles on related topics have also been published in various magazines and journals.

6.6.2 Education

6.6

Development of Geotourism in Iran

As was mentioned in the history section, the Geological Survey of Iran (GSI) has undertaken various measures for developing geotourism in the country. In addition to the

Education has always been recognized as an important means for providing information and raising awareness in society. Without proper education, no public awareness for the preservation of the still-life heritage would be raised. Iran

90

has probably been one of the first countries to design and hold official training courses for geotourguides. Until 2014, only two main training courses in the two fields of ecotourism and cultural tourism were held by the institutions under the supervision of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts. Taking the required courses and passing the final exams, the participants have received the official tour-guide license. In 2014, a new plan being initiated, the training course for geotour guides was added to the two previous courses. After attending the various courses and passing the exams, the participants interested in geotourism have succeeded in receiving the tour-guide card for geotourism and have the permission for leading the geotours (Figs. 6.10 and 6.11).

K. S. Ajayebi and A. Amrikazemi

Considering the fact that education is one of the most important foundations of any program for the development of geoparks; various educational programs have been widely devised and offered along with the studies on geotourism in those areas where people have been applying for the establishment and introduction of geoparks in the country. One such site is Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, in which since the beginning of its activities, various educational programs have been offered for teaching participants at different levels including managers, students (Fig. 6.12) and local community activists. Holding educational courses on geotourism leadership for local guides are among other educational activities performed in Qeshm Island UGGP. These courses are

Fig. 6.10 The field trip programs for geotourguides students. Source Amrikazemi (2018)

Fig. 6.11 Geo-interpretation for the geotourists. Source Ajayebi (2017)

6

Geotourism in Iran

91

• Designing training courses for training instructors for the Aras Geopark and helping them to teach the concepts of geotourism and geopark to the local community activists. • Providing various lecture programs for managers in order to help people get acquainted with the various aspects and benefits of geotourism and geoparks and their impacts on sustainable development of the community (Fig. 6.15). • Holding training courses on designing and creating local products related to geological phenomena in the region (geoproducts).

6.6.3 Using Legal Protections for Geoconservation As yet, there are no laws in the country for registration and protection of geological heritage, for the time being the possibility of registering valuable and unique geological works in the list of national heritage is used in order for protecting them. Such natural heritage is subject to the laws passed by the parliament and under the government protection based on which they to some extent, can be preserved against destruction. This is especially effective in preventing the negative impact of construction projects on the valuable geological sites. Fig. 6.12 Geoeducation program for students in Qeshm Island UGGP elementary schools, (in memory of late Baharak Vahdati Daneshmand). Source Kuvehie (2015)

especially offered to young people who are not able to participate in long-term courses but have enough knowledge and interest to provide information to geotourists (Fig. 6.13). As such, intensive and short-term courses are designed for these people to let them know specifically about the field and be educated on their local region, making them able to transfer the relevant information to the geotourists visiting the geoparks. In addition to the above-mentioned activities, advanced training courses for teachers have also been designed. Teachers trained in schools of all levels are responsible for training guides and providing the relevant information on the geotourism and geoparks. In the aspiring geoparks of Aras and Tabas, various educational activities have been performed for elementary, middle, and high school students as well as for local guides and trainers. These activities include: • Familiarizing the trainees of different age groups, from primary to high school, with the concepts of geotourism and geopark (Fig. 6.14a and b). • Familiarizing the teachers with the concepts of geotourism and geopark and producing content for presentation in schools.

6.7

Opportunities and Threats for Geotourism in Iran

Naturally, any development in the industry and new initiative would bring opportunities and threats along with it. In Iran, also, there are such opportunities and threats facing the geotourism and some of them will be discussed.

6.7.1 Opportunities • As mentioned before, one advantageous feature of geographical sites in Iran is their rich geodiversity and the availability of most geological features and outcrops. Also, many an interesting and rare phenomenon and site can be observed along the roadside sections and valleys of the country. • The presence of enthusiasts and university graduates, especially in the fields of geology and mining, and the lack of jobs in the classic fields related to such disciplines has led graduates to turn to the field of geotourism. • An ancient history with instances of mining activity which dates back to 3500 BC and the existence of various reserves and mines throughout the country have paved the

92

K. S. Ajayebi and A. Amrikazemi

Fig. 6.13 Geoeducation program for local guides in Qeshm Island UGGP. Source Rahimi (2015)

way for creating the good opportunities for the development of mining tourism (mine geotourism) in Iran. On the other hand, since visiting a mine is not always possible for ordinary people, this type of tourism can certainly be highly attractive and mostly welcomed.

• Lack of awareness and sufficient knowledge on the part of people and authorities

Threats to geotourism are related to human activities as well as social, political, and economic issues.

As long as people’s and authorities’ knowledge about the significance of geological phenomena and geotourism attractions is not enough, there will be no successful effort in favor of effective protection of geological heritage. This lack of awareness at the level of authorities may sometimes lead to the issuance of permits for the performance of developmental and constructional projects with no due consideration for significant geological features.

• Politics and economics

• Profiteering abuse

Political conflicts that some western countries have had with Iran, leading to their imposition of economic sanctions and restrictions, and have caused political and economic pressures on the country. These issues have left negative effects on the arrival of tourists, including those highly interested in visiting Iran and enjoying its unique geotourism attractions. Also, the rise of domestic economic problems for various reasons can reduce the ability of people to travel, and this will have negative impacts on geotourism activities.

Another problem that can widely damage the proper progress of a process comes about when some uninformed but involved people forget or ignore its very main goal and purpose. An example is the high number of tours that were launched under the name of Geotour by advertising the collection of fossils, stones, and minerals just for the purpose of increasing the number of passengers and the tour participants, or else, by introducing areas where no protection is provided to preserve the geological heritage.

6.7.2 Threats

6

Geotourism in Iran

93

Fig. 6.14 a Geoeducation program in Aras Aspiring Geopark for primary schools. Source Ajayebi (2017). b Geoeducation program in Tabas Aspiring Geopark for primary schools. Source Ajayebi (2017)

• Mass tourism The repetitiveness of some common tourism sites along with the increasing interest of the tourists in geological attractions has caused some travel agencies to turn to geotours with large number of visitors. Such agencies are unaware of or else do not care for the fact that the arrival of large number of tourists in some sites may cause vast damage(s) or even destruction of geological phenomena and geosites. A travel agency, for example, has taken 40-seat buses which is full of

visitors on a planned tour to see a mineral spring: Now, it can be imagined how interested the people might be in going into the spring or putting their feet in the mineral water. Also, the massive entry of tourists into the closed spaces of the caves and the increase of carbon dioxide resulting from their respiration can cause the space to become acidic, thus leaving a negative effect on the calcareous features of the cave. One of the most famous and popular geotourism sites of Iran is the beautiful island of Hormuz which, due to the function of the salt domes and presence of many types of

94

K. S. Ajayebi and A. Amrikazemi

Fig. 6.15 Geoeducation lecture for managers of Aras Free Zone in Aras aspiring geopark. Source Shabani (2019)

rocks and minerals of different colors in a small area, appears to hold strong attraction for the visitors. Due to the island’s popularity in social network media, especially Instagram, a very large number of people travel to the island every day, and due to the limited welfare services of the island and the sensitivity of geological features, this will not only be a source of damage(s) to those features, but it will also cause a lot of difficulties for the tourists themselves (Fig 6.16).

6.8

Suggestions and Procedures, the Future Path

The best procedure for the development of geotourism in Iran seems to be the increasing of the number of geoparks at the national and global levels. Considering the philosophy of introducing and establishing geoparks and regarding the fact that geotourism is one of the main bases of geoparks, the development of geoparks will directly lead to the development of geotourism. In those parts of the country where unique geotourism attractions exist but do not have the capacity and conditions necessary for introducing and developing geoparks, providing the grounds for launching

geotourism programs for tourists seems to be a good point of departure. This initiative requires the participation and cooperation of the regional and local government authorities as well as those of the Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts departments, which are officially responsible for tourism development in the country. It is also recommended that such sites be added to the list of 16 current tourism facilities and areas in the country in order to identify the geotourism activity in the new sites and issues licenses for their exploitation of individual geosites. Also, it is necessary to make and activate an independent list entitled ‘National Geological Heritage’ in order to attract legal support and protection for these sites. In the field of education, creating a new branch of academic discipline for those interested in studying geotourism can be a very effective measure. Likewise, developing and conducting short-term and intensive courses for teaching the principles of geotourism and geotour guide is also an effective way to further introduce the field to those interested and to create employment for them. Fortunately, in recent years, brief introductory texts including information about geotourism have been incorporated in the geology textbooks of high schools in Iran. This can be useful for students who like to get acquainted with these concepts.

6

Geotourism in Iran

95

Fig. 6.16 Mass tourism in Hormoz Island. Source Amrikazemi (2021)

Although the Geological Survey of Iran (GSI) has been a pioneering organization and in some respects a responsible body for identifying and developing the country’s geodiversity and geological heritage, no institution has yet been formally assigned to be responsible for policymaking, devising geotourism-related regulations, and exploiting the existing potentials. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of geotourism and its relationship with various disciplines such as geology, geography, tourism, cultural heritage, mining, management, environment, and natural resources, it is suggested that a national committee be formed for this purpose in which representatives from all stakeholders be present and actively involved. In addition to the aforementioned duties and responsibilities, the committee will be responsible for issuing executive directives and drafting relevant laws to be approved by the country’s highest authorities. In certain parts of the country with the absence of any appropriate conditions for agriculture, animal husbandry, and industrial and commercial activities, informing and involving local officials, whose special advantage is their proximity to geosites, can be a practical way for helping the sustainable economic development of the local society through geotourism. This has been achieved in certain parts of Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark and as a result the reverse migration has occurred in the remote rural areas of this island.

References Ajayebi KS (2017) Investigation and identification of Geosites in Aras Geopark (Geoheritage institute of themiddle east Project report) Amrikazemi A (2013) Geoheritage Atlas of Iran. (Geological Survey of Iran, pp. 80, 166, 174, 183, 288, 466 Ghassemi MR, Roustaei M (2021) Salt extrusion kinematics: insights from existing data, morphology and InSAR modelling of the active emergent Anguru diapir in the Zagros fold and thrust belt, Iran. J Geolog Soc 178(6): jgs2020–136. https://doi.org/10.1144/ jgs2020-136 Momenzadeh M, Nezafati N, Ahmadi K (2018) A road map for the ancient mining and metallurgical studies in Iran. In: Paper presented at the 11th international congress on the archaeology of the ancient Near East, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Germany, 03– 07 April 2018 World Map (2016) Maps of World. https://www.mapsofworld.com/ Accessed on 11 Oct 2021

Kimiya Sadat Ajayebi is a geologist who has been involved in geotourism and geopark subjects since 2010. She is holding a Ph.D. in Economic Geology and also MBA in Tourism. For 11 years ago the first and the only ‘geoheritage related’ professional private institute in Iran has been established by her. Alireza Amrikazemi is a geotourism/geoheritage researcher since 2000. He is holding a master’s in Tourism, Regional planning, and his background is in geoscience (Geology). He is the director of Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark and Chair of the National Iranian Geoparks Network.

7

Residents’ Perceptions of Geotourism in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Iran Shahrzad Khodayar, Ross Dowling, and Greg Willson

Abstract

Geotourism is emerging as a new form of regional tourism development in Iran. Qeshm Island is a well known tourism destination which was designated as the first Global Geopark in the Middle East in 2006 and became a UNESCO Global Geopark in 2017. The island and geopark attracts many visitors and this chapter explores the island’s residents’ perceptions of geotourism. Responses from 266 residents found that they held a reasonably positive view concerning the impacts of geotourism in their community. Most of the respondents agreed that they are happy with the development of geotourism on Qeshm Island but that there is an uneven distribution of benefits. However, they regard the positive socio-cultural and environmental impacts as outweighing the negative impacts. Keywords








Geotourism Qeshm Island Qeshm UGGp Resident’s perceptions Tourism’s impacts

7.1



Iran

Introduction

A survey of residents’ perceptions of geotourism was undertaken in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark in 2017. Tourism development contributes to various economic, socio-cultural and environmental changes in the lives of the host communities (Lee 2013). Once a community becomes a destination, tourism development will result in an increasing number of visitors, which may lead to numerous S. Khodayar
R. Dowling
G. Willson (&) Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia e-mail: [email protected] R. Dowling e-mail: [email protected]

impacts on the local community (Dowling and Newsome 2018). If the tourism activities result in a lesser quality of life, locals may be unwilling to further support tourism (Kim and Brown 2012). Through facilitating jobs and enticing investment, tourism can have particularly pronounced impacts on rural areas and developing countries (Diedrich and García-Buades 2009). Tourism may also enhance the participation of locals in decision making, engendering a sense of community pride (Huh and Vogt 2008) and increasing environmental awareness and protection (Honey 2008). However, tourism can also cause adverse impacts on host communities. For instance, it may increase the price of goods and services (Fevzi Okumus et al. 2015), induce prostitution and crime (Park and Stokowski 2009), and increase traffic and pollution (Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2012). Therefore, the support of residents is essential for planning, development, successful management of sustainable tourism businesses. Consequently, it is imperative that officials, planners and community developers consider residents’ perspectives towards planning, developing and marketing tourism.

7.2

Geotourism in Iran

The term geotourism was first used in Iranian tourism literature by Nabavi (2000). It was later defined as “knowledge-based tourism, an interdisciplinary integration of the tourism industry with conservation and interpretation of abiotic nature attributes, besides considering related cultural issues, within the geosites for the general public” (Sadry 2009, p. 17). Amrikazemi (2010 p. 442), has subsequently defined geotourism as “a conscientious and accountable touring in nature with the aim of visiting and recognising geological phenomena, their development and learning about their formation”. In each definition, geotourism is confined wholly to a natural area. However,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_7

97

98

S. Khodayar et al.

geotourism can take place in any space with a possibility of geology being developed as a tourist attraction (Dowling and Newsome 2018). Several studies have previously explored geotourism in Iran. They have primarily focused on examining geotourism potential in particular areas of Iran, geosite assessments and identifying the impacts of geotourism. Many regions have been evaluated for their potential for geotourism in varied geosites such as hot springs, caves, volcanoes and deserts. The case study of Kerman hot springs (Khabazi et al. 2015) is an example of geomedicine, where geotourism is linked to the health benefits of the natural area. Ghazi et al. (2013) described the diverse geological features of the Mount Sahand region as a potential geopark in East Azarbaijan including, Sahand Volcano, the Urmia Lake, salt deposits, springs, limestone caves and Cenozoic vertebrate fossils. In additional studies, Mount Zagros in the western side of Iran which has a high geological heritage value of Paleogene rocks, has been assessed for its potential to become a geopark (Beigi 2017; Habibi et al. 2017; Habibi and Ruban 2017, 2018). Deserts cover more than one-fifth of Iran’s land (about 300,000 square metres). Their geomorphologic characteristics have been identified for sustainable development in Iran (Farsani et al. 2014a, b; Seyedi and Dalfardi 2015; Yalgouz-Agaj et al. 2010; Yazdi et al. 2014, 2015). Eshraghi et al. (2012) determined the advantage of geotourism in desert areas in creating job opportunities, poverty alleviation, involving locals and keeping cultures alive. The different geosites of the Lut desert have also been assessed for their suitability for geotourism development (Maghsoudi et al. 2019). Other studies encompass geo-activities such as geo-tours, geo-guides, geoeducation, geo-products and geo-branding (Farsani et al. 2014a, b, 2017; Shafiei et al. 2017). The initial aim of geo-activities is to promote initiatives in order to foster geo-knowledge (an understanding of Earth sciences) and geoeducation, through the placement of interpretative panels; the establishment of geotours; training geotour guides; conducting workshops and outdoor activities for children and students; and designing geo-products (Farsani et al. 2017).

7.3

Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark

Qeshm Island is the largest island in the Persian Gulf of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran; Fig. 7.1). The island is 120 kms long with an average width of 20 kms (Amrikazemi and Mehrpooya 2006). There is a wide variety of geological phenomena and an abundance of nature on the Island. Geoparks are an initiative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)

(Dowling 2018). Considerable planning and development led to the creation of the geopark in Qeshm Island. It was first registered with the Global Geopark Network in 2006. It eventually became a UNESCO Global Geopark in 2017. The Geopark has twenty-five valuable geosites (Fig. 7.2). The Geopark is part of the Zagros Mountains, which has been formed and folded during a huge buckling and the earth’s crust as the result of the last phase of the Alpine orogeny in the Plio-Pleistocene. The geological structures and formations of this mountain belong to the Late Precambrian to Cambrian time period (more than 480 million years ago). The island has numerous geological tourist attractions (Fig. 7.3). One of the main ones is Chahkuh Canyon, located 20 km from Qeshm City in the north-western part of the island. Another is the Stars Valley which features a series of majestic gorges and canyons that were formed over centuries of erosion. It is billed as one of the most spectacular geosites on the island. Qeshm Geopark also features Namakdan Salt Cave. At 6600 m in length it is the longest salt cave in the world and is filled with many fragile salt captures and salt rivers (UNESCO 2017b). Besides the geological phenomena, there is much ecological, archaeological, and cultural heritage in the Geopark. The island has a variety of wildlife, including birds, reptiles, dolphins, and sea turtles. There is also a wonderful diversity in fauna and flora in this island as a result of collision between zoogeographical areas of Palearctic and Oriental, and phytogeographical areas of Afro-tropical, Oriental and Eurasian (UNESCO 2017b). The Qeshmi’s culture is inspired by their unique nature and geological heritage. The first human settlement in the Geopark dates to 40,000 years ago. According to archaeological analysis, the island inhabitants were famous traders in ancient Persia, especially during the Sassanid era, from the Far East to the east coast of Africa. Additionally, based on anthropological observations, some cultural heritage, clothing and music in Qeshm have their roots in African and Indian cultures. Qeshm is described as the location of the Garden of Eden as stated in Cassell’s Bible (UNESCO 2017b). Qeshm is also a free trade zone. The natural gas that comes from the island provides all the gas usage of the area. Qeshm is one of the most important centres for the economic network between Iran and neighbouring countries including United Arab Emirates (UAE), China and India. While the majority of Iranians are practicing Shia Islam, the religion of Qeshm residents is Muslim, Sunni and they are classified as a minority religion in Iran (Farsani et al. 2012). According to the latest available figures, Qeshm has a population of approximately 150,000 people (Kourosh Niya et al. 2020). Previous studies conducted in Qeshm Geopark show that geotourism growth in Qeshm Island has generated both positive and negative impacts on the locals, the patterns

7

Residents’ Perceptions of Geotourism in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Iran

Fig. 7.1 Qeshm Island, Iran (Source NASA, 2007)

Fig. 7.2 Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark map (Source QeshmGeopark 2018)

99

100

S. Khodayar et al.

Fig. 7.3 Qeshm Island’s major geotourism attractions. Upper left: Chakuh canyon. Upper right: Chahkuh canyon visitor sign. Lower left: Stars valley. Lower right: Namakdan salt cave Source Shahrzad Khodayar (2017)

of the locals behaviour and their lifestyle (Shahhoseini et al. 2017; Farsani et al. 2012). This Island has a sensitive environment and a very strict traditional culture. If geotourism continues to grow in Qeshm Island and is not planned and managed well, it will cause tension in the community and possibly increase the displeasure of locals against tourists. This study, conducted in 2017, examined how the host community residents of Qeshm Island perceive the geotourism impacts and how those residents perceive geotourism development.

7.4

Geotourism on Qeshm Island

In 2004, Alireza Amrikazemi, head of the Geotourism department in the Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration of Iran, published a book titled Atlas of the Qeshm Geotourism, which examined the geological features of Qeshm Island (Amrikazemi 2004). The initial proposal for the Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark was based on this book (Shahhoseini et al. 2017). Assessments conducted in order to select an optimal geosite in the Qeshm Island Geopark identified the mangrove forests as the highest rank

geosite, whereas the Kharbas Cave achieved the lowest rank due to its remoteness, poor waste management, etc. (Zarei et al. 2016). In other research, an assessment applied to evaluate the tourist attractiveness mentioned the Qeshm Island Geopark as not a fully developed area (Pourahmad et al. 2018). Their low assessment was due to the difficulty of access to the geosites’ location far away from Qeshm City and residents’ attitudes towards tourists. Only a few studies have investigated the impacts associated with geotourism in communities and residents’ attitudes on Qeshm (Farsani et al. 2012; Shahhoseini et al. 2017). Farsani et al. (2012) explored the impacts of geotourism in the Qeshm Island community and assessed the geopark’s socio-cultural sustainability in this region. About 55% of the responses indicated negative impacts from developing geotourism for local communities in Qeshm Island, such as the loss of local language and culture (for example, local clothes). However, the locals pointed to some positive socio-economic impacts of geotourism, such as improving local festivals, additional income and cultural exchange. Shahhoseini et al. (2017) revealed that the majority of the Island residents had a positive attitude towards geotourism

7

Residents’ Perceptions of Geotourism in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Iran

due to an increase in job opportunities. In addition, based on Doxey’s Irridex Model (Doxey 1975), the Qeshm region was viewed as being in the first stage of destination development, known as ‘Euphoria’. At this stage, tourism provided new job opportunities and increased locals’ income, and only a minority of the residents were irritated by the adverse impacts of tourism development. Through a review of these two studies, it was revealed that the perception of the residents from geotourism impacts in their community has changed over time. However, in neither of the studies was the relationship between the geotourism impacts and residents’ attitudes examined. Considering that one of the main concepts of geotourism and geoparks is to empower locals and generate financial benefits for regional communities (Dowling 2018), understanding residents’ attitudes towards geotourism is an important element of communities’ commitment in supporting geotourism.

7.5

Research Aims

This research was undertaken to investigate residents’ perceptions of geotourism on Qeshm Island. Three research aims were posited: 1. How do local residents perceive the impacts of geotourism in the Qeshm Island community? 2. What is the general attitude of the Qeshm Island residents towards geotourism? 3. What is the relationship between residents’ perception of geotourism impacts and residents’ attitude towards geotourism in Qeshm Island. To answer the above questions, a questionnaire was devised with three parts. The first part gathered respondents’

101

demographic characteristics such as gender, age, education level, income, the number of years they have lived in the area, and their living distance from attraction sites. The second part sought to explore the residents’ perceptions of various geotourism impacts in Qeshm Island including economic, socio-cultural, and environmental benefits and costs. The third part addressed residents’ attitudes towards geotourism activities. Once the questionnaire was constructed the validity and reliability of the survey were assessed. Data analysis was a multi-stage process. In the first phase of data analysis, the descriptive statistics and distribution were assessed. Next, the underlying constructs measuring Qeshm Island residents’ perceptions of the impacts of geotourism using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS 25 (maximum likelihood method) to test the proposed model using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Multiple measures were used to assess the fit between the model and the data, including normed chi-square (chi-square/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), all of which were suggested in the literature for single group analysis (Hair et al. 2014). Responses from open-ended questions were also categorised into different types of geotourism impacts based on their common themes found as well as the conceptual framework for geotourism impacts in this study. 384 questionnaires were distributed amongst the residents of fifteen tourism dependent and non-dependent towns in April 2017. A total of 266 (69.2%) complete questionnaires were obtained. The lead researcher personally administered the prepared open-ended survey (Fig. 7.4). After preparing the English version of the questionnaire, the finalised English version was translated into Farsi. The Farsi questionnaire was reviewed by two Farsi/English experts with a tourism background to obtain feedback on the equivalency

Fig. 7.4 The lead researcher undertaking resident interviews Source Shahrzad Khodayar (2017)

102

S. Khodayar et al.

of the English/Farsi translation and the clarity of the Farsi version of the questionnaire. The sample comprised male (59%) and female participants (41%). The largest group of respondents were aged between 25 and 34 years (37%). Approximately one-third of the respondents to the survey have less than a high school diploma (32.7%) and nearly one-third have a high school diploma (32.3%) as their highest level of education. Most of the respondents (52.3%) have financially benefited from geotourism in Qeshm Island, with an average income of approximately 1,000,000. Toman monthly (67.3%). Also, the largest proportion (42.7%) of respondents live very close (between 1 and 4 kms) to the geosites.

7.6

Findings

There are multiple positive and negative impacts attributed to geotourism development within the Geopark. These include economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts.

7.6.1 Economic Impacts Residents reported multiple economic impacts associated with geotourism at Qeshm Island (Table 7.1). The majority (72.2%) of respondents (the sum of strongly agree and agree) agreed that geotourism increases employment and investment op- portunities. Only 13.1% (the sum of strongly disagree and disagree) reported that geotourism has not been an effective job creator in Qeshm Island. This contrasts with the majority agreeing with the statement ‘geotourism generates more business for locals’ (73.7%). In addition, 63.2% of respondents agreed that geotourism causes increases in house and product prices. However, 18.8% of respondents claimed that geotourism does not cause an increase in prices in Qeshm Island. Also, most respondents agreed with the statements ‘geotourism benefits only a small number of residents’ (64.3%), and ‘all the profits generated by geotourism end up with non-locals and companies outside of Qeshm Island’ (45.1%). However, 18 and 29% disagreed (the sum of strongly disagree and disagree) with this matter respectively. Through geotourism and geopark development in Qeshm Island, locals are significantly involved in geotourism planning, geo-marketing and the development of geo-products such as geo-tours, geo-guides, running geo-guest houses as well as the geo-museum. In addition, the rate of illegal work such as goods and fuel smuggling has been reduced and replaced by geotourism activities (QeshmOfficials 2018). Thus, geotourism is viewed as a powerful tool for improving the local economy in Qeshm Island. This is evident by

residents having positive perceptions regarding the economic impacts in their community and their belief that geotourism has increased employment and investment opportunities in Qeshm Island. Previous studies in Qeshm Island confirmed that residents perceived that geotourism had given rise to increasing job opportunities (81.0%) and an increase in economic growth (91.0%) (Shahhoseini et al. 2017). Further, Farsani et al. (2012) detailed the positive socio-economic impacts of tourism in Qeshm as a result of geotourism activities, impacts such as local festivals, seasonal and part-time jobs, and entrepreneurship opportunities for women. However, a critical finding of this study is that while the economic impact of geotourism is perceived as being more positive for the residents of Qeshm Island, 64.3% of the respondents reported that geotourism development only benefits a limited number of residents. Additionally, this research confirmed some negative economic impacts of geotourism. These included ‘an increase of the prices’, ‘profits ended up to non-local companies or people’ and ‘profits are only limited to a small number of residents’, which explained 11% of the total variance of geotourism impacts. Furthermore, the respondents who were not living close to geosites (that is, more than 10 kms away from geosites, 36.6%), not involved in geotourism (47.7%), and with limited contact with tourists (61.3%), tended to highlight the negative economic impacts. Thus, there is an uneven distribution of geotourism development in Qeshm Island which reflects nature and the way those geosites are recognised and signposted. Consequently, towns located next to the geosites tend to receive more economic benefits than those which are further away from the main tourist attraction areas. Communities living near remote geosites have limited participation in geotourism activities, which negatively affects their perceptions of geotourism, further preventing them from becoming involved in opportunities for economic development.

7.6.2 Socio-Cultural Impacts The residents of Qeshm generally have a positive perception regarding the socio-cultural impacts of geotourism on Qeshm Island. Most respondents concurred that there were ‘increased incentives for locals in preserving the Qeshmi’s traditional culture’ (76.4%) and that there was an increased ‘cultural exchange provided between tourists and residents’ because of geotourism in Qeshm Island (69.5%) (Fig. 7.5). Interestingly, respondents denied geotourism activities contributed to any ‘negative effects on Qeshmi’ traditional culture’ (51.5%)’ or an ‘increase in crime rates’ (54.9%). Moreover, the positive and negative dimensions of

7

Residents’ Perceptions of Geotourism in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Iran

103

Table 7.1 Respondents’ Perceptions of Geotourism in Qeshm Island Geotourism impacts

% of Respondents Strongly disagree (%)

Disagree (%)

Neutral (%)

Agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)

Economic impacts Geotourism increases employment and investment opportunities

2.6

10.5

14.7

42.1

30.1

Geotourism causes in-creases in house and products prices

4.9

13.9

18.0

33.5

29.7

Geotourism provides more business for local people

2.3

11.7

12.3

40.2

33.5

Geotourism benefits only a small number of residents

5.6

12.4

17.7

35.0

29.3

Profits generated by Geotourism activities end up with companies and persons from outside

9.8

19.2

25.9

17.3

27.8

4.5

9.4

9.0

41.4

35.7

Geotourism causes damage to the natural surroundings and to countryside

17.7

38.7

11.7

19.5

12.4

Geotourism provides incentives for local people to protect and conserve natural resources

4.9

8.3

8.3

44.7

33.8

Geotourism increases environmental contamination (rubbish, wastewater)

10.5

31.6

19.2

20.7

18.0

Geotourism increases noise

18.8

41.4

24.3

13.2

2.3

Geotourism provides incentives to locals to preserve Qeshm’s local culture

5.6

7.9

10.1

42.9

33.5

Geotourism increases traffic congestion and accidents

5.6

20.3

17.7

32.3

24.1

Geotourism encourages improvement in the quality of roads, parks, and other recreational areas

2.6

15.4

14.0

43.6

24.4

21.1

33.8

27.8

9.0

8.3

7.5

10.5

8.3

44.0

29.7

13.9

25.9

17.4

22.9

19.9

4.9

8.6

17.0

42.1

27.4

17.7

33.8

19.2

18.0

11.3

Environmental impacts Geotourism development improves the Island’s physical appearance

Socio-cultural impacts

Geotourism increases the crime rate Geotourism has positive impacts on the cultural identity of the residents Geotourism causes unpleasant overcrowding of public and leisure spaces Geotourism enhances cultural exchange between tourists and residents Geotourism negatively affects Qeshm Island’s culture

socio-cultural impacts were identified and emerged as two factors. Residents recognise geotourism as a vehicle for changing their existing social structures. This finding is further supported by Shahhoseini et al. (2017) who stated that as a result of cultural exchange, the social structure of some families who are in direct contact with tourists, has been changed, and they have access to a greater degree of freedom within this new concept. Additionally, 69.5% of respondents perceive cultural exchange as a definite contribution of geotourism in Qeshm Island. Many Qeshm Island women, some for the first time in their life, are now participating in their local economy and this is a significant achievement for

the development of the geopark. Also, according to the results, 41% of respondents were female, which confirms the significant roles of women in the Qeshm Island community.

7.6.3 Environmental Impacts The environment is the primary fundamental resource of Qeshm Island where geotourism activity occurs and where the Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark is located. The results show that environmental impacts are perceived as being more positive than negative. 56.4% of the residents disagreed that any environmental damage has occurred with

104

S. Khodayar et al.

Fig. 7.5 Socio-cultural aspects. Upper left: Qeshm UNESCO Global Geopark visitor sign. Upper right: Traditional dance, Razif Khani. lower left: Local guest house. Lower right: Handicraft shop, Borka Khalaf. Source Shahrzad Khodayar (2017)

geotourism on the Island. Locals’ motivation to protect natural resources is highly supported (78.5%). The majority (77.1%) reported that the physical appearance of the Qeshm Island has improved as result of geo-development. Respondents disagreed on increasing environmental contamination (42.1%), and natural damages caused by geotourism activities (56.4%). Locals also denied the negative environmental impacts. For instance, 60.2% of respondents disagreed that noise increased during the peak season because of tourists. Additionally, the increase of environmental contamination is denied by 42.1% of the respondents. However, conducting training for locals in the Qeshm Island Geopark has led to a high awareness and appreciation for the need to protect the natural environment. The community-oriented non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and volunteers are significantly involved in conservation activities in Qeshm Island Geopark such as saving the Hawksbill sea turtles’ eggs program, which is one of the endangered species in the world,

volunteering for trash collection and clean-up within the geosites (QeshmGeopark 2018; Farsani et al. 2012).

7.7

Residents’ Attitudes Towards Geotourism Impacts in Qeshm Island

Respondents’ attitudes towards geotourism are presented in Fig. 7.6. This figure shows that the positive advantage of socio-cultural impacts is cited most frequently by respondents (32.0%). In addition, positive economic impacts included improved job opportunities for locals (29.0%). Additionally, 15.0% of respondents stated both positive and negative impacts of government resulting from geotourism development in Qeshm Island. Residents’ attitudes toward geotourism impacts are positive. Most respondents (93.6%) presented an overall positive attitude towards the impacts of geotourism. They confirmed that geotourism has contributed to increased job

7

Residents’ Perceptions of Geotourism in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Iran

105

Fig. 7.6 Residents’ responses to geotourism in Qeshm Island

N e g a ti v e l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t

8%

Positive local government

7%

Impacts

Negative socio-cultural

11%

Positive socio-c ultural Negative economic

32% 3%

Positive economic

29%

Negative environmental Positive environmental

9% 1%

0%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Percentage of respondents

and investment opportunities for locals in Qeshm Island, especially in rural areas (72.2%), purported that geotourism increased incentives for locals to conserve traditional Qeshmi culture (76.4%), and agreed that geotourism increased locals’ motivations to protect their natural resources (78.5%). Although a majority of respondents were positive regarding the overall impacts of geotourism in Qeshm, more than a quarter (27.4%) of the residents had a negative view about the impacts of geotourism development on Qeshm Island. According to residents’ responses, this attitude is reflected from a poor geotourism strategy and lack of official support in this area especially during off-seasons. Residents also stated an inequality of geotourism benefit distribution within the island where the towns close to the city of Qeshm received more socio-economic advantage due to the presence of tourists. This finding is critically important as geotourism has become the main and only source of income for many families in Qeshm rural areas. Geotourism has contributed significantly to poverty alleviation in this area by linking the local economy with geotourism’s net benefits. Residents cited the positive advantages of socio-cultural impacts (e.g., learning from different cultures, increasing motivation, empowering women, improving locals’ culture, etc.) as the most prominent reason for their overall attitude towards geotourism. The frequency of positive socio-cultural impacts explained the value of 32% of the eight total impacts found through residents’ responses.

7.8

Conclusion

This study investigated the perceptions of residents to geotourism development on Qeshm Island through a survey of 266 residents. Their perceptions were that geotourism generated economic benefits through the creation of jobs but there is a negative in that jobs are seasonally based and a dependency on geotourism for locals is emerging. Positive socio-cultural impacts included making friends with tourists, learning from different cultures, meeting new people, an increased responsibility towards protecting geopark for future generations, increased community pride, the empowerment of women, and the protection of locals’ culture. However, negative socio-cultural impacts raised include the need for greater security for tourists and locals, locals’ traditional customs lost among youth, and the rudeness of tourists. The most frequently mentioned environmental benefit of geotourism development was an increase in environmental preservation and the most adverse environmental impact noted was an increase in pollution. Positive local governmental impacts include Qeshm becoming known globally, the region being improved, an increase in officials’ attention and greater connection with the capital and centre of the province. However, offsetting these were negative local governmental impacts such as poor public facilities, no entrance fee for most of the geosites, and officials not supporting the locals.

106

Overall, respondents generally held a reasonably positive view concerning the impacts of geotourism in their community. Most of the respondents (93.6%) agree that they are happy with the development of geotourism on Qeshm Island but that there is an uneven distribution of benefits. However, they regard the positive socio-cultural and environmental impacts as outweighing the negative impacts.

References Amrikazemi A (2004) Atlas of the Qeshm geotourism, a look at the geological features of the Qeshm Island. Geological Survey of Iran, Tehran Amrikazemi A, Mehrpooya A (2006) Geotourism resources of Iran. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 78–92 Beigi H (2017) Geotourism of anthropological works of Central Plateau of Iran. Palma J 16:294–299 Diedrich A, García-Buades E (2009) Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tour Manage 30(4):512–521 Dowling RK (2018) Geotourism and geoparks. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 276-291 Dowling RK, Newsome D (2018) Geotourism—definition, characteristics and international perspectives. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp p1-22 Doxey GV (1975) A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences. Paper presented at the impact of tourism. In: 6th Annual conference proceedings. Travel research association Eshraghi M, Ahmad H, Toriman ME (2012) Contribution of geomorphological assessment for sustainable geotourism: A case of Iran’s Desert. Adv Environ Biol 6(3):1188–1195 Farsani NF, Coelho C, Costa C (2012) Geotourism and geoparks as gateways to socio-cultural sustainability in Qeshm Rural Areas iran. Asia Pac J Tour Res 17(1):30–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10941665.2011.610145 Farsani NT, Coelho COA, Costa CMM, Amrikazemi A (2014a) Geo-knowledge management and geoconservation via geoparks and geotourism. Geoheritage 6(3):185–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-014-0099-7 Farsani NT, Taheri S, Tazeh M, Malekzadeh F (2014b) Desert ecomuseum positioning: Yazd Province, (IRAN). Acta Geoturistica 5(2):37–44 Farsani N, Mortazavi M, Bahrami A, Kalantary R, Bizhaem F (2017) Traditional crafts: a tool for geo-education in geotourism. Geoheritage 9(4):577–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0211-2 Ghazi JM, Ólafsdóttir R, Tongkul F, Ghazi JM (2013) Geological features for geotourism in the western part of Sahand Volcano NW Iran. Geoheritage 5(1):23–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-0120071-3 Habibi T, Ruban DA (2017) Outstanding diversity of heritage features in large geological bodies: The gachsaran formation in southwest Iran. J Afr Earth Sc 133:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci. 2017.05.010

S. Khodayar et al. Habibi T, Ruban DA (2018) Geoheritage of the Neyriz ophiolite-related radiolarite sequence (Cretaceous; southwest Iran): First report and evaluation in regional and global contexts. J Afr Earth Sc 145:227– 233 Habibi T, Golubova NV, Ruban DA (2017) New evidence of highly-complex geo- logical heritage in Iran: Miocene sections in the Zagros fold-thrust belt. GeoResJ 13:96–102. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.grj.2017.04.001 Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2014) Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn, Pearson new international edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, N.J Honey M (2008) Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise?, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington DC Huh C, Vogt CA (2008) Changes in residents’ attitudes toward tourism over time: A cohort analytical approach. J Travel Res 46(4):446– 455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507308327 Khabazi M, Fahimi far, A, Eshtehardian E, Nohesara M, Rohanifard Z (2015) Geotouristic evaluation of hot-water fountains using modified Pralong method Case study: Cheshmeh- Abgarm-Jooshan fountain of Kerman. Naqshejahan 5(3):18–28. http://bsnt.modares. ac.ir/article-2-11584-en.html Kim AK, Brown G (2012) Understanding tourist perspectives on geotourism experience: Implications for destination development. Tour Rev Int 16(1):45–57. https://doi.org/10.3727/ 154427212X13431568321546 Kourosh Niya A, Huang J, Kazemzadeh-Zow A, Karimi H, Keshtkar H, Naimi B (2020) Comparison of three hybrid models to simulate land use changes: a case study in Qeshm Island iran. Environ Monit Assess 192(5):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661020-08274Lee TH (2013) Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tour Man 34:37–46. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.007 Maghsoudi M, Moradi A, Moradipour F, Nezammahalleh MA (2019) Geotourism development in World Heritage of the Lut Desert. Geoheritage 11(2):501-516. 0.1007/s12371-018-0303-2d Nabavi M (2000) Geotourism. Paper presented at the 18th Iranian Symposium of Geosciences, Tehran, Iran, pp 12–16 Nunkoo R, Ramkissoon H (2012) Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Ann Tour Res 39(2):997–1023. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.annals.2011.11.017 Ozturk AB, Ozer O, Çaliskan U (2015) The relationship between local residents’ perceptions of tourism and their happiness: a case of Kusadasi Turkey. Tour Rev 70(3):232–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/ TR-09-2014-0053 Park M, Stokowski PA (2009) Social disruption theory and crime in rural communities: Comparisons across three levels of tourism growth. Tour Man 30(6):905–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2008.11.015 Pourahmad A, Hosseini A, Pourahmad A, Zoghi M, Sadat M (2018) Tourist value assessment of geotourism and environmental capabilities in Qeshm Island Iran. Geoheritage 10:687–706. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-017-0273-9 QeshmGeopark (2018) Volunteering and community-based activity in Qeshm Island UGGp. Retrieved from http://www.qeshmgeopark.ir/ en/posts/view/91 QeshmOfficials (2018) Reducing the phenomenon of smuggling requires a National Self-Determination. Retrieved from http:// www.portal.qeshm.ir/en/news-byid/2469 Sadry BN (2009) Fundamentals of Geotourism: with a special emphasis on Iran. Samt Organization Publishing, Tehran, Tehran

7

Residents’ Perceptions of Geotourism in Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark, Iran

Seyedi M, Dalfardi S (2015) Evaluating of kerman province’s geomorphosites by using prolong. Desert 20(1):57–63 Shafiei Z, Farsani NT, Abdollahpour M (2017) The benefit of geo-branding in a rural geotourism destination: Isfahan iran. Geoj Tour Geosites 19(1):96–103 Shahhoseini H, Modabberi S, Shahabi M (2017) Study of factors influencing the attitude of local people toward geotourism development in Qeshm National Geopark iran. Geoheritage 9:35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0171-y StatisticalCenter (2016) Census 2016: Population and household of the country by province and Sub-province. Retrieved 2017, from Presidency of the I.R.I Plan and Budget Organization https://www. amar.org.ir/Portals/0/census/1395/results/chnsonvm-1395.pdf UNESCO (2017b) Qeshm Island UNESCO Global Geopark (Islamic Republic of Iran). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ natural-sciences/envi-ronment/earth-sciences/unesco-globalgeoparks/list-of-unesco-global-ge-oparks/iran/qeshm-island/ Yalgouz-Agaj AG, Ardebil L, Karimdoust S (2010) Identification of some of the geotourism sites in Iran. World Appl Sci J, 11 (11):1342–1347. ISSN 1818–4952 Yazdi A, Emami MH, Shafiee SM (2014) Dasht-e Lut in Iran, the most complete collection of beautiful geomorphological phenomena of desert. Open J Geol 4(6):249–261. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojg. 2014.46019 Yazdi A, Foudazi M, Dabiri R, Faraji F (2015) Geomorphosites and geotourism in the Kavir National Park (Central Iran). Curr World Environ 10(3):1055–1064 Zarei M, Fatemi MR, Mortazavi MS, Pourebrahim S, Ghoddousi J (2016) Selection of the optimal tourism site using the ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS in the framework of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A case of Qeshm Island. Ocean Coast Manag 130:179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.06

107

Shahrzad Khodayar is a master’s degree by Research graduate from Edith Cowan University, Australia in Business. Her research interests are mainly focused on Geotourism, Sustainable Tourism Planning and Policies, and Ecotourism. She is currently working as a Data Scientist at Smartest Energy.

Ross Dowling AM is Emeritus Professor of Tourism in the School of Business & Law, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia. He has a BSc (Geology), MSc [Hons] (Geography) and Ph.D (Environmental Science). Professor Dowling conducts international research in the fields of geotourism, ecotourism and cruise ship tourism and has over 200 publications in these fields including sixteen books. He has a deep interest in the development of Geotourism and Geoparks and he is a passionate advocate for the establishment of UNESCO’s Global Geoparks in Australia and around the world. He is the Foundation Chair of the Australian Geoparks Network. He fosters regional development through Geotourism globally and he convened the world’s first three conferences on Geotourism in Australia (2008), Malaysia (2010) and the Sultanate of Oman (2011). For his contributions to tourism education & development, conservation and higher education he has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia (2011) as well as being made a Member of the Order of Australia (2019).

Gregory Willson is a Senior Lecturer and Course Coordinator of Tourism and Hospitality Management in the School of Business and Law at Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia. His research interests focus on the accessibility of tourism, particularly for individuals living with a disability or illness.

8

Geotourism in Light of Potential Geoheritage and Geoparks in Iraq Salih Muhammad Awadh

Abstract

8.1

Geoparks are unique natural geographic areas in which sites and landscapes of global geological importance can be managed to provide protection, education, and sustainable development. Geoparks revives recreational and scientific tourism to create sustainable local development under the auspices of local and international authorities. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) hosts many geoparks and aspires to include the most significant possible number of countries and expand global participation. Geopark aims to protect biodiversity and geo-heritage through the participation of local communities, increase the level of awareness and understanding of environmental and resource issues, as it includes the optimal and sustainable use of land resources, mitigating the effects of climate change, and reducing the effects of disasters such as earthquakes and landslides. Iraq includes geological and archaeological sites belonging to ancient civilizations, which left a vast heritage that was and still is the focus of tourists' attention. Therefore, it is worth activating tourism activity through education towards geo-tourism as a recreational community activity that combines culture, science, and economy. Keywords

Geotourism




Mesopotamia



Iraq

Geosites




S. M. Awadh (&) Department of Geology, College of Science, Univesity of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq e-mail: [email protected]

Geoparks

Introduction

Iraq is known as Mesopotamia, a Greek word meaning “the land between two rivers,” these are Tigris and the Euphrates. These rivers rise in the Anatolian highlands to the north and merge before flowing into the Arabian Gulf. Iraq has the first civilizations; its land is rich in many different and multiple archaeological sites. From the inception of creation and the Gardens of Eden to prehistoric civilizations, Ur civilization, Akkadian civilization, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Aramaic, Roman, Greek, Persian and Islamic civilizations; from the Tower of Babylon and the Ishtar Gate to the ziggurat, the city of Hatra, the Iwan of Khosrau, the Mallawiyah, the Mustansiriya school and many others. The ancient Mesopotamian civilizations−the Sumerian, the Akkadian, the Assyrian, the Babylonian, and the Chaldean (Neo-Babylonian)−built great cities and governments, developed agriculture, writing, mathematics and astronomy. From here, it becomes clear that Iraq possesses archaeological sites belonging to ancient civilizations that left a vast heritage that was and still is the focus of tourists’ attention. Hence, it is worthwhile to activate the tourism action toward these monuments that are in harmony with the environmental and geodiversity. In this chapter, we try to cover the most significant tourism places in geotourism except the Kurdistan region in northern Iraq. The reader in the Middle East, or the Arab reader, in particular, may not find studies, research and references specialized in geotourism because of its scarcity or absence. A beginner in this specialization may find it challenging to understand the practical aspect of geotourism, because he is unfamiliar with the program's goals and benefits. All the reasons combined with other reasons that require the development of this specialization and focus on it came as an incentive to write this chapter to be a basic reference and guide that meets the desire of the amateur and the specialized researchers. The main purpose of this chapter is to educate the public about geotourism as a globally known “but unfortunately neglected locally”

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_8

109

110

S. M. Awadh

activity by building a geotourism approach that will be sufficient to create sustainable development of geological sites. This chapter focuses on geo-tourism patterns in Iraq, some practical considerations for community-based eco-tourism and their connection to geoparks and natural heritage, highlighting the most important frameworks for this particular tourism pattern with its aesthetic, social, economic, scientific and security features. Such goals are stated to educate visitors to understand the geological features surrounding them and to practice the type of travel that preserves the geological character of the site and enhances its touristic, scientific, cultural, and economic values toward achieving sustainable development for the local people.

8.2

Geo-Tourism and Community Ecotourism

Tourism is the world's largest industry, accounting for 11% of the total jobs, and total tourist trips are estimated to be 1.6 billion by 2020. It, therefore, has a positive or negative impact on both people and nature (Denman 2001). Eco-tourism relies typically on the local policies and guidelines which relate to local circumstances and requires a proactive approach aimed at mitigating the adverse effects and strengthening the positive effects of natural tourism. Community-based eco-tourism relies on several factors: planning, potential natural sites, financing, partnerships, education and training, sustainable development, and other activities. Geotourism is also overlapped with eco-tourism, one of the most important economic resources for many countries worldwide. Although it has a low environmental impact, it contributes to the local economy, engenders cross-cultural exchange, and fosters environmental education. It is considered a type of industry called the tourism industry. The most important foundations on which this industry is based are: 1. Low impact on the environment, so it is an alternative to environmentally damaging industries 2. Conservation and protection of the environment 3. Preservation of local culture and natural heritage and strengthening its roots 4. Encouragement of environmental education (Bayram et al. 2017) 5. Engendering cross-cultural exchange 6. Contribution to the local economy and generating income for the local population 7. Contribution to the citizen globalization. Iraq is an ancient country with an incredible history. Iraq’s geographical nature makes it one of the significant tourist countries. It has sites with aesthetic, recreational and

scientific values, including what is spreading in the desert environment, as there are mines and quarries for limestone, clay minerals and sand, especially silica sand, which is extracted by traditional methods, and many others. Iraq is rich in sites belonging to the aquatic environment. It has rivers, lakes, springs, marshes, and waterfalls. As well as the mountainous areas, deep valleys, outstanding escarpments, and extraordinary beauty and majesty are beyond imagination. This is the case in most of Iraq's rich cities with heritage and civilization. The visitors to such sites can enjoy the beauty of the landscape, especially in the mountainous areas and the desert, and can enjoy learning about folklore, museums and local heritage, libraries and exhibitions near the heritage areas. The desert nature, aquatic nature, folded and mountainous, and town nature create a nice atmosphere for visitors.

8.3

Potential Geoparks in Iraq

Iraq is rich in unique geological sites with great scientific values that meet the criteria requirements to be geoheritage or geoparks that can help activate the geotourism. Natural heritage and geopark sites are spread in different Iraq locations; some are mostly located in the Western Desert. This chapter was achieved based on various fieldwork done during different time interval focusing on distinct geological sites and classified them as groups; (1) Rutba Group that include: The Ga'ara Depression, Tal Al-Nsr, Um Chamin Depression, opened mines (phosphates, silica sand, clay minerals, sedimentary iron stones), some distinct geomorphological features include hills, mesas, cuestas, valleys, dams, caves, karsts and sinkholes, Attractive geobotany (plant species related to lithology), and fossiliferous Jurassic forest. (2) Heet-Kubaisa Group includes sulfurous springs, bitumen seepages, Small sabkhas, archaeological sites and geobotany-related environmental conditions. (3) Baghdadi-Hadetha Group includes Salman Roza sinkhole, morphotectonic features (valleys and river), faults and unconformities, sulfurous springs, and Oligocene coral reef. (4) Heet-Ramadi Group includes bitumen seepages, River terraces, mines, Habbania lake and sulfurous springs (Rahaliya and Ain Al-Tamur). (5) Karbala-Najaf Group includes Razzaza lake, sulfurous springs, Abu-Jir fault, Tar Al-Sayed, and Tar Al-Najaf, and Al-Akhaider palace. Al-Muthanna Group includes Sawa Lake, Sinkhole (Nukrat Al-Salman), sand dunes, Samawa Salt, Warkaa or Uruk in Sumerian (the city of Gilgamesh) and the Grand Mosque. Each site of those has one or more of globally outstanding values. Some of these sites have educational value, whilst others have religious importance in addition to the exceptional aesthetic and historical values. Other significant sites are found in Iraq, such as Ahwar in southern Iraq, which is

8

Geotourism in Light of Potential Geoheritage and Geoparks in Iraq

recorded in the UNESCO list under the title “The Ahwar of southern Iraq: Refuge of biodiversity and the relict landscape of the Mesopotamian cities”.

8.3.1 Rutba Group 8.3.1.1 Ga’ara Depression Ga’ara Depression is located roughly 50 km north of Rutba town in the Western Desert of Iraq. It represents an eroded structural large dome, in which the oldest formations (Ga’ara Formation) exposed in the Western Desert belong to the Paleozoic era (Permo-Carboniferous). It covers by the Mullusa Formation, forming a picturesque view of the hills called the Al-Afayif Hills (Fig. 8.1). A wonderful scene for tourism and education can be enjoyed, as it includes exposures and economic mines for pure silica sands, white kaolinite, attapulgite, and sedimentary iron deposits. The sedimentary iron includes various iron oxide types forming a very distinct site called Chabd Al-Abed (Fig. 8.2), which means a liver of a servant because it contains black, cubic, and rhombic rocks that appear to the viewer as pieces of a liver. The site has historical and heritage importance that reflects man's interaction with the environment. Some tales mention that the pre-Islamic poet “Antara bin Shaddad” built a palace for his beloved “Abla” in this place before the Islamic era, and the place is still called Al-Qusair. It also represented the route of trade caravans to the Levant. Many stories and myths about devils and elves are still circulating

111

among the people, as they believed they lived there. Visitors can reach this site from Rutba town through various roads, where a residential camp for the mines guard is available on site. The nearest population center is Akashat city, which is located to the west of the site. Drinking water is available from wells of groundwater in the area. The surrounding land is a good pasture for sheep and camels. The geomorphology varies between plains, valleys, hills, and plateaus, with the presence of karst depressions arising from severe dissolution of limestone rocks. Wild pigeon birds live in the karst depression. By visiting the site, the visitor enjoys the beauty of the desert and sees the various earth forms, quarries, and mines, including various natural resources like glass sand, iron, and different types of clay minerals. It is also possible to visit Ubaila Dam, located in the Ubaila valley, 7 km to the north of Rutba.

8.3.1.2 Tal Al-Nsr Two small hills are distinguished by their shape, appearance, and rock type from those around them in the desert. They are hills composed of large masses of black in color rocks due to the desert varnish consisting of white orthoquartzite (Fig. 8.3). This site is located about 60 km north of Rutba on the road leading to the Ga’ara depression. Visitor to this place enjoys the beauty of nature, including land diversity and the multiple types of natural plants and pastures. Before sunset, the visitor can see flocks of wild pigeons that descend towards the ground to enter the underground caves and sinkholes, which also constitute environmental diversity.

Fig. 8.1 Al-Afayif hills in the ga’ara formation. Source The author (2022)

112

S. M. Awadh

8.3.1.3 Um Chamin Depression This site is a unique pattern in the Western Desert, as it is characterized by a shape of an oval crater that resembles the meteorite impact with dimensions of 1370  2500 m (Fig. 8.4). Geologists’ opinions differed as some went to the fact that it was a meteorite crater, and others interpreted it as dissolving limestone. In any case, it remains a distinguished site that brings joy to visitors. It is located southwest of Rutba, near the Jordan-Saudi border. It can be reached easily on the desert road via flat plain land.

Fig. 8.2 Chabd Al-Abed in the ga’ara depression. Source The author (2022)

8.3.1.4 Mines The Western Desert in Iraq is considered one of the wealthiest and most economical lands, as it contains various natural resources. The Rutba site occupies a vast area of the desert, as it contains many natural resources that have been partially extracted and are still rich in vast reserves of these diverse resources. Phosphate and silica sand glass are among the most prominent natural resources extracted from mines; silica sand is considered the purest in the world (Fig. 8.5). The visitor can view, enjoy, and learn about silica sand production. They have provided many job opportunities that granted self-protection for sites and achieved sustainable development. 8.3.1.5 Distinctive Geomorphological Features The desert is characterized by exited geomorphological diversity. When the visitor walks on his roads in the plains, he sees on both sides of the road scattered groups of isolated hills and continuous chains, and there are broad plateaus that include interesting plant diversity as well as biodiversity.

Fig. 8.3 General view of part of Tal Al-Nsr composing of large masses of orthoquartzite. Source The author (2022)

Fig. 8.4 Top view of Um Chamin depression in the Western Desert of Iraq

8

Geotourism in Light of Potential Geoheritage and Geoparks in Iraq

113

Fig. 8.5 Silica sand mine in the Western Desert of Iraq. Source The author (2022)

8.4

Heet-Kubaysa Group

8.4.1 Sulfurous Springs and Bitumen Seepages The city of Heet is located on exciting fault plains that reach great depths, where solutions of various origins rise to the surface in the form of springs. Sulfur water springs are mineral waters, some of which are used for therapeutic purposes and saps. Another type of spring can be seen. A sulfurous spring contains bitumen and asphalt with a lot of hydrogen sulfide gas (Fig. 8.6). These springs are located close to the Euphrates River, which expands in these areas to pass between palm groves with a wonderful view.

8.4.2 Small Sabkhas Geobotany This site is rich in plant diversity due to the local ecological diversity. Very saline solutions come out to the surface, forming small pools, and then evaporating, resulting in salinization of the surface soil. Salinity-resistant plants grow on these soils, while plants of other types grow around them, thus creating a plant growth that deserves attention. This phenomenon shows the interdependence of soil type and plants.

Fig. 8.6 Sulfurous spring water on which asphalt and bitumen floated. Source The author (2022)

8.4.3 Archaeological Sites The location of Heet on the bank of the Euphrates River made it an exceptional tourist place among the cities of Iraq. This is in addition to the tourist attractions that the city embraces after most civilizations passed through it. Among

114

S. M. Awadh

its most famous landmarks are the springs of Al-Qayr, Tar that was used for the embalming of kings, sulfur water springs, castles, ancient archaeological houses, shrines and graves, churches, and ancient monasteries. One of the most important places in the city of Heet is the Al-Faruq Mosque, which was built during the caliphate of Omar bin Al-Khattab at the time of the Islamic State. A museum that was built and called the Martyr Museum of Heritage contains a vast and valuable collection of ancient history books.

Haditha and is closer to Haditha in western Anbar. Many stories indicate that a meteorite fell that led to its formation, which geologists do not believe. Instead, it is a depression that is caused by the dissolving of limestones. It was named Khasfa Salman Roza because Salman Roza, an old and professional driver, fell in with his car at night in the fifties of the last century. The traces of the car are still present now.

8.5.3 Morphotectonic Features

8.5

Baghdadi-Hadetha Group

8.5.1 Al-Baghdadi and Euphrates River Al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi city that is administratively affiliated to the Heet District in Anbar Governorate (west of Iraq). It is strategically important because it is located five kilometers from the Ain al-Assad base, which houses hundreds of American soldiers, officers, and military advisers. Previously, the city is also called Khan Al-Baghdadi; it was considered a tourist area where a lighthouse was built during the Fatimids and is famous for its green orchards and extension over an area of more than 20 km. With its privileged location on the banks of the Euphrates River (Fig. 8.7), it possessed spectacularviews that prevent a sense of comfort and relaxation for visitors.

8.5.2 Salman Roza Sinkhole It is also locally called ‘Khasfa Umm al-Tal’ or ‘Khasfa Salman Roza’ (Fig. 8.8) which is a very deep depression located on the main street between the cities of Anah and

Valleys, rivers, faults, and unconformities in the site are formed as a response to the tectonic. The geodiversity prevails in this site, where the land southwest of the Euphrates River is characterized by highlands and plateaus interspersed with valleys that resemble canyons. Many exposures available for important geological formations constitute an educational value for many geological concepts; for example, the unconformity between the Oligocene and Miocene which appears as a basal conglomerate separating the shallow facies downward and the deep facies upward, indicating a tectonic movement.

8.5.4 Wadi Hajlan The Wadi Hajlan is a valley that contains natural springs characterized by sulfurous water that treats many skin diseases. The place attracts many people to visit which visitors enjoy a group of mineralized sulfur springs that form a stream that flows into the Euphrates River and is considered a worthwhile bathing resort or spa in the Wadi Hajlan region, a good place for healing and tourism.

Fig. 8.7 A general view of the Euphrates river near Al-Baghdadi city shows waterwheels that are run by the water current lifting water to the farms, it is an old Iraqi invention, which is an environment friend tool. Source The author (2022)

8

Geotourism in Light of Potential Geoheritage and Geoparks in Iraq

115

Fig. 8.8 Salman Roza depression, a sinkhole of strange shape. Source The author (2022)

8.5.5 Oligocene Coral Reef An ancient fossiliferous coral reef dating back to the Oligocene (Fig. 8.9) is estimated to be more than 24 million years old. These exposures’ scientific and aesthetic value is evident, especially as they occupy a cliff overlooking a valley group that includes many sulfur springs that end in the Euphrates River, which is not far more than 200 m.

8.6

Heet-Ramadi Group

8.6.1 Bitumen Seepages The word “naft” means oil and is derived from the Assyrian Akkadian word, napta, which was used for liquid petroleum in Mesopotamia. Many travellers and geographers have been

Fig. 8.9 A typical patch of coral reef belongs to the Oligocene within Anah Formation. Source The author (2022)

116

S. M. Awadh

Fig. 8.10 Bitumen seeps through gypsum of Fat’ha Formation (Middle Miocene) near Heet town. Source The author (2022)

Fig. 8.11 River terraces around the Euphrates River Source The author (2022)

amazed by the abundance of oil and bitumen seep in Mesopotamia. In many Mesopotamian cities, ancient civilizations used bitumen as waterproof material in building walls for temples, houses, and paving roads. The Book of Genesis mentioned that bitumen was used as mortar in the Tower of Babel and that the prophet Noah caulked his ship with this substance (Sorkhabi 2009). The town of Heet, located on the bank of the Euphrates, was so famous for its bitumen springs that the Akkadian word “iddu” for bitumen derived from the name of this town. The Roman historian Didor Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica, II:12) wrote in 50 B.C, and he mentioned that “Several incredible miracles occur in the Babylonian civilization, there is none such as the great quantity of asphalt found there. It is not only sufficient for so many and such large buildings, but the yield, as with a rich well, remains inexhaustible”. Oil and bitumen seeps can be seen at various locations around the town of Heet. Leaks are mainly exposed with the middle Miocene gypsum of the Fah’ha Formation (Fig. 8.10). Another type of leakage can be found in the sulfurous springs, which man has used since ancient times as waterproof material in building ceilings and is still used nowadays.

value for teaching some geological concepts in terrestrial processes. Some quarries from which limestone, sand and pebbles and gypsum are extracted can be seen in the area. There are traditional quarries that provide a living income for the local people.

8.6.3 Habbania Lake and the Sulfurous Springs of Rahaliya and Ain Al-Tamur It is one of the largest storage reservoirs located just south of the Euphrates between Ramadi and Falluja, 85 km west of Baghdad. Some animal species breed on islands that were formed during periods of high water levels. It is a resting area for many birds that pass through the area as it is considered a wetland of biodiversity. There is an integrated tourist city near the lake that includes all service facilities such as hotels, swimming pools, restaurants, and games as well as the availability of swimming pelage. In addition to the Habbania lake, a set of springs are located around Rahaliya and Ain Al-Tamur.

8.7

Karbala-Najaf Group

8.6.2 River Terraces and Mines 8.7.1 AL-Razzaza Lake The place is presented with a realistic view that conveys the visitor to a comfortable atmosphere. At this place, visitors can see the river terraces (Fig. 8.11) formed by the Euphrates River’s action over a wide range of time. In addition to its beautiful scenery, which gives an aesthetic touch to the place and tolerates the terrestrial diversity, it presents the scenario of the past, which can be of scientific

AL‐Razzaza Lake is a large reservoir located in the middle part of Iraq. It receives water from Habbaniya Lake. The lake is characterized by geodiversity, as it has sandy and rock beaches, with some valleys that bring rainwater to the lake. Some of its sides are rich in vegetation, such as reeds. This diversity in terrain has enhanced the biodiversity in the

8

Geotourism in Light of Potential Geoheritage and Geoparks in Iraq

117

Fig. 8.13 Morpho diversity in the site Source The author (2022) Fig. 8.12 Artesian well in the desert. Source The author (2022)

8.7.4 Tar Al-Sayed and Tar Al-Najaf

region, bringing many types of birds, and it is considered an important bird area according to international bird life standards. Al-Razzaza Lake has some sort of local tourism importance in Iraq.

A group of caves locally called Al-Tar Caves located in central Iraq within the Karbala Governorate which is an outstanding example of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance. The caves were naturally built up on the western edge of the Karbala Plateau within the mudstone unit of the Injana Formation (Upper Miocene–Pliocene) roofed by pebbly sandstone of the Dibdibba Formation (Pliocene– Pleistocene) (Awadh et al. 2013). The plateau is mainly formed by the displacement of the eastern wall of a giant fault called Abu-Jir fault; the western side of the Plateau is characterized by steep cliffs that end in a wide plain depression 90 m below the plateau top (Fig. 8.14a). Lithostratigraphy exposed in the depression and underlain Injana Formation are Al-Dammam (Lower Miocene), Euphrates (Middle Miocene), and Nfayil (Upper Miocene). Surface covered by the Quaternary sediments composed mainly of sand sheets and gypsiferous soil (Hassan and Al-Khateeb 2005). Two geological formations exposed at the plateau cliffs are Injana and the Dabdaba formations having a distinct provenance scenario as they were derived from a wide range of igneous and metamorphic rocks. It is fascinating that the Injana Formation originated from the Taurus and Zagros belt in the north and northeastern Iraq, whereas the Dibdibba Formation was derived from the Arabian Shield in the south and southwest of Saudi Arabia (Awadh and Al-Ankaz 2016; Awadh 2022). The Injana Formation covers large areas of northern and central Iraq, whereas the Dibdaba Formation covers the southern and central regions of Iraq. The two formations overlap dramatically in central Iraq, particularly in the Al-Tar area. The Injana Formation

8.7.2 Sulfurous Springs and Artesian Wells A group of small springs flows with mineral water, around which small oases have grown. These springs can be invested in building healing swimming pools and used as spas. Studies suggest that clay rich in minerals can treat skin diseases that cause allergic reaction, as well as fungal infections. In addition, some groundwater wells and artesian wells are distributed in the region (Fig. 8.12).

8.7.3 Abu-Jir Fault One of the most prominent features of the site is the Abu-Jir Fault, which is distinguished by its ascending or hanging wall, which forms a plateau that rises about 90 m from the opposite ground representing the foot or descending wall. In these landmarks, an exciting land diversity was formed, such as valleys, caves, and beautiful landforms (Fig. 8.13) that are formed by geological processes like weathering and erosion. Visitors can also find various shapes of sand dunes. This site’s value is the presence of heritage places such as Al-Akhaidir Palace, built in the Abbasid era and Al-Razzaza Lake, as well as some oases and small springs.

118

S. M. Awadh

Fig. 8.14 a A generalize view of the main part of the group of caves in the Al-Tar area located high on the Karbala Plateau (the hanging wall from the Abu-Jir Fault), while the wide plain appears to the west within the footwall; b Many caves organized on three floors, mostly within the mudstone layer of the Injana Formation, create a fantastic view that looks like a city with multi-storey buildings; c Giant cracks in mudstone of the Injana Formation show how the building up of caves evolved from small cracks developed by geological processes into large caves; d Biodiversity in Razzazah Lake; e Spring water formed a small oasis. Source The author (2022)

consists of a mudstone unit topped by a sand unit, it was divided into two units, a lower clastic unit and an upper cave-forming claystone unit (Hassan 2007), whilst the Dibdibba Formation is mainly composed of pebbly sandstone covered by a thin layer of Quaternary sediments dominated by gypsiferous soil. The site includes hundreds of caves are arranged along with three floors within the mudstone of the Injana Formation (Fig. 8.14b). These caves’ existence records the scenario of the geological processes that played their role nearly eight million years ago and are continuing until now. The process by which the caves were formed is almost unlike any other in terms of origin. The drying of the mudstone, the lower unit of the Injana Formation, which is about 9 m thick, has caused shrinkage due to the loss of moisture and eventually led to the formation of giant mud cracks, considered the greatest cracks in the world. The width of the crack ranges from a few centimeters to a few meters, and its height ranges from 1 to 9 m (Fig. 8.14c), taking into consideration that the process of building and developing caves is taking place simultaneously with the

collapse of some caves due to mass slides (Fig. 8.14d) (Awadh et al. 2013). The geological processes, mainly dissolution and exfoliation act in expanding the internal cracks and the wind action that acts on the exposed cracks. The sedimentary structure represented by mud balls plays a crucial role in the processes of cave evolution due to its easy response to exfoliation showing an attractive example of the differentiation weathering (Awadh et al. 2013). The mud balls act as two mechanisms for developing caves; if the cliff faces the windblown, mud balls resist erosion more than the surrounding clasts. Therefore, they initially look like prominent scars. Air weathering obliged the mud balls to fall, leaving small pits that soon expanded due to their response to the wind action forming semi-spherical caves. The side view of the mud cracks can be seen on the cliffs, which appear to the viewer as longitudinal cracks (Fig. 8.14c). These cracks formed an exceptionally good aquifer on the far eastern side of the plateau, as the layers tilted towards the east as they are formed interconnected tunnels that resemble a puzzle maze. Some caves appear

8

Geotourism in Light of Potential Geoheritage and Geoparks in Iraq

irregular, but others tend to be regular with rectangular shapes, enough for hosting human beings. It is evidence of men’s relationship with the environment and how to invest the earth’s resources for the benefit of people. This geosite is considered a geological heritage site or a potential geopark as it has educational, cultural, and religious values. The site includes structural features, sedimentary structures (mud cracks, mud balls, crossbedding), and different geomorphological features, including small and large caves, cracks, mesas, questa, plains, plateaus, and sand dunes. Razzazah Lake is located in the plain to the west of the cave group, which has exciting biodiversity (Fig. 8.14d), several springs and an oasis (Fig. 8.14e) (Awadh and Al-Ghani 2014). The visitor can enjoy collecting some semi-gemstones such as white and transparent quartz and peridot from the plateau's surface (Awadh and Al-Ankaz 2016). Some fossils can also be collected from close formations, such as the Euphrates Formation (Middle Miocene). Despite the attractive geomorphological features, visitors can enjoy structural elements like a fault, joint sets, and fractures; engineering aspects such as soil creep, sliding, and toppling. The geosite is distinguished by the prolonged-water discharge spring flow in the form of drops that has religious and spiritual for Muslims and is visited by tens of thousands annually. The religious value of this spring is because of a historical tale related to the son-in-law of the Prophet of Islam (Imam Ali), so it is called the Imam Ali dropper, which has value in the hearts of people and represents a living interaction of humans with the environment since thousands of years till now. The natural assets for sure are geological heritage, and in case of lack of protection, they will disappear (Çiftçia and Güngörb 2016). Geosite is enhanced sustainable development by enhancing man’s relationship with the environment, activating self-protection, and supporting various activities, as it provides job opportunities for the local population. Educational, cultural visits, and excursion activities can be organized under the umbrella of geotourism. The well-developed tourism industry involves business, entrepreneurship, and jobs opportunity for the local individuals. The tourism facilities need laborers to administrate tourism infrastructure like road and transportation to the tourism places, electricity, supplying fresh water, airports, hotels, restaurant, travel agents, shopping centers, art galleries, tourism guides, and other amusements (Endy Marlina 2016). Although the cave group in the Tar area is a geosite that enhances geotourism, the archaeological investigation is recommended for worth considering where because there are a lot of archaeological sites, such as the Al-Ukhaidir Fortress, which is built-in Abbasid and considered the most important existing work that is reflected in the greatness of the first Islamic architecture. It is also named Abbasid palace of Ukhaider; it is located middle of Iraq, roughly 50 km south of Karbala. It is a large, rectangular fortress

119

(176  146 m) of unique defensive style erected in 775 AD. Constructed by the Abbasid caliph As-Saffah’s nephew Isa ibn Musa (Creswell 1958). It is an outstanding defensive building of a distinctive military design in the Islamic world. It stands on a commercial route connecting Iraq with the outside world. Also, many archaeological sites for very ancient monasteries and churches need archaeological investigation.

8.7.5 Al-Akhaider Palace Al-Akhaydir Palace (Fig. 8.15) is located in the southwest of Karbala, fifty kilometers away from it, and about 192 km southwest of Baghdad. It is considered one of the most significant and most wonderful Islamic monuments that exist, not only in Iraq but in the entire world. It is one of the attractive tourist centers in the Middle East, where it is unique in its splendid architecture. The palace takes a rectangular shape, extending from north to south, with a length of 112 m, and from east to west, with a width of 82 m. The palace was located inside a sanctuary surrounded by a high square wall, 21 m high, 170 m long and 4 m thick. The wall is fortified with four towers rounded at the corners, the diameter of the tower is 5.10 m. On each side are ten round towers, each of which is 3.10 m in diameter. A series of high arches on prominent pillars are attached to the inner and outer sides of the wall. At the top of the wall is a defensive corridor circled and crossed by arrows, and there is a staircase in each of the inner corners of the wall. They all lead to the defensive corridors and the surface of the fence. In the middle of each side of the wall is a fortified gate, behind which is a vestibule equipped with a sliding iron grille and a spaciousness covered with a vault, and arrows pierce it. The northern gate is the main one, and it stands out in the form of a rectangle with a depth of 5.12 m and a facade of 15.90 m. It is penetrated by a vestibule whose dimensions are 3  5.80 m. On each side of the vestibule is an entrance that leads to two square rooms. Inside the wall are a huge two-tiered palace with halls, chapels, safes, and landfills. The palace’s northern side extends along the outer wall's northern side, and between them is a dividing corridor. The northern gate of the wall is the palace’s main gate as well. There is an independent urban group sandwiched between the palace’s eastern side and the outer wall’s eastern side.

8.8

Al-Muthana Group

8.8.1 Sawa Lake, Sinkhole Sawa lake is one of the strangest lakes in the world (Fig. 8.16). It is supplied with water from the bottom with

120

S. M. Awadh

Fig. 8.15 Al-Akhaidir fortress, The Abbasid palace located roughly 50 km south of Karbala, middle of Iraq

Fig. 8.16 General view of Sawa lake at sunset. Source The author (2022)

no river providing it. It can build up its wall from gypsum whenever the water level rises, so it does not overflow. It is located in the desert of Al-Muthana Governorate (Samawa) in southern Iraq, surrounded by rocks with gypsum deposits. The Sawa Lake formed ten thousand years ago, in the Holocene, the second and last epoch of the Quaternary

period. It is a structural depression formed due to the crossing faults. It is a land-locked lake with a maximum length of 4.74 km and maximum width of 1.77 km, isolated to the land by a gypsum barrier with a total path of 12.5 km surrounding the lake. The important geological features in the area are lake, rivers, valley, small caves in the gypsum wall of the lake, many types of sand dunes, halite deposits names Al-Samawa salt, iso-hills, and sinkholes. The major exposures display the Quaternary gypsum and limestone belongs to the Eocene and Miocene ages. These features can be used to develop the tourism sector and integrate it with the field of education and conservation of the environment and water resources. Due to the diversity of the geology, it can be considered a privileged location that can be used, for example, chemical precipitation processes, gypsum and halite precipitation, evaporation role in the desert, cave build-up, sand dune types, geomorphology, weathering and erosion, structure where a major fault locates beneath the lake, so it can be invested to teach students. Moreover, it is a recreation and healing site for some diseases, especially the skin and is done by swimming in the lake water as a spa and balneotherapy. Using the site for educational purposes will increase the tourism awareness of the local population. The establishment of a geopark in this site will contribute

8

Geotourism in Light of Potential Geoheritage and Geoparks in Iraq

effectively to the development of society and economic capabilities and allows women to contribute to show their abilities and skills such as crafts and some household industries and the provision of traditional meals, management, and others. The site will increase employment and contribute to reducing unemployment. Many sites in Al-Muthanna governorate bring visitors and add scientific, archaeological, and heritage value to the Sawa lake, for instance, Nukrat Al-Salman, sand dunes, Samawa Salt, Warkaa or Uruk in Sumerian (the city of Gilgamesh) and the Grand Mosque (Awadh 2022). Consequently, we strongly recommend protecting and developing these sites and pay much attention as they sure need service facilities to activate the tourism action.

8.9

Marshes of Southern Iraq

The marshes (Ahwar) of Iraq are considered one of the most important wetlands in the Middle East, which includes swamps and huge lakes, which are resting and hatching sites for many types of migratory birds and fish, in addition to the presence of mammals in the region, some of which are threatened with extinction. The Ahwar are marshlands and swamps located in southern Iraq, as in the past, they represented a fertile land, one of the largest deltas in the world formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Ancient civilizations arose on this land, the traces of which are still visible today. It includes three archaeological sites (Uruk, Ur and Tel Eridu), and four wetlands represented by beautiful marshes. The Uruk, Ur and Eridu cities represent what remains of the Sumerian cities and settlements that developed in southern Mesopotamia between the fourth and third millennium BCE in the swampy deltas of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The three archaeological cities had developed through the syn-Sumerian periods until the Babylonian and Hellenistic periods as religious, political, economic, and cultural centers. They were small island in the marsh water. The archaeological evidence and cuneiform texts, the first type of writing in history, documented the contribution of wetland landscapes to the development of religions, arts, cultures, and the close relationships between human and the environment in southern Mesopotamia. These marshes are sites for biodiversity as they are home to many types of birds, and a temporary habitat for migratory birds from different continents. In addition, some types of fish and shrimp swim against the water current from the Arabian Gulf, ascending to the marshes to be their final destination.

8.10

121

Mosul Geosite

Hammam Al-Alil in Ninevehvis distinguished by mineral water, which is chemically suitable for treating multiple diseases, including rheumatic diseases, inflammation of the vertebrae and joints, skin diseases, gynaecological diseases, infections, chronic tumours, nervousness, king disease and thyroid secretions.

8.11

Summary, Conservation, and Management

Iraq includes in most of its governorates many historic cities, castles, popular markets, museums, and exhibitions, which allows the visitor to the possible geopark sites to enjoy visiting these places, achieving cultural and environmental integration. Most local tourism in Iraq is represented by waterfalls, mountains, and summer resorts, as well as in the marshes of Iraq. Erbil's Sulaymaniyah's and Dohuk's summer resorts are among the most beautiful regions of Iraq. These have been excluded from this chapter and not mentioned here. Religious tourism, eco-tourism, coastal tourism, sports tourism, shopping tourism, Therapeutic and medical tourism, cultural tourism, and leisure tourism all are available in Iraq. Religious tourism flourishes in Iraq due to the presence of many shrines, mosques, and churches. Eco-tourism spreads on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers for the list of Iraq's marshes. Tourism is limited to spring and autumn due to the atmospheric conditions. The most important marshes are the Hammar and Al-Hawizeh marshes. Some lakes form beautiful tourist areas that tourists visit during the different seasons to enjoy their scenery and nature, such as Lake Al-Habbaniyah and Lake Al-Razzaza. Sports tourism in Iraq is considered one of the least attractive types of tourism for visitors due to the lack of sports facilities and the international championships that are held in Iraq. Therapeutic and medical tourism is represented by several springs. Hammam Al-Alil in Mosul, Ain al-Tamr in Karbala, Heet-Kubaysa springs and Wadi Hajlan in Anbar in Anbar, and Sawa lake in Samawa (Al-Muthana governorate) are distinguished by their chemical properties that are suitable for treating multiple diseases. The site is teeming with local tourists, and visitors from abroad also visit it for recovery. Regarding cultural tourism, Iraq has the first civilizations as its land is rich in huge archaeological sites. This feature reinforced other types of tourism. Tourism depends on many factors; accordingly, tourism is either inappropriate or responsible. As such,

122

practising inappropriate tourism will degrade habitats and landscapes, damage natural resources, forming waste and pollution, whereas responsible tourism generates awareness for site conservation and local culture and create economic opportunities for communities and countries as a whole. Overall, geoheritage places and geological sites are under threat suffering from omission and must be protected by the local authority, and residents should be educated to protect and preserve them.

References Al-Lami AA, Salim MA, Mohammed MK, Al-Zubaidi AA, Kareem SO, Al-Zaidawi AH, Al-Taweel DA, Salman KA, Khudair HA, Khaled WA, Abulhawa T (2014) Ahwar of Southern Iraq: Refuge of biodiversity and the relict landscape of the Mesopotamian cities. Nomination dossier for inscription of the property on the world heritage list. The Republic of Iraq Awadh SM, (2022) Geoparks and natural heritage in Iraq. Al-Esami Thair Print, Baghdad, (In press), (In Arabic),p 130 Awadh SM, Abood ZS, Eisa MJ (2013) Chemical and physical control processes on the development of caves in the Injana Formation, Central Iraq. Arab J Geosci 6(10):3765–3772 Awadh SM, Al-Ankaz ZS (2016) Geochemistry and petrology of Late Miocene-Pleistocene Dibdibba sandstone formation in south and central Iraq: implications for provenance and depositional setting. Arab J Geosci 9(8):1–4 Awadh SM, Al-Ghani SA (2014) Assessment of sulfurous springs in the west of Iraq for balneotherapy, drinking, irrigation and aquaculture purposes. Environ Geochem Health 36(3):359–373 Bayram GE, Ercan K, Ali TB (2017) The importance of ecotourism consciousness on tour guiding education. J Res Educ Teach (3), 40–50

S. M. Awadh Ciftci Y, Güngör Y (2016) Proposals for the standard presentation of elements of natural and cultural heritage within the scope of geopark projects. Bull Miner Res Exploration 153(153):223–238 Creswell KA (1958) A short account of early muslim architecture. Penguin Books. pp 201–203 Cuneo AE (2017) Heritage management challenges and changes in Northern Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein: The rise of Kurdistan and the Islamic State onslaught (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University) Denman R (2001) Guidelines for community-based eco-tourism development. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland Endy Marlina E (2016) Geotourism as a strategy of geosite empowerment towards the tourism sustainability in Gunungkidul Regency Indonesia. Int J Smart Home 10(5):131–150 Ghazi JM, Ólafsdóttir R, Tongkul F, Ghazi JM (2013) Geological features for geotourism in the western part of Sahand Volcano, NW Iran. Geoheritage 5(1):23–34 Hassan KM (2007) Stratigraphy of Karbala-Najaf area, Central Iraq. Iraqi Bull Geol Min. 3(2):53–62 Hassan KM, Al-Khateeb AA (2005) Piping in a cave-forming claystone-Injana Formation, Karbala–Najaf area. Iraqi Geol J, 109–116 Selley RC (2000) Applied sedimentology. Elsevier Sorkhabi R (2009) Oil from babylon to Iraq, Geo history Middle east. Geo Expro, the favourite petroleum geoscience magazine, vol 6 issue no 2

Salih Muhammad Awadh is a professor of geochemistry, got Ph.D from the University of Baghdad; and a Post Doctorate from Warsaw University– Poland. He is an academician staff at the University of Baghdad, College of Science, Department of Geology. He is an Editor-in-Chief of the Iraqi Geological Journal. His publications include 100 full-length original papers, five edited books, and three book chapters.

9

Geotourism in Jordan–The Potential for Developing Geotrails in the Wadis Mamoon Allan and Małgorzata Ludwikowska-Kędzia

Abstract

Jordan has a great potential to be a significant regional and international geotourism destination. However, there are several obstacles to develop the geotourism industry in Jordan, such the weakness of tourism supply and the lack of established geotrails for tourists undertaking geotourism experiences. This chapter describes a variety of geotrails in a sample of Wadis in Jordan. It is anticipated that these geotrails have the potential to enhance the social, economic, and environmental aspects for the local communities adjacent to the selected geosites sites. Moreover, the geotrails could enrich the nature and scope of the geotourists experiences. Keywords











Geotourism Geotourists Geosites Accessibility Geotrails Wadis Jordan The Middle East

9.1




Introduction–Geotourism and Geotourists

Geodiversity has a distinctive importance for both the biodiversity and for human communities, particularly for better understanding the history of the Earth, for its cultural/historical values or as a resource for tourism and leisure (Kubaliková et al. 2021). Thus, geotourism (tourism with a geological basis) has real possibilities to sustain, conserve and enhance our geological heritage, which M. Allan Faculty of Archeology and Tourism, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan e-mail: [email protected] M. Ludwikowska-Kędzia (&) Institute of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce, Poland e-mail: [email protected]

represents the communal memory of nature. More specifically, it involves a sustainable, viable and responsible tourism development that improves the wellbeing of local communities. It further offers a wholistic tourism experience and provides opportunities for tourists and local people to enhance their knowledge about the values of the geological tourism attractions (Allan 2015). In a similar vein, geotourism is sustainable tourism with a principal motivation on experiencing the earth’s geological characteristics in a manner that enhances environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation, and protection, and is locally useful. Therefore, it involves creating a geotourism product that conserves geoheritage, plays a major role in building local communities, and communicates and promotes geological heritage (Dowling 2013). Accordingly, increasing the awareness and attention toward geoconservation allied to the growth of geotourism in recent years, more geoparks are being established as areas of geoconservation and exploratory destinations for geotourism (Dong et al. 2014). Gordon (2018, p. 14) postulates that “Promoting the values of geotourism and the benefits to society has an essential part to play in gaining wider recognition for geoheritage and support for geo-conservation”. However, Chylińska (2019) surmises that “geotourism is a type of tourism which exists at the interface of cultural tourism (due to cognitive-cultural motives and the cultural character of parts of geosites), leisure tourism, adventure tourism, and ecotourism, whereas both by itself and within these forms, it occurs as so-called sustainable tourism”. Globally, the nature and scope of geotourism has flourished and different geotourism products have been established. Rural geotourism represents one of the geotourism products which is connected to rural tourism activities. Hence, geo-villages, especially stone villages, are major forms of rural geotourism destinations and are ideal for geotourism participants (Allan and Shavanddasht 2019). Recently, several countries have increased their focus on volcanoes as tourism attractions. For example, volcano

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_9

123

124

M. Allan and M. Ludwikowska-Kędzia

tourism has had significant growth in Iceland (Bird et al. 2010) and Japan has received more than 100 million tourists yearly to experience volcano tourism at Mount Fuji (Erfurt-Cooper and Cooper 2010). The Philippines has paid much attention to their rich heritage of volcanos and promoted them for tourists (Aquino et al. 2017). Currently geological tourists shape one segment of a broader group of tourists called ‘geotourists’. Geotourists with a main concentration on ‘geological’ features form one end of a spectrum of geotourists with those having a more ‘geographical’ concentration at the opposite end (Dowling et al. 2020). A geotourist could be defined as “an individual who visits a site has geological or geomorphic characteristics to view it and gain knowledge about its features” (Dowling and Allan 2018, p. 84). Arguably, the main motives of tourists undertaking a geotourism experience are relaxation, sense of wonder, and escape from the hustle and bustle of the daily life (Allan et al. 2015).

9.2

such as Wadi Rum. However, notwithstanding different advancements in geological tourism context in Jordan, there have been many obstacles that should be acknowledged: – The coordination and communication between geological authorities and other organizations such as those involved in tourism industry in Jordan is not particularly close – Protection and sustainability legislations, and laws in geological sites/geological values/geosites require improvement and update – Geotourism programs, as standalone tourism activities at geosites, are limited – There is a lack of geoheritage studies, databases, and projects – Accessibility of the geosites is still a barrier and the geotourism infrastructure, superstructure, amenities, and services are still limited – Interpretation process and centers for several geosites are still undeveloped and limited (Errami et al. 2015).

Geotourism in Jordan

The tourism industry in Jordan has achieved significant growth in the last decades and its contribution to the overall economy has increased markedly (Allan 2014). Tourism also helps in providing employment opportunities for the local communities’ adjacent tourist destinations. Therefore, according to MOTA (2019), more than 51,500 employees are working in the different sectors of tourism industry in Jordan. However, despite the advances in the different aspects of the tourism industry in Jordan, nature-based tourism types are still in their infancy in the tourism discourse, particularly, abiotic (non-living aspects of the environment such as the earth and climate) tourism. Also, the pertinent literature about nature-based tourism is still marked with several gaps and shortages. Studies of sustainable tourism in Jordan are still scant, and there is a need for greater research based on practices that enhance sustainability and its behavior in the tourism context (Allan and Allahham 2020). Similarly, despite the diversification and richness of geodiversity in Jordan, to date little attention and awareness had been paid to its geoheritage and geological tourism sites. Furthermore, the awareness towards the geotourism concept and activities amongst the public is still absent (Allan 2015). The main obstacle for geotourism management in Jordan is to enhance the interest of tourists in the natural and cultural values of the geological destinations (Wójtowicz and Wójtowicz 2016). Collectively, Jordan has numerous geosites with various contexts, such as cultural, religious, historical and archeological and mythical contexts. What is interesting is that there are geosites which are considered as movie locations,

9.3

Potential Geotrails in Jordan–First Conception

Based on the meaning of the concept of tourism potential (Meyer 2010), it could be assumed that the geotourism potential is its integral part. Within the geotourism potential, it is proposed to consider and analyse structural and functional resources (Ludwikowska-Kędzia and Wiatrak 2012, 2020). Structural resources include geotourist values–geotourist objects,–geotourist phenomena; geotourist accessibility–communication and topographic; and geotourist infrastructure–geotourist facilities. Functional resources comprise economic conditions, legal and financial solutions determining decisions in the field of tourism activities; demographic factors–resulting from the demographic structure, characteristics of the local community and its activity; psychological factors–perception of the region by the local community and potential tourists, leisure habits; technological and ecological conditions–efficient functioning of the tourist system according to the principles of sustainable development; and finally political conditions–activities of state and local government authorities for (geo)tourism. Jordan is a country with a significant (geo)tourism potential, mainly in terms of structural resources, that is, valuable geological qualities, good communication and topographic accessibility of potential geotourist objects. All of these factors auger well to establish geotrails in Jordan. This idea is successfully implemented in many countries in Europe, Australia, and America where it has proved to be a good and relatively inexpensive way to strengthen marketing

9

Geotourism in Jordan–The Potential for Developing Geotrails in the Wadis

and regional tourism development. Therefore, it seems to be a good initiative to overcome the previously mentioned obstacles and barriers to the development of geotourism in Jordan.

9.3.1 Geotrails and Geosites A geotrail refers to the general concept of tourist route (cf. Stasiak 2006), that is, a road that is part of the general transport network along which tourist traffic flows between regions or tourist destinations (Fig. 9.1a). Geotrails are examples of a linear geotourist object (Migoń 2012) which combines “geotourist attractions” (cf. Kicińska-Świderska and Słomka 2004; Słomka and Kicińska-Świderska 2004), that is, various types of geosites (geological objects and processes), properly managed and made accessible according to tourism needs (geotourist infrastructure facilities) (Fig. 9.1b). It attracts a potential (geo)tourist to make a distinctive journey into the world of the geological past and present of our planet in order to: (a) explore the diversity and discover the value of natural and cultural heritage, by engaging/arousing cognitive activity, interest, learning processes, but also by experiencing pleasure/aesthetic

Fig. 9.1 Touristic route a and the concept of geotrail b as an element of (geo)tourism development

125

impressions, (b) understanding regularities and harmony of the functioning of the surrounding natural environment, and (c) be aware of the role of human activity in the use of environmental resources and thus the need to protect them. As shown by the experience so far (Hose 2016a, b), the creation of geotrails has several advantages such as low operating costs and ease of use, although it may require significant expenditure/taking into account the high logistics costs (e.g. employment of qualified personnel, purchase of appropriate quality materials, design and promotion costs, etc.) (Hose 2020). Geosites are the basic elements of geotrails. Under the restrictive definition (Reynard 2009), geosites are geological objects particularly important for the comprehension of the spatial and temporal evolution of the Earth, climate and life, understanding the importance of rock types and the role of morphogenetic processes in the formation of landscapes and human activity (e.g. Strasser et al. 1995; Grandgirard 1997, 1999; Aleksandrowicz 2006). In this case, the definition of geosites is based on the criteria of the scientific quality of the object (e.g. uniqueness and rarity, its representativeness for the knowledge and study of the Earth’s evolution, etc., documentation of paradigms in Earth sciences).

126

According to a broader definition geosites are any geological objects that present a certain value due to human reception/human perception or exploitation, e.g. geological exposures, interesting forms of landscape, glacial erratics, accumulations of fossil fauna and flora, excavation pits, etc. (Panizza and Piacente 1993; Panizza 2001). The restrictive definition should be preferred when selecting geosite objects that should be protected (due to their uniqueness). On the other hand, the broader definition is more useful when describing landscapes in relation to tourism promotion and culture (Panizza and Piacente 2003). There are three types of geosites (Reynard 2009). They are (a) active–which are important for the observation of currently active processes on the Earth’s surface, (b) passive–which indicate natural processes or conditions that no longer exist and their destruction is irreversible, and (c) artificial–which are created or visible due to human activity (e.g. quarries, gravel pits, infrastructure construction, etc.). The analysis and evaluation of the value of geosites is usually carried out at two levels: the central–scientific value (as the ‘geological value’), and additional values (ecological, aesthetic, cultural and economic) (Reynard 2004, 2005, 2009). Methods for geosites valorization are based on numerous and varied criteria (cf. Kubaliková 2013). Of particular note are geomorphosites which are single geomorphological objects or their groups, as well as landscapes that can be transformed or even destroyed as a result of human activity (Pianizza 2001; Reynald and Pianizza 2005; Reynard 2009). For large geomorphological sites, the concept ‘geomorphological landforms’ has been proposed (Reynard 2004, 2005). The criteria for assessing the value of geomorphosites are the same as for geosites (cf. Kubaliková 2013). Managing and opening both restrictive and broader geosites to tourists is associated with the creation of geotourist infrastructure facilities in the immediate/close vicinity of the geosites or outside them (e.g. information boards within geosites or viewpoints, lapidaria, geoeducational centers, exhibitions), which are becoming equally important geotourist objects. A geotrail is therefore: (a) a sequence of ‘geotourist attractions’ (cf. Słomka and Kicińska-Świderska 2004), that is, properly accessible geosites (in both the restrictive and broader sense) and geotourist facilities (b) marked or existing only ‘virtually’ (often not marked in real space) (c) located along generally accessible roads on which tourists travel by their own or public means of transport

M. Allan and M. Ludwikowska-Kędzia

(d) existing on maps (with a short description) and/or in a guide in the form of a publication, a folder/a leaflet or a website, and (e) promoted in the form of a ready-made offer for tourists. Geotracks are an important type of geotrails. A geotrack is a thematic (educational) road or path leading through geotouristically attractive areas and/or towns, with a single geosite or a group of them. They are usually, properly equipped with thematic and detailed explanations of issues related to Earth heritage, most often in the form of information boards or a guide–a publication, a folder/a leaflet, and/or website; functioning individually, adapted to various forms of qualified tourism. A network of existing geotrails and geotracks in an area of outstanding geological value, but also valuable from an archaeological, ecological, historical or cultural point of view, is the basis for designing geoparks–the areas protected due to the presence of fragments of the lithosphere conveying a clear record of its construction and development and demonstrating the history of life on Earth (Aleksandrowicz 2006).

9.3.2 Classification of Geotrails Geotrails are generally classified according to the criteria used (a) in the thematic classification of geosites proposed by Migoń (2012), that is, according to the type of geological form and process, and (b) in the general classification of tourist trails according to Stasiak (2006). Thus, the main types of geotrails by criterion are as follows: (a) Theme–petrological (representative exposure of one or several types of rocks), mineralogical (places of occurrence, accumulation of various minerals), sedimentological (exposures of rock series with clearly legible sedimentary structures), stratigraphic (exposures of rock series with well-documented age and geological period boundaries), paleontological (exposures of rock layers, rock series and deposits with fossils, with other traces of old life), tectonic (exposures of deformation structures–folds, faults, cracks), volcanic (active volcanic processes and forms), geomorphological (geomorphosite) (forms of relief, viewpoints), hydrological and hydrogeological (e.g. springs, karst springs, geysers, lakes), pedological (exposures of soil profiles), historical and related to the surface and underground exploitation of raw materials

9

Geotourism in Jordan–The Potential for Developing Geotrails in the Wadis

(b) User Motives (travel purpose)–for specialists/educators or for the ordinary tourist (trails meant for sightseeing, active recreation, extreme emotions) (c) Transport–walking, car, railway, horseback/ camelback, cycling, sailing (d) Trail Rank–main, secondary, connecting, accessing (e) Trail Extent (course)–urban, local, regional, national subcontinental, continental (f) Marking (continuity)–continuous: signposted, not signposted; discontinuous (series of geosites recommended to visit), (g) Operation Period–seasonal, periodic or all-year etc. Geotrails can then be designed between regions where a vehicle remains the primary means of transport, with parking lots located alongside the roads in geotourist attraction zones (Fig. 9.1b). At these roadside stops, the most important information about the geology and geomorphology of the region/area is usually presented in the form of information boards. The boards do not generate running costs, and the use of appropriate high-quality materials for their production guarantees/provides a chance that they will be used for many years and protects them against destruction (Hose 2020). These are places that combine travel rest with education and aesthetic impressions. A good example of this type of geotrails are those marked along the roads of the US states (cf. Roadside Geology of California, Alaska, Texas, etc.) or in Australia. Another type of geotrail combines both driving and walking and covers more local routes where parking lots located by roads are the starting points of smaller, thematically coherent geotracks (Fig. 9.1b). These geotracks include separate topics from the field of Earth sciences, taking into account elements of cultural heritage which allow tourists to familiarize themselves with the most important locally designated geosites (active, passive and artificial geosites). The time needed to go back and forth along these geotracks will allow tourists to return by car and/or on foot to their accommodation base. All projects involving trail creation and location should be consulted in cooperation with local authorities, stakeholders as well as the local community. In addition, they should comply with the principles of safety and of natural and environmental protection (that is, sustainable development). It would be advisable if their design was preceded by the recognition of functional elements of the geotourist potential of a given area or region.

9.3.3 Geeotrails in Jordan Jordan is built of age- and lithologically diverse complexes of rocks from the Precambrian to the Holocene, deformed by a dense network of faults (Fig. 9.2a). It occupies a

127

tectonically active area, with a rich geological past (Powell et al. 2014). Lithostratigraphic and tectonic development is controlled (since the Miocene) by the Dead Sea Transform (DST) fault system, with the Wadi Arabah fault being the dominant element (Ritter et al. 2003). Such features of Jordan’s geological structure are strengthened by three diverse climatic zones. They are a Mediterranean subtropical climate in the northwest of the country; a subtropical continental climate in its central part; and an extremely dry variety in the east and tropical dry climate in the south. They are responsible for regionally and locally diverse landforms throughout the country. Jordan can be divided into seven physiographic provinces which accord with geologic provinces (Fig. 9.2b). They are the “Southern Mountainous Desert, Mountain Ridge and Northern Highlands East of the Rift, Central Plateau (includes AI Jafr and AI Azraq Wadi as Sirgan Basin, Northern Plateau Basalt, Northeastern Plateau, Wadi al ‘Arabah-Jordan Rift, Highlands West of the Rift” (Bender 1975, p. 13). Collectively, the Rift Valley includes three sub-provinces: 1. The Dead Sea and adjoining plain encompassing the Lisan Peninsula that spreads southwards to the Khanazir Fault, 2. The Wadi Arabah that passes from the Gulf of Aqaba northwards to the Khanazir Fault, and 3. The Jordan Valley/Jordan River which is located to the north of the Dead Sea. However, there is a steep rise from the Dead Sea (approximately c. 400 m below sea level) in the southwest of Jordan, to the Western Highlands and on to the Central Plateau (at about 1200 m). Consequently, the Western Highlands are sculpted by a number of main wadis draining westwards to the Jordan Valley (Macumber 2008). A wadi is a valley, ravine, or channel that is dry except in the rainy season. Jordan has a diverse number of wadis in many parts of the country. The idea behind the creation of geotrails using tourist routes in Jordan focuses on combining the features of the geological and geomorphological heritage of the seven geological and geomorphological regions into a coherent story (from the Precambrian to modern times), taking into account the elements of cultural heritage and biodiversity (Fig. 9.2a, b). Geotrails connect the provincial areas with outstanding geosites and geomorphosites, properly managed and open to tourists. Thus, it is necessary to delineate and valorize Jordanian geosites, assessing their scientific as well as added values (Reynard 2009). It is proposed to design seven main geotrails in Jordan with reference to their geological values (potentially geotourist attractions) of geological and morphological regions and the existing road routes (Table 9.1, Fig. 9.2b). It would be most convenient to create them based on the existing network of roads (communication routes) crossing each of the provinces, with existing and/or potential viewpoints (Fig. 9.3).

128

M. Allan and M. Ludwikowska-Kędzia

Fig. 9.2 a General geological map of Jordan. Source based and AL-Nawafleh et al. (2013). b Proposed major geotrails against the background of the morphological-geological provinces of Jordan. Source based on Bender (1974, 1975)

The thematic scope for each of these geotrails is diverse (Table 9.1), which increases their attractiveness. It may concern topics from the field of petrography, mineralogy, paleontology, stratigraphy, sedimentology, tectonic, volcanology, pedology, hydrogeology and the history of mineral resources exploitation (ancient and modern areas) as well as the history of settlement. This thematic scope can be systematically elaborated further while creating thematic geotracks.

It is worth starting to develop Jordan’s georoutesgeotrails-geotracks in the form of a ready-made offer for (geo)tourists in those zones for each geological and geomorphological province with a large number of present and potential geosites. Particularly important in these plans is the role of existing parks, protected areas in Jordan, which can be used as a base for discovering the geoheritage of the region. At present, these conditions are met by the Protected Area of Wadi Rum (Figs. 9.2a, b; 9.3c–i) and the groups of

9

Geotourism in Jordan–The Potential for Developing Geotrails in the Wadis

129

Table 9.1 The potential of the main geotrails in Jordan (see Fig. 9.2b) and their themes (own elaboration) Geotrail Provinces

The potential geotrails

Main subject (e.g. literature examples)

The Southern Basement Paleozoic Sandstone Area

A

The sands of the time

The history from Paleozoic sandstones to modern; sand in red dunes; the deserts and stone scenery; rocks/sandstone in architecture–architecture in sandstone (see Sect. 9.4.1) (e.g. Viles and Goudie 2004; Migoń and Goudie 2014; Powell et al. 2014; Cordova et al. 2014)

The Northern Highlands East of the Rift

B

The kingdom of wadis, caves, and the old mines

The lithological and structural, and tectonic conditions of formation and morphological features of wadis (see Sect. 9.4.2) and caves; the underground world of caves; the geology of the phosphate and the old phosphate mines in Ruseifa; inscriptions on the rock; Natufian Foragers; floral and animal fossils (e.g. Al-Malabeh et al. 2008; Lucke et al. 2014; Bandel and Salameh 2013; Olszewski 2013; Al-Hawamdeh and Al-Mashakbeh 2020)

Central Jordanian LimestoneArea

C1

In the land of the ancient lakes

Al-Azraq Wadi Sirhan Depression

C2

Evolution and termination of lakes in Jordan; the origin conditions and petrography of the mineral sediments-bentonite, diatomite, palygorskite, gypsum and salt; geothermal resources (e.g. Bandel and Salameh 2013; Salameh et al. 2019)

Basalt Plateau

D1

Northeast Jordanian Limestone Area

D2

Mystery of black and white desert

Secrets of Harra (basalt) Area–the origin and age of basalt; lava tunnels; building/architecture–local archaeological remains; Secrets of Hamada (limestone) Area–palaeo-sedimentary environment of carbonate rocks, anthropo-transformation of the area due to the exploitation of limestone; limestone in Jordan’s architecture (e.g. Bandel and Salameh 2013; Al-Nawafleh et al. 2013; Meister et al. 2017; Abed 2019)

Wadi Araba-Jordan Rift Valley

E

Jordan on the move

The Dead Sea Transform (DST)–basics of plate tectonics; tectonic deformation in the form of subsidence and uplift along the DST; the salt karst system of Dead Sea–dangers; the development of the playas (e.g. Sarti et al. 2003; Ritter et al. 2003; Bandel and Salameh 2013; Diner 2019)

wadis in the Northern Highlands East of the Rift province, e.g. Wadi Oyoun Eltheib (Fig. 9.3j), Wadi Al-Mujib, Wadi Ghuwair (Fig. 9.3k, n), Wadi Al-Hasa, Wadi Numeira (Fig. 9.3i, m), Wadi Assal (Fig. 9.3o, p) and Wadi Al-Karak.

9.4.1 Wadi Rum in the Southern Basement Paleozoic Sandstone Area Province

located to the east of the Jordan Rift Valley and south of the steep cliff of the central Jordanian plateau (Figs. 9.2b and 9.3c–i). This wadi has several significant natural aspects, involving desert landforms formulated within CambrianOrdovician massive continental sandstones (Powell et al. 2014), characterized by high, steep vertical-sided mountains separated by flat-bottomed valleys (wadi), containing alluvial and aeolian sediments and locally salt pons (known as qa’) (Cordova et al. 2014). Such landforms have evolved under the impact of a set of numerous controlling conditions like lithology, structure, different tectonic activities (comprising quick uplift, several faults and joints) and morphogenetic processes of the surface (such as different types of weathering and erosion linked to desert climate and humid climates in the past) (e.g. Powell et al. 2014; Migoń and Goudie 2014). All this has occured over millions of years of continuing landscape evolution. Based on the availability of geological and geomorphological objects (included in the tourist offer) as well as the existing visitor centers, as part of the development and promotion of geotourism in Wadi Rum, it is worth considering the following activities:

The most distinctive and spectacular wadi in Jordan is Wadi Rum. It is a major feature within the area of Hisma desert

(a) Creating a lapidarium in the form of an open-air exhibition, gathering rock specimens of the main

9.4

The Geotourist Potential of Wadis in Jordan

Jordan’s wadis are valleys and/or stream beds, usually dry, except in the rainy season, during which they are constantly and intensively modeled. In Jordan, the most beautiful examples of wadis with features of deep, erosive gorges are found in the rift zone of the Dead Sea, in the Northern Highlands East of the Rift province or rock massifs in the Southern Basement Paleozoic Sandstone Area province. As erosive openings of the bedrock, they create perfect conditions for exploring Jordan’s geological heritage (Fig. 9.3).

130

M. Allan and M. Ludwikowska-Kędzia

Fig. 9.3 The selected geotourisim values of Jordan. a King’s Highway–view of Mujib Dam; b the Dead See-Complex panorama– viewpoint; c–i Wadi Ram c the desert and stone scenery; d rock pyramids built by tourists from fragments of rocks with desert varnish; e fragment of rock from Cruziana–a trace fossil, typically associated with trilobites; f sandstone rocks with weathered surfaces; g red dunes;

h erosion outlier (Mushroom Stone); i rock art, petroglyphs; j Wadi Oyoun Eltheib; k hiking in Wadi Ghuwair; l rock formations visible in slopes of Wadi Numeira; m hiking in Wadi Numeira; n role of vegetation in destruction of rock walls in Wadi Ghuwair; o general view of Wadi Assal; p effects of erosion in Wadi Assal; Source Agnieszka Dowgiałło-Perkowska 2019–2020

litho-stratigraphic units of the Southern Basement Paleozoic Sandstone Area i.e. the rocks of Precambrian Basementi, especially the Palaeozoic sandstones complex units: Salib, Umm ‘Ishrin, Disi, UmmSahm, as well as common, multi-colored loose sands (b) Preparation of a folder for this lapidarium in order to: (1) clarify the origin (sedimentary-paleo-environmental) and age of the massives and stones, (2) understanding the differences in the landforms (sandstone scenery–‘geomorphological landforms’) and different pathways of slope evolution in the major sandstone units, the way the weathering occurs, and the morphogenetic processes took place

(c) Elaboration of the most important thematic issues for Wadi Rum, i.e. potential geotracks, in the form of a guide and/or individual folders/mock-ups/information boards in order to explain the genesis of potential geosites (in the broader and narrower sense), visited or only observed during the offered tourist trips. These are for example: (1) How was Wadi Rum created ?–conditions for the formation and features of the complex of massive sandstones (Fig. 9.3c, f); (2) What does tafone and case hardening (iron armor) mean?–the role of salt weathering (Fig. 9.3d, f); (3) Why and how are red dunes and rock mushrooms formed?–wind and its activities (Fig. 9.3g, h); (4) Water in the past and today

9

Geotourism in Jordan–The Potential for Developing Geotrails in the Wadis

in Wadi Rum–water circulation system and its sculpting activity; (5) Stone in architecture–architecture in stone– human traces in Wadi Rum and its vicinity (Fig. 9.3i).

9.4.2 Wadis in the Northern Highlands East of the Rift Province Wadi Al-Mujib demonstrates several kinds of strata from Recent to the Late Cambrian at its western ranges at the Dead Sea coast. Over 1000 m separate its top and its base. Mujib Biosphere Reserve is the lowest nature reserve on Earth. Wadi Al-Mujib cut across west central Jordan from the east to the west, approximately 60 km southern Amman. Three are main highways cross Wadi Mujib: the Desert Highway in the east, the King’s Highway in the middle, and the Dead Sea to Aqaba Highway in the west, along the eastern part of the Dead Sea shore (Abed 2017). Wadi Al-Mujib has a rich bio-diversity and it is still being under exploration and documented in a recent time. It is reported that there are more than 300 species of plants, 10 species of carnivores and many species of permanent and migratory birds in the area. A number of distant mountain and valley regions are hard to reach, and therefore provide safe sanctuaries for rare species of cats, goats and other mountain fauna. Al-Mujib’s sandstone cliffs are an appropriate habitat for one of the most distinctive mountain goats worldwide, the horned Ibex. The area has the partly touristic infrastructure, which can be used as a basis for the design of the first typically geotourist objects. As part of the promotion of geotourism and popularization of geotrails, it is proposed to create a lapidarium nearby the entrance to the most representative wadis of this region, easy to access in terms of topography and transport, e.g. Wadi Oyoun Eltheib (Fig. 9.3 j), Wadi Al-Karak, Wadi Al-Mujib, Wadi Ghuwair (Fig. 9.3k, n), Wadi Al-Hasa, Wadi Numeira (Fig. 9.3I, m) and Wadi Assal (Fig. 9.3o, p). A collection of representative specimens of various types of rocks of this geological province, combined with information (in the form of printed folders and/or information boards etc.) on the conditions of their formation, petrographic features, and morphogenetic processes responsible for their relief will allow a (geo)tourist not only to experience aesthetic impressions and relax, but also to acquire specific knowledge. In the future, visiting the lapidarium and the wadis could be combined with the organization of (geo) events and games for adults and children, e.g. ‘geoquest’–a trip (keeping safety measures) to unmarked routes in the field, followed by reading rhymed guidelines and solving puzzles, so that at the end of such a route, one could find ‘a

131

prize or treasure’, e.g. a special stamp confirming reaching the end of the quest. This form of geotourism teaches through playing and supports relaxation. Geotracks which have been developed and delineated in the wadis in this part of Jordan, may initially focus on basic geological and geomorphological issues, for example: (1) How was the network of wadis formed and what distinguishes those of the Dead Sea zone from other Jordanian wadis?–activity of periodically flowing waters in tectonically mobile areas (Fig. 9.3c, f). (2) Geohazards in wadis–gravitational processes, seismic activity and floods, (3) Hydrothermal springs and mineralization of waters (streams) in wadis–an advantage or a disadvantage? (4) The world of fantastic erosive, aeolian and gravitational forms in wadis–major morphogenetic processes, (5) Petrography of gravels in wadis.

9.5

Life of Wadis–Settlement Systems and Biodiversity

Wadi Al-Mujib is famous mainly for its canyoning–an extreme form of recreation aimed at overcoming raging rivers and dangerous canyons. Other wadis offer suitable conditions for trekking–a form of tourism that takes place in difficult conditions, and hiking–a milder version of trekking, free of difficulties and inconveniences, resembles a dynamic walk for undemanding people, often practiced by whole families. All these forms of tourism are very popular in Jordan’s wadis and can be used to promote geotourism. Despite the great potential of geotourism development in the wadis in Jordan, to date little attention has been paid to the geotourism activities in such geotourism destinations. For example, Wadi Rum and Wadi Al-Mujib are mainly used for leisure and recreation activities, adventure tourism and ecotourism tours. The public and private tourism discourse gives voices to such types of tourism rather than geological tourism activities. However, development of geotrails could boost social, economic and environmental benefits for the government and the local communities adjacent the geological tourism sites in Jordan, namely: (a) providing direct and indirect job opportunities for the local people, (b) developing the tourism supply for the geotourism destinations, (c) enhancing the accessibility of the geosites, (d) raising the awareness toward the significance of the geo-conservation efforts within the geosites, (e) increasing the length of stay for inbound tourists in the country.

132

9.6

M. Allan and M. Ludwikowska-Kędzia

Conclusion

From our high-level survey of geotourism in Jordan, it is possible to form the following conclusions. They are: 1. It is well accepted that Jordan could enhance its overall tourism products through the development of abiotic tourism attractions. Promotion of tourism to geosites in Jordan could help to increase the nature and scope of overall tourism demand 2. Jordan is rich in geological resources and hence geosites in both senses (the restrictive and the broader one) (including geomorphosites, landforms). These geosites (active, passive, and artificial) present high scientific and additional values in all seven geological and morphological provinces of Jordan 3. Improving the accessibility of geosites and developing the infrastructure are urgent need to help to enhance the geotourism supply and attract much geotourism demand in Jordan 4. Therefore, establishing geotrails is a good and relatively inexpensive way to strengthen Jordan’s marketing and regional development. It provides tourists with a proper interpretation of the history of Jordan’s geological and cultural heritage 5. Development of geotrails adjacent to Jordan’s geosites could boost social, economic, and environmental benefits for the government and the local communities.

References Abed A (2017) An overview of the geology and evolution of Wadi Mujib. Jordan J Nat History 4:6–28. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2. 2.33625.98406 Abed A (2019) Geological evolution of the Azraq Basin, Eastern Jordan: an overview. Jordan J Nat History 5:6–52 Alexandrowicz S (2002) Geoturystyka a promocja dziedzictwa geologicznego. In: Partyka J (ed) Użytkowanie turystyczne parków narodowych. Ruch turystyczny–zagospodarowanie–konflikty–zagrożenia. Ojców: 91–98 Aleksandrowicz Z (2006) Geoparki-nowe wyzwanie dla ochrony dziedzictwa geologicznego (Geoparks-a new challenge for the protection of geological heritage). Przegląd Geologiczny 54(1) :36–41 Allan M (2014) Geotourism: Why do children visit geological tourism sites? Dirasat J Hum Soc Sci 41(1):653–661 Allan M (2015) Geotourism: an opportunity to enhance geoethics and geoheritage appreciation. In: Peppoloni S & Di Capua G (eds) Geoethics: the responsibility of geoscientists. Geological Society, London, Special Publications Allan M, Allahham S (2020) Exploring the sustainable behavior and practices for public tourism organizations: a case of Jordan. In: Contemporary review of the Middle East, pp 1–19. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2347798920976288

Allan M, Dowling R, Sanders D (2015) The motivations for visiting geosites: the case of Crystal Cave, Western Australia. GeoJ Tour Geosites 16(2):141–152 Allan M, Shavanddasht M (2019) Rural geotourists segmentation by motivation in weekends and weekdays. Tour Hosp Res 19(1):74– 84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358417694513 Al-Malabeh A, Kempe S, Henschel HV, Hofmann H, Tobschall JJ (2008) The possibly hypogene karstic iron ore deposit of Warda near Ajloun (Northern Jordan), its mineralogy, geochemistry and historic mine. Acta Carsologica 37(2–3):241–253 Al-Nawafleh H, Tarawneh K, Alrawashdeh R (2013) Geologic and economic potentials of minerals and industrial rocks in Jordan. Nat Sci 5(6):756–769. https://doi.org/10.4236/ns.2013.56092 Al-Hawamdeh M, Al-Mashakbeh HM (2020) Microfacial study, fossil assemblages and depositional environment of wadi as sir limestone formation, Jordan. Open J Geol 10:579–595. https://doi.org/10. 4236/ojg.2020.105026 Aquino RS, Schänzel HA, Hyde KF (2017) Analysing push and pull motives for volcano tourism at Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Geoheritage 1–15 Bandel K, Salameh E (2013) Geologic development of Jordanevolution of its rocks and life. The University of Jordan Press, Amman, pp 1–276 Bender F (1974) Geology of Jordan. Contribution to the regional geology of the world. Gebrueder Borntraeger, Berlin Bender F (1975) Geology of the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 560–1.36. Washington Bird DK, Gisladottir G, Dominey-Howes D (2010) Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: implications for hazard, risk and emergency response education and training. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 189(1):33–48 Chylińska D (2019) The role of the picturesque in geotourism and iconic geotourist landscapes. Geoheritage 11(2):531–543 Cordova CE, DeWitt R, Winsborough B (2014) Geology, landforms, and sediments in Wadi Rum. In: Henry D, Beaver J (eds) The sands of time: the desert Neolithic settlement at Ayn Abu Nukhayla. Ex-Oriente, Berlin, pp 13–28 Diner J (2019) Failed rifting in Jordan and the development of the Dead Sea Transform. J Geodyn 124:104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jog.2019.01.013 Dong H, Song Y, Chen T, Zhao J, Yu L (2014) Geoconservation and geotourism in Luochuan Loess National Geopark, China. Quat Int 334–335:40–51 Dowling R, Allan M, Grünert N (2020) Geological tourist tribes. In: Pforr C, Dowling R, Volgger M (eds) Consumer tribes in tourism contemporary perspectives on special-interest tourism. Springer, Singapore Dowling R, Allan M (2018) Who are geotourists? A case study from Jordan. In: Dowling R, Newsome D (eds) Handbook of geotourism. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, pp 76–86 Dowling R (2013) Global geotourism—an emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech J Tour 2(2):59–79 Erfurt-Cooper P, Cooper M (2010) Volcano and geothermal tourism: sustainable geo-resources for leisure and recreation. Earthscan Errami E, Schneider G, el Ennih N (2015) Geoheritage and geoparks in Africa and the Middle-East: challenges and perspectives. In: Errami E, Brocx M, Semeniuk V (eds) From geoheritage to geopark: case studies from Africa and Beyond. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–23 Gordon J (2018) Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences 8(4):136. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8040136 Grandgirard V (1997) Géomorphologie, protection de la nature et gestion du paysage–Thèse de doctorat. Université de Fribourg, Faculté des Sciences

9

Geotourism in Jordan–The Potential for Developing Geotrails in the Wadis

Grandgirard V (1999) L’évaluation des géotopes–Geol Insubr 4/1:69– 66 Hose T (2016a) Appreciating physical landscapes: three hundred years of geotourism, London. The Geological Society, London Hose T (2016b) Geotourism in Britain and Europe: historical and modern perspectives. In: Hose TA (ed) Geoheritage and geotourism: A European perspective. Boydell Press, Woodbridge, pp 153–171 Hose T (2020) Geotrails. In: Sadry BN (ed) The geotourism industry in the 21st century: the origin, principles, and futuristic approach. Apple Academic Press Inc., pp 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1201/ 9780429292798 Kicińska-Świderska A, Słomka T (2004) Projektowanie tras geoturystycznych (The Construction of Geoturist Routs). Folia Turistica 15:179–184 Kubaliková L (2013) Geomorphosite assessemnt for geotourism purposes. Czech J Tour 2(2):80–104. https://doi.org/10.2478/cjot2013-0005 Kubaliková L, Bajer A, Balková M (2021) Brief notes on geodiversity and geoheritage perception by the lay public. Geosciences 11(2):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020054 Lucke B, Kemnitz H, Bäumler R, Schmidt M (2014) Red mediterranean soils in Jordan: New insights in their origin, genesis, and role as environmental archives. Catena 112:4–24. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.catena.2013.04.006 Ludwikowska-Kędzia M, Wiatrak M (2012) Atrakcyjność geoturystyczna doliny górnej Łagowicy. Propozycja trasy geoturystycznej [Geotourist attractiveness of the upper Łagowice valley. A proposal for a geotourist route]. Instytut Geografii Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach, Kielce, p 112 Ludwikowska-Kędzia M, Wiatrak M (2020) The geotourist attractiveness of Łagowica River Valley (Holy Cross Mountains, Poland): a project of a geotourist trail. GeoJ Tour Geosites 32(4):1337–1346. https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.32422-578 Macumber P (2008) Evolving landscape and environment in Jordan. In: Adams RB (ed) Jordan: An Archaeological Reader. Equinox Books, London, pp 7–34 Meister J, Knitter D, Krause J, Müller-Neuhof B, Schütt B (2017) A pastoral landscape for millennia: investigating pastoral mobility in northeastern Jordan using quantitative spatial analyses. Quat Int 501, Part B, 20:364–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08. 038 Meyer B (2010) Aktywność samorządu lokalnego jako element potencjału turystycznego na przykładzie wybranych gmin województwa zachodniopomorskiego. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług 590(52):23–32 Migoń P (2012) Geoturystyka. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Warszawa, pp 196 Migoń P, Goudie A (2014) Sandstone geomorphology of South-West Jordan, Middle East. Quaest Geogr 33(2):119–126. https://doi.org/ 10.2478/quageo-2014-0035 MOTA (2019) Tourism statistics. Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. MOTA. Amman, Jordan Olszewski D (2013) The steppic Early Natufian: investigations in the Wadi al-Hasa, Jordan. In: Bar-Yosef O, Valla FR (eds) Natufian foragers in the levant. Terminal Pleistocene social changes in Western Asia international. Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series, vol 19, pp 412–428 Panizza M (2001) Geomorfosites: Concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey. Chin Sci Bull 46:4–6. https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF03187227 Panizza M, Piacente S (1993) Geomorphological assets evaluation. Zeitschr. für Geomorphologie, N.F., Suppl Band 87:13–18

133

Panizza M, Piacente S (2003) Geomorfologia culturale–Bologna, Pitagora p 358 Powell J, Abed A, Le Nindrem Y (2014) Cambrian stratigraphy of Jordan. GeoArabia 19(3):81–134 Reynard E (2004) Geosites. In: Goudie AS (ed) Encyclopedia of geomorphology. London, Routledge, p 440. Reynard E (2005) Geomorphological sites, public policies and property right. Conceptualization and examples for Switzerland. Ital J Quat Sci 18/1:323–332 Reynard E (2009) Geomorphosites: definition and characteristics. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Verlag Pfeil, Munich, pp 9–20 Reynard E, Panizza M (2005) Geomorphosites: definition, assessment and mapping. An introducion. Geomorphologie: relief. Processus, Environement 3:177–180 Ritter O, Ryberg T, Weckmann U, Hoffman-Rothe A, Abeladas A, Garfunkel Z, DESERT GROUP (2003) Geophysical images of the Dead Sea Transform in Jordan reveal an impermeable barrier for fluid flow. Gephys Res Lett 30/14:1741 Salameh E, Alraggad M, Amaireh M (2019) Degradation processes along the new northeastern shores of the Dead Sea. Environ Earth Sci 78:164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8155-x Sarti F, Arkinb Y, Chorowicz J, Karnielid A, Cunhae T (2003) Assessing pre- and post-deformation in the southern Arava Valley segment of the Dead Sea Transform. Remote Sens Environ 86:141– 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00066-X Słomka T, Kicińska-Świderska A (2004) Geoturystyka-podstawowe Pojęcia. Geoturystyka 1:5–7 Stasiak A (2006) Produkt turystyczny–szlak. Turystyka i Hotelarstwo 10:9–40 Strasser A, Heitzmann P, Jordan A, Stapfer B, Stürm A, Vogel A, Weidmann M (1995) Géotopes et la protection des objets géologiques en Suisse: un rapport stratégique. Fribourg, Groupe de travail pour la protection des géotopes en Suisse Viles HA, Goudie AS (2004) Biofilms and case hardening on sandstones from Al-Quwayra, Jordan. Earth Surf Proc Land 29:1473–1486. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1134 Wójtowicz B, Wójtowicz P (2016) The prospects for the development of Geotourism in the Area of the Wadi Rum Desert. J Tour Hosp Manag 4:1–14

Mamoon Allan is Professor of Tourism Marketing in the Tourism Department, Faculty of Archaeology and Tourism, the University of Jordan. Professor Allan was working in tourism and hospitality fields in three countries–Australia, Jordan, and Libya. He completed his Ph.D. in Tourism Marketing at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Western Australia. Professor Allan conducts international research in the fields of Geotourism, Geotourists, Ecotourism, Volcano Tourism, Adventure Tourism, Accessible Tourism and other topics. He published a book about geotourism in Jordan in Arabic in 2014. He participated in several UNESCO workshops to enhance the geoheritage and geoparks in the Arabic countries. His doctoral thesis (2012) on geotourism was one of the first in the world on this topic.

Małgorzata Ludwikowska-Kędzia works at the Institute of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland as a University Professor. She specializes in Quaternary geology and geomorphology of upland areas. She is fascinated with education, and this is why she has become a strong supporter of geotourism which, in her opinion, is vital for promoting geosciences and boosting interest in Earth history among all the generations.

Geotourism in the Sultanate of Oman: Samail Ophiolite Geosites–A Concept of Sustainable Geotourism

10

Sobhi Nasir

Abstract

10.1

Geotourism is a form of natural area tourism that focuses on geology and natural heritage of the land. Geoconservation and geological heritage are considered now as a new challenge for geological research which concentrate on the preservation of sites of geological value. Oman is considered by geologists and geotourists as an open geologic book and a big wonderful outdoor geological Museum with unique geological features. The country offers many geological features which are spectacular or unique. The geological stories can be found everywhere in Oman, where one can explore the fascinating geology in one of the most varied and diverse landscapes – from gravel to sand to salt, Oman has a landscape, outcrop, archaeological sites, local culture and fascinating human stories or formation to suit everyone. Therefore, the country attracts more and more geosciences students to study geology in the field, as well as tourists to enjoy the spectacular scenery. As a consequence, thereof geological heritage is in danger of being destroyed due to lack of awareness, and the need to protect unique geological sites and landscapes. Keywords

Sustainability




Geotourism




Samail ophiolite




Oman

This chapter will only provide an overview of the geotourism activity within the Samail Ophiolite of Oman as a unique geosite exposing the oceanic crust. S. Nasir (&) UNESCO Chair for Ophiolite Studies-Sultan, Qaboos University, Seeb, Oman e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

‘Geotourism’ started to be known by the mid-1990s. The first widely published definition was: “The provision of interpretative and service facilities to enable tourists to acquire knowledge and understanding of the geology and geomorphology of a site beyond the level of mere aesthetic appreciation” (Hose 1995). The main objectives of geotourism sites are emphasized as a basis for enhancing the promotion of geological heritage through the geological heritage initiative, the use of geological sites in educating the broad public and teaching the geological sciences and the environmental matters, their potential as a tool to ensure sustainable development, and the conservation of the geological heritage for future generations (Hose 1998; Komoo 1997). Oman geology comprises a number of geological heritage and geotourists sites of special scientific importance, uniqueness and beauty, as well as archaeological, ecological, historical and cultural values. For many tourists and geotourists, the charm of Oman lies in its mountain ranges. Numerous areas in the Oman Mountains offer immediate opportunities for geotourism because of the presence of a diverse range of geological phenomena and outcrops. The geodiversity of the Oman Mountains proposes the basis for the landforms, soils, plants and animals that are produced in Oman. The geological character of the mountains Oman has led to acclimatization as one of the geological wonders of the world thanks to its unique geological values. It is the only country in the world, next to Cyprus, composed mostly of oceanic crust and mantle rocks–deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The mountains of Oman consist of rocks, typical of those that currently form long mid-ocean ridges that directly contribute to the process of drifting of the continents. These rocks are only visible above the sea floor in some places like Oman, and have created an important geological model for the creation of the oceanic crust. The southern Oman mountains, the central Oman desert, Jabal Akhdar and Musandam Peninsula contain many unique geosites. The

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Allan and R. Dowling (eds.), Geotourism in the Middle East, Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24170-3_10

135

136

S. Nasir

northern mountain range of Oman, with its internationally renowned Samail ophiolite, attracts geologists from all over the world thanks to its unique conservation and exposure to stratigraphic integrity, its many ancient and contemporary mines, its quarries, and beautiful natural landscape. The Samail Ophiolite is the best studied, best exposed ophiolite in the world, widely recognized as a ‘world class’ example of this type of rock.

10.2

Geotourism in Oman

The Sultanate of Oman is situated close to the north-eastern margin of the Arabian Plate in a zone of convergence between the Arabian and Eurasian plates and covers a total land area of approximately 309,500 square kilometers. Its 3,165-km-long coastline extends from the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean in the south-west, to the Oman Sea and Musandam in the north. Yemen shares borders with Oman in the south-west, while Saudi Arabia share border with Oman to the west and the United Arab Emirates to the north (Fig. 10.1). Oman has also several small islands in the Oman Sea and the Strait of Hormuz such as Salamah, Masirah and the Hallaniyat Islands in the Arabian Sea. A good knowledge of geological heritage and geotourism is an important factor in the holistic approach for sustainable Fig. 10.1 Geographic location of Oman. Source http://ww8america.blogspot.com/2015/04/ oman-geographical-maps-ofoman.html

development in the Sultanate of Oman. It is already known that the tourism and visitor economy sector is a very important aspect of the sustainable economy of Oman and the development of geotourism in recent years is part of a continuous process of general tourism development in Oman. Due to Oman’s particular characteristics and more specifically its moderate climate during the winter, the attractive landscapes, the fresh air and the opportunities for direct connection and interaction with nature, the area receives the highest number of visitors compared to other mountainous areas in the region. Among the main objectives addressed by the National Tourism Strategy (2015–2040) is the increase in the contribution of the tourism sector to gross domestic product (GDP). The spectacular mountains offer endless tourism potential, with its natural and cultural heritage features, found throughout (Fig. 10.2). For geotourists looking for unique geosites and/ or adventures, the northern mountains, in particular, are recognized as a destination for unique geological sites, cave exploration, rock climbing, hiking, mountain biking and wadi exploration. The entire sultanate is dotted with many of the historic antiquities, and fortresses that lie between a series of mountains and three seas, in addition to the clean environment. The Sultanate is famous for the kindness and hospitality of its people, political stability and security, and the presence of tourist infrastructure in the form of hotel chains and tourist

10

Geotourism in the Sultanate of Oman: Samail Ophiolite …

137

Fig. 10.2 Tourist attractions in Oman. Source Searle (2019)

facilities. The 2020–2040 vision of the Oman government promotes and encourages the development of natural tourism and this strategy recognizes the nature traveler market. Geotourism falls within this strategic direction due to its importance toward economic diversification. Thus, the proposed vision to develop the geosites in Oman is going to follow sustainable approach with products that cater towards culture, special interest, adventure, and relaxation under the umbrella of geotourism.

10.3

Geological Heritage of the Samail Ophiolite

Most of the Earth’s surface is made up of oceanic crust. However, the direct information from oceanic crust is very poor and we still have very poor information for oceanic crust so far. Ophiolites are parts of oceanic lithosphere that have been thrusted onto the continental plates. They provide

138

S. Nasir

Fig. 10.3 Geological map of the Samail Ophiolite. Source Nicolas and Boudier (1995)

models for processes at mid-ocean ridges. The ophiolites (Samail and Masirah ophiolites) in Oman provides the earth scientist an opportunity to examine features at a scale and detail that is not possible in the marine environment. The occurrence of the oceanic lithosphere on land of Oman presents geoscientists with the opportunity to walk around far below the ocean floor providing crucial insights into processes taking place deep in the ocean crust. Furthermore, economic minerals such as copper, chromite and gold have all been discovered associated with Ophiolites. Oceanic crust makes about 75% of the surface exposed of the Northern Oman Mountains (Al Hajar Mountains). The oceanic crust rocks dominate the eastern and western part of the mountains and internationally known as the Samail Ophiolite (Fig. 10.3), which lies in a NW to SE arcuate series of 13 massifs (Fig. 10.4). The Samail ophiolite is the largest and best-exposed ophiolite worldwide, having preserved intact record of a pre-collision system related to

Neotethyan Ocean closure. Offering its extended exposure (600 km  150 km) of oceanic lithosphere. Since the late 1970’s the Samail ophiolite has been the subject of intensive study by a large number of different research groups (e.g.; Glennie et al.1974; Coleman 1981; Lippard et al. 1986; Searle 1985, 2014; Searle and Cox 1999; Nicolas and Boudier 1995). The creation and closure of the Tethys Ocean which resulted in the creation and obduction of the Oman ophiolite is a classic example. The southwestward movement of the Afro-Arabian plate about 270 Ma initiated an axis of spreading in the South Tethys Ocean producing oceanic crust. The Oman Neo-Tethys appears to have formed in the Early Triassic by the rifting off and migration of small continents northward from the remainder Gondwanaland. The Samail ophiolite Nappe represents a slice of oceanic lithosphere that was formed above a northward-dipping subduction zone in a marginal basin tectonic setting. The nappe was obducted southwestward onto the Oman continental margin in

10

Geotourism in the Sultanate of Oman: Samail Ophiolite …

139

Fig. 10.4 Major massifs of the Samail Ophiolite. Source Nicolas and Boudier (1995)

the Santonian to Campanian. The ophiolitic nappe was detached from a Tethyan oceanic ridge at the initiation of closure of the Neo-Tethys between 96.5 and 95.5 Ma. (Rioux et al. 2013). A considerable controversy regarding the assumed origin of the Samail ophiolite, whether the ophiolite was formed in a mid-ocean ridge (MOR; Boudier et al. 1997) or at a supra-subduction zone (SSZ; Pearce et al. 1981) setting, has motivated a large number of contributions, pointing to the ambiguous question of origin of ophiolites. The suprasubduction zone model has gained support over the years, largely on the basis of geochemical evidence and does provide an explanation of how oceanic crust can be obducted onto a continental margin.

10.3.1 The Ophiolite Stratigraphy and Important Geosites The classic ophiolite sequence is well exposed at the Samail ophiolite (Fig. 10.4). Here we can observe a complete oceanic crust-mantle section from residual mantle peridotite, layered gabbro, sheeted dyke complex and effusive basaltic layer and sea sediments (Fig. 10.5). At Samail this entire sequence is 12 km thick (Nicolas et al. 2000).

The Samail Ophiolite is composed of two major sequences:

10.3.1.1 Mantle Sequence The mantle sequence (Fig. 10.6) represents the upper sub-oceanic mantle, which is composed of 10–12 km thick harzburgite (85–95%), lherzolite and dunite (5–15%). The petrological characteristics of the mantle harzburgite are highly homogenous throughout the area, olivine, orthopyroxene, chrome-rich spinel, form the mineral phases. Serpentinization of olivine is ubiquitous, up to 30% in average, reaching locally 100%. Wehrlite intrusions are found as sills and irregular intrusions. These intrusions are distinctive in the field because of their black color in outcrop. Dunite occurs in a variety of forms, but in many places form dykes or veins in the harzburgite. Chromite occurs as pods, dykes and interlayered with dunite as small layered intrusions. The chromite is invariably linked with dunite, usually as a sheath around the pod or dyke. 10.3.1.2 The Moho The most significant of all the Earth’s internal boundaries is between the top of the mantle and the base of the oceanic crust. It was found by Mohorovicic, hence the name “Moho”. At this depth, layered gabbro, which serves as the

140

Fig. 10.5 Classical stratigraphy of ophiolite. Source Searle (2014)

Fig. 10.6 The old city of Muscat built on oceanic mantle harzburgite. Source https://mht.gov.om/

S. Nasir

10

Geotourism in the Sultanate of Oman: Samail Ophiolite …

141

Fig. 10.7 Moho at Wadi Abyad. Source Searle (2014)

basis of the magma chamber and, by extension, the oceanic crust, truncates the enormous harzburgite of the mantle. Once more, the Moho may be felt and explored for almost 700 km on the dry plains of Oman and along several of its rushing wadis. Geosite: Moho Section of Wadi Abyad Because of its position across the Moho, Wadi Abyad is well known among geologists (Fig. 10.7). Numerous exposures display typical harzburgite with a dextral shear band and numerous dunite veins. Several gabbro dikes are commonly used to inject the shear band. The harzburgite at this location displays strong high-temperature flow patterns, and it is covered by thin sills of gabbro and dunite that are a few meters thick. Typically, lower layered olivine gabbro with foliation and lineation is seen above the abrupt contact.

10.3.1.3 The Moho Transition Zone (MTZ) The Moho Transition Zone marks the transition from the crust to the mantle. It is marked by dunites at top of the mantle sequence and consist of highly serpentinized olivine and iron-rich spinel, and are readily identifiable in the field by their characteristic yellowish weathering. Its thickness varies from a few meters to a few hundred meters but it is present everywhere. The MTZ is identified as a zone of melt transfer from the mantle source towards the magma chamber; as a consequence, the Moho is the ‘seismic Moho’,

lower limit of the crustal gabbro section. The contact between the mantle sequence and the overlying crustal layers is marked by a structural and petrological boundary which is taken to represent the sub-oceanic ‘petrological Moho’. Geosite: Maqsad-Mahram Mantle Diapir The Maqsad diapiric area is characterized by a thick and complex Moho transition zone (MTZ), incorporating hundreds of meters thick gabbro lenses within dunites which are themselves irregularly impregnated by plagioclase and clinopyroxene, with a cluster of chromite deposits. MTZ is 400 m thick on top of diapirs, extending over *10 km, transversally and thinning to