GGeeooJJoouurrnnaall ooff TToouurriissmm aanndd GGeeoossiitteess Year XXII, no. 11, vol. 21, May 22001188, p.222266–223388 [617052]

GGeeooJJoouurrnnaall ooff TToouurriissmm aanndd GGeeoossiitteess Year XXII, no. 11, vol. 21, May 22001188, p.222266–223388
ISSN 22006655–00881177, E-ISSN 22006655–11119988 DOI 10.30892/gtg.21118 -283

http://gtg.webhost.uoradea.ro/

GEOMORPHOSITES ASSESSMENT OF LORESTAN PROVINCE
IN IRAN BY COMPARING OF ZOUROS AND COMANESCU’S
METHODS (CASE STUDY: POLDOKHTAR AREA, IRAN)

Mehran MAGHSOUDI *
University of Tehran, Faculty of Geography,
Enghelab Avenue, Tehran, Iran , e-mail: [anonimizat]

Maryam RAHMATI
University of Tarbiat Modares, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Physical Geography,
Jalal Al -Ahmad Avenue, Nasr, Tehran, Iran, e -mail: [anonimizat]

Citation
Maghsoudi , M., Rahmati , M., (2018) , Geomorphosites Assessment of Lorestan Province in Iran by Comparing of
Zouros and Comanescu’s Methods (Case Study: Poldokhtar Area, Iran) , GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites ,
21(1), 226 –283. CrossRef

Abstract : With complex geology and different geomorphology structure, climatic
diversity, numerous islands and spiral coastline, Iran offers great vari ety of natural
landscapes. This paper discusses a comparative assessment of geomorphosites
located within the Poldokhtar area using Zouros and Comanescu methods. In this
study based on field trips, Geomorphological values were evaluated and compared
using six criteria in Zouros method and five criteria in Comanescu method. After
identifying 37 geomorphosites in the region, 13 were selected based on the principal
characteristics and added value. The assessment results showed that geomorphosites
of this regio n can be divided into two main groups. The first groups are based on
Comanescu method which consisted of five sites with high total value and the second
group consists of eight sites with average value. In Zouros method the first group
consisted of four si tes with high value and the second groups are nine sites with
average value. In order to protect identified geomorphosites and ensure appropriate
management, the establishment of Seymare protected area is proposed. This proposal
consists of a collection of diverse and spectacular geomorphosites.

Key words: Geomorphosites, Zouros and Comanescu’s Methods, Compare
Methods, Lorestan Province

* * * * * *

INTRODUCTION
In recent years , academic community has focused on geotourism more than ever
(Maghsoudi e t al., 2013) . In fact geotourism is viewed as promoting tourism to geosites
(geomorphosites), the conservation of geodiversity, and an understanding of Earth
sciences through appreciation and learning (Dowling, 2013). Geotourism particular
importance today is that many government programmes aim to conserve the most
valuable sites (geoconservation) and raise societal awareness about the importance of

* Corresponding author

Geomorphosites Assessment of Lorestan Province in Iran by Comparing of Zouros
and Comanescu’s Methods (Case Study: Poldokhtar Area, Iran)

227 geodiversity (Newsome & Dowling, 2017). Geotourism is now being practised all around
the world. It has been p romulgated for a whole range of places from specific sites and
landscapes (e.g., Derbyshire, UK; Cope, 2016); urban areas (e.g., Hong Kong; Ng et al .,
2010; Jeli District, Kelantan, Malaysia; Adriansyah et al ., 2015); to regions (e.g., Bojnoord
County, Ira n; Kharazian, 2015; Faiyum Oasis, Egypt; Sallam et al ., 2018, Kurkur –Dungul,
Egypt; Sallam et al ., 2018); and countries (e.g., European Union; Komossa et al ., 2018) .
Geomorphosites are defined “Geomorphological landforms and processes that have
acquired ae sthetic, scientific, cultural – historical and social – economic values due to human
perception of geological, geomorphological, historical and social factors” (Pralong, 2005,
Panizz, 2001, Reynard & Panizza, 2005). Geomorpholosites play an important role in
perception the paleo geomorphology evolution of an area (Comenescu et al ., 2011). In recent
decades, the vulnerability of the geoheritage that includes geological and geomorphological
natural elements have been less considered in comparison with the biol ogical and cultural
heritage and thus its situation is constantly blurred in the conservation actions (Reynard &
Coratza , 2007). These geomorphological sites in the literature have been introduced with
titles such as geomorphological assets ( Panizza & Piac ente , 1993) , geomorphological goods
(Cartoon, 1994) , geomorphological places ( Hooke, 1994) , geomorphological geotopes
(Grandgirard, 1997) . Places with geomorphological appeal (Panizza, 2001 ; Reynard et al .,
2007) . Geomorphological sites are important from special aspects. Some people like
Grandgirard (1997 ) know its importance in identifying the chronicle and reconstruction of
the Earth' history and some others like Panizza (2001) Panizza and Piacente (1993) consider
these places not only from the scientifi c point of view, but also from other points that are
related to ecology , economy and culture . However, these scientific values must be
prioritized and other important values be placed in the next level .
During the last two decades, the quality of geomorpho logical heritage has been
considered in terms of topics such as environmental impact assessment ( Rivas et al .,
1997; Coratza & Giusti , 2005, Geneletti & Dawa, 2009) , natural heritage sites ( Serrano &
Gonzalez Trueba, 2005) , the promotion of tourism ( Pralon g, 2005), the management of
natural parks and geoparks ( Pereira et al., 2007, Zouros , 2007) , scientific evaluation and
understanding of the tourist ( Comanescu et al , 2011) and the geological heritage ( Rocha et
al., 2014). Certainly, the used geomorphologi c methods should be adapted to the system ,
process and geomorphological phenomena of the desired location and have features that
could explain geomorphic characteristics . The link between anthropogenic activities and
use of geological values should enhance the sustainable development of planning policies
based on geoconservation and geointerpertation concept (Henriques et al ., 2011) .
Lorestan province offers a unique collection of attractive natural landforms owing
to its geological and geomorphologic al diversity and its multiplicity of morphoclimatic
zones due to difference in altitude (220 – 4150 m). This diversity has caused that Lorestan
has been known as one of the choices of geotourism spot of Iran in 2014 according to
Department Tourism and Cultural H eritage of Iran (General department cultural heritage
of Lorestan province) and its tourism areas has been identified more than before for
special protection . Since most of the geotourism attractions of Lorestan province are
concentrated in southwestern pa rt, so its different geomorphosites are known as tourist
destinations of the region . To date, the conservation and management value of the
geomorphosites has been less considered in the management and education ; especially in
this context has not been a comprehensive research in the form of articles and books.
So reliable geomorphosites assessment methods in this area can help to emphasize
their value and their importance as locations with potential for conservation , research and
management. These initiativ es schemes based on geomorphological sites assessment in

Mehran MAGHSOUDI, Maryam RAHMATI

228 this region allow the local communities to gain experience and have active participation in
geoconservation and geoheritage management. The aim of this study is comparison of
geotourism development p otential of geomorphological sites in Poldokhtar country, based
on education and tourism potential , through evaluation of them a nd providing
appropriate solutions for protection and promoting of this place as a tourism destination .

STUDY AREA
Study area w ith 47° 57′ – 48° 28′ E and 33° 03′ – 33° 46′ S is located in Lorestan
province in the southwestern of Iran, which forms part of the central Zagros mountains
with north west – southeast direction (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Geographical location of study area

Based on figure 2 and table 1 more landforms of region have been formed on
Gachsaran formations with chalk marl and anhydrite and clay, Asmari – Shahbazan
formation with dolomitic limestone and midlayers of marl and clay and Quaternary recent
alluvium an d debris (Ahmadabadi & Rahmati, 2016). Volcanic and metamorphic activities
have not been observed in the study area. Overall, in study area three typical topographic
units can be seen. Mountain unit, which matches to the anticlines that caves such as
Kowga n and Kalmakare have located on them; hill unit that are seen in erosion valleys and
the syncline, typical example in this forms are erosional hogback near Afrine waterfall and
Jaydar lake terraces. Typical Plain and flat lands unit in this area are locate d in the south
and southwest, near 11 ponds and Pol Tang. 13 geomorphosites in the study area (Seymare
landslide, Fanni – Laylomcluse (gorge -like features), 11 ponds of Poldokhtar, canyons and
valleys of Pol Tang, Jaydar and Saymare lake terraces, the Kow gan man made cave, the
Klmakare cave (the sixth world great treasures), the Vashian and Afrine waterfalls, typical
Afrine Hogbacks, the Kashkan river meanders, the Takht e Narm rocky village, the
Gavmishan geomorphosites collection (historical/ ancient br idges, karstic forms, sandstone
Precipices) are geotourism locations that have been selected for this study.

Geomorphosites Assessment of Lorestan Province in Iran by Comparing of Zouros
and Comanescu’s Methods (Case Study: Poldokhtar Area, Iran)

229

Figure 2. Geological unit's map in the study area provided from geological survey of Iran (1:100,000 scale)

Table 1. Geological units table of the study area

Num Geo
Unit Description
1 Qft2 Low level piedmont fan and valley teraces deposite
2 Qft1 High level piedmont fan and valley terrces deposits
3 MuPlaj Calcareous, sandstone, gypsum – veind , marl and siltstone
4 Mlgs Anhydrite, salt, ma rl alternating with anhydrite, argillaceous limestone and
limestone
5 OMas Limestone with intercalations of shale
6 EMas -sb Limestone
7 Ekn Conglomerate, sandstone and siltstone
8 PeEtz Massive fossiliferous limestone
9 KPeam Siltstone and sandsto ne with local development of chert conglomerate and
shelly limestone
10 KEpd -gu Marl and shale
11 Kgu Marl and shale with subordinate thin – bedded argillaceous -limestone
12 Kbgp Limestone and shale

Figures 3 to 7 s hows the view of some geomorphos ites of the study area. Some
geomorphosites of this region have a special important; for example, Seymare
landslide has been known "as the larges t known landslide ” (Bloom, 1978; Bargrizan,
1996) and "the biggest eastern hemisphere landslide ” (Fisher, 1968) because of its
extent and specific characteristics. Klmakare historical cave due to having a large
number of antique objects dating to the Elamite civilization in the 1000 BC, has been
called as "the sixth great world treasures ” (Mahboubian et al ., 2003, Khosravi &
Mousavi, 2014; Bashash, 2000; Parhan, 2014). Kowgan two -store cave is one of the
few man – made caves related to the Parthian civilization (250 BC) that has been carved
in the Zagros Mountains (Administration Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tou rism
OF the Lorestan Province, 2010).

Mehran MAGHSOUDI, Maryam RAHMATI

230

Figure 3. The view from the twin ponds ( Lefone), part of the ponds Poldokhtar

Figure 4. The view from Afrine waterfall (Source: Bahman Ebrahimi, 2013)

Figure 5. The view from Saymare landslide (Source: Mojta ba Yamani, 2014)

Geomorphosites Assessment of Lorestan Province in Iran by Comparing of Zouros
and Comanescu’s Methods (Case Study: Poldokhtar Area, Iran)

231

Figure 6. The view from Hogbacks (Source: Alirez Amri Kazemi, 2011 )

Figure 7. The view from Kowgan cave to the outside

Figure 8. The view from Kashkanriver meanders, (Source: Bahman Ebrahimi, 2013)

Mehran MAGHSOUDI, Maryam RAHMATI

232 METHODOLOGY
For this research b ased on a documentary study, initial data were collected and
classified that was related to the research literature (the method was selected based on
geographic conditions and geotourism attractions of the region ). Then the locations of
37 geomorphosites a nd their topographic and geological information were derived from
1:50 000 topographic maps (1976) of Poldokhtar, Mamoulan and Bidrubeh and 1:100
000 geological maps (1972) of Poldokhtar and Khorramabad and field work. Finally,
after selecting 13 geomorpho sites, based on inherent value and additional value ,
inventory sheet was prepared for each of them. Then during the field observations,
pictures were taken of each geomorphosites and their locations were marked using GPS
device and their distributions were drawn in Arc GIS software (Fig ure 9).
Then the evaluation of each criterion was done using special questionnaires for
each method that had been completed and ranked by experts ( experts in
geomorphology, geology, environment, tourism management and native s). Figure 9
shows flow chart of the research process in study area.

Figure 9. Geomorphosites distribution map in study area based on produced
hill shade by Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM)

COMANESCU MODEL
Generally , Comanescu model is based o n 5 criteria; scientific, aesthetic, cultural,
economic and management (table 2). In fact, quality assessment of perspective, scientific,
cultural and or economic benefits of geomorphological sites and their tourism value
forpeople, determines the capabili ties application (Pralong , 2005) of geomorphosite.
The evaluation of geomorphosites according to criteria proposed in table 1; the total
value is calculated following the formula (Comanescu et al, 2012: 57) .

Equation 1:
Vtot = (Vsci +Vsce +Vcult +Veco+Mg )/100

For each of the criteria mentioned above, a score between 0 and the maximum
value given to the criterion is considered, the sum for each criterion is calculated, and also
the sum for all criteria, according to the above formula.

Geomorphosites Assessment of Lorestan Province in Iran by Comparing of Zouros
and Comanescu’s Methods (Case Study: Poldokhtar Area, Iran)

233

Figure 10. Flow chart of the methodological approach in study area

As we mentioned, the appreciation criteria stay the same, but the scale will differ
depending on the concrete situation in the field and on the purpose and objectives of the
evaluation. Thus, whether the evaluation aims firstly the scientific value, its results being
used for the specialist, a higher weight will be given to paleogeographic interest, the
degree of knowledge/ recognition or the ecological value. If the evaluation purpose
regards educational activity, then the use in this purpose will be better measured.
In geotourism mapping, which is more interest for tourists , cultural and aesthetic
values are more considered . In dedicated studies for the environmental pressure , the
highest values allocated to management and economic benefit ( Comanescu et al ., 2012: 58) .

ZOUROS METHOD
In Zouros (2007) method, several indicators have been defined for each criterion
and were selected as a quantitative approach to assessment. As shown in Table 3 each
indicato r is given a value between 0 -10 and 0 -5, with the highest score representing the
highest value. The total score of each criterion is thus the sum of its indicators ( Equation
2). The total number of criteria can therefore express the quality of a geomorphos ite, with
100 being the highest attainable score (Table 3).

Equation 2 ( Zouros, 2007) :
Geomorphosite value = Scientific + Geodiversity + Ecological & aesthetic + Cultural +
Potential threats & protection needs + Potential for use

Mehran MAGHSOUDI, Maryam RAHMATI

234 Table. 2 The criteria and scores provided for evaluating geomorphosites in Comanescu method et al . (2012, 58)

Management and use 20
points Economic value
20 points Cultural value
20 points Aesthetic value
20 points Scientific value
20 points
Preservation
Degree
4 point Accessibi lity
4 point Cultural
Characteristics
4 point Visibility
4 point Paleo geographic
interest
3 point
Protected sites
3 point Infrastructure
4 point Historical
Characteristics
4 point Space structuring
4 point Representativeness
2 point
Vulnerability /
Natur al risks
3 point Yearly visitors
Number
4 point Religious
Characteristics
4 point Color contrast
4 point Rareness
2 point
Intensity of use
4 point Number of types and
forms of use
(inclusively touristic )
4 point Iconographic /
Literary
representations
2 point Level difference
4 point Integrity
2 point
Use of aesthetic, cultural
and economic value
3 point Economic potential
(incomes )
4 point Festivals/cultural
manifestations Landscape framing
4 point Degree of scientific
knowledge
3 point
Relationship with
Planning policies
3 point Symbolic value
4 point Use in educational
Purposes
3 point
Ecologic value
3 point
Diversity
2 point

Table 3 . The criteria and scores provided for evaluating geomorphosites in Zouros method

Num Criteria and
Indicato rs Assessment Ranking
1 Scientific &
educational value 40-0
1-1 Integrity Depends on the degree to which a geomorphological structure or process blends into
the site and on its level of preservation 10-0
1-2 Rarity Depends on the number of similar site s at different levels (unique, international,
national, regional, local) 10-0
1-3 Representativeness Depends on the degree to which the site is typical of a certain geomorphological
process 10-0
1-4 Exemplarity Depends on the usefulness of the site for h elping the general public to understand a
geomorphological structure or process 10-0
2 Geodiversity Number of geological and geomorphological phenomena that appear at each site 10-0
3 Ecological &
aesthetic value Characterization by international design ation or by national or regional legislation
(WHS – natural world heritage site or MAB – biosphere reserve, national park or
national natural monument, natural park, regional park, locally protected site) 10-0
4 Cultural value Characterization by internati onal designation or by national or regional legislation
(WHS – natural world heritage site, national cultural monument, cultural landscape or
landscape of outstanding aesthetic beauty, regional monument, local monument) 10-0
5 Potential threats &
protecti on needs 10-0
5-1 Legal protection The existing level of legal protection (international designation, national park or
monument, protected by national legislation, regional protection, poor protection, no
protection) 5-0
5-2 Vulnerability Presence and m agnitude of potential threats (uncontrollable risk, strong pressure,
moderate risk, controlled risk, poor risk, no risk) 5-0
6 Potential for use 20-0
6-1 Recognizability The level of recognition (international, national, regional, local, known only by
scientific community, unknown) 5-0
6-2 Geographical
distribution The percentage of the space occupied by the geomorphosites in relation to the total
surface of the protected area 5-0
6-3 Accessibility The level of accessibility (by a road of regional or n ational importance, by local road,
by unsurfaced road, by foot path, with permission only, no access) 5-0
6-4 Economic potential Number of visitors per year (more than 75.000 visitors, more than 50.000 visitors, more
than 20.000 visitors, more than 5.000 visitors, less than 5.000 visitors, no visitors) 5-0

Geomorphosites Assessment of Lorestan Province in Iran by Comparing of Zouros
and Comanescu’s Methods (Case Study: Poldokhtar Area, Iran)

235 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The assessment results of 13 geomorphosite values in Poldokhtar area are shown in
Tables 4 and 5 as shown in Comanescu method according to the equal values (20 points
for all geo morphosites), the highest value has been allocated to scientific criteria, and the
lowest score is related to cultural criteria. Also among geomorphosites, Kalmakare cave
has the highest score (13.2 points) and Afrine hogback have achieved the lowest score
(7.95) .Valuations of each indicator in the Zouros method due to differences in each
indicator values have been in a different way , so that the protection criterion had the
lowest scores . As you can see the highest score is related to scientific criteria that certainly
according to the highest Points were given to this indicator , is not surprising and the
result is similar to the result of Comanescu method . It is worth mentioning that Seymare
landslide geomorphosite with 78.5 points ranks the highest and ro cky village of Takht e
Narm with 53.25 score, had the lowest rank among other geomorphosites .

Table. 4 Results of selected geomorphosites assessment
based on Comanescu method (2012) in study area
Geomorphosit e
value
Kashkan
meanders
Rocky village of
Takht e Narm
Afrine hogback
Semi -canyon
valleys
(PolTang)
Lake terraces
Saymare
landslide
Fanni –
Laylomcluse
Collection of
geomorphosite s
Gavmishan
Poldokhtar
ponds
Kalmakare
cave
Kowgan cave
Vashian
waterfall
Afrine
waterfall
Scientific 14.5 12/5 13 13/5 17/25 16/5 10/75 15/5 17/25 17/5 13/75 9/5 13/5
Aesthetic 14/75 12/5 13/25 13/75 13/5 14/5 12/5 14 14/5 11 11/75 12/75 15/5
Cultural 3/25 12/25 1/75 7/75 5/25 7/5 5 13/75 5/5 16/25 13/75 4 4/5
Economic 7 5/25 6/75 6/75 9 8 7/75 10/5 11 8 8 6/25 10/5
Manag ement
and use 4/75 8/25 5 7/25 6/75 5/75 7/25 11/25 12/25 13/25 12/25 7/5 9/5
Average 8/85 10/15 7/95 9/8 10/35 10/45 8/65 13 12/1 13/2 11/9 8 10/7

Table 5. Results of selected geomorphosites assessment
based o n Zouros method (2007) in study area
Geom orphosit e
value
Kashkan
meanders
Rocky village of
Takht e Narm
Afrine hogback
Semi -canyon
valleys
(PolTang)
Lake terraces
Saymare
landslide
Fanni –
Laylomcluse
Collection of
geomorphosite s
Gavmishan
Poldokhtar
ponds
Kalmakare
cave
Kowgan cave
Vashian
waterfa ll
Afrine
waterfall
Scientific 22 20/25 25/5 25/5 25/5 33 26/75 24 29 28/25 25/75 24/75 26/75
Geodiversity 6 4/25 6/75 7/5 8 9/5 8 8 6/5 5/25 4/75 5/25 6/5
Ecological &
aesthetic value 6 6/5 7/5 6/5 6/5 7 7/5 5/5 8/25 5/25 4/25 5/5 4/5
Cultural 5/25 8/25 5 5/75 6/5 7 6 7/5 6/75 8/25 6 4/5 5
Potential threats
& protection
needs 4/5 5/75 5 5/5 5/75 6 6 8/75 6/75 5/25 5 4/75 7/5
Potential for use 13/25 8/5 7/5 10/25 12/25 16 9 14/75 14/75 10/75 11/5 10 15/75
TOTAL 57 53/25 57/25 61 64/5 78/5 63/25 68/5 72 64 57/25 54/75 66

Despite having a high level of scientific point in geomorphosites, it seems that the
Southwest of Lorestan province had the lowest number of visitors and therefore little
development in this context is observed. Although a high scien tific value for these

Mehran MAGHSOUDI, Maryam RAHMATI

236 geomorphosites is considered, but have had little cultural or protection values . It is
possible that due to the little promotion for geotourism development in this region , less
infrastructure and services have been prepared for visito rs. However, the low number of
visitors despite its high potential for tourism and education may also be due to poor
access to some geomorphosites. Based on these results , geomorphosites of this region can
be divided in to two main groups . The first group based on Comanescu method consisted
of five sites with total value of high ( 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) and the second group consists of eight
sites with medium values . Also in Zouros method, the first group consists of four sites
with the total value of high ( 1, 5, 6, 8) and the second group are 9 sites with medium
values . It should be noted that the results are in accordance with Zouros study (2007 ) on8
selected Lesvos Island – coastal are a geomorphosites . This study emphasis on high
scientific value of geomorphosite s and low value for Potential application and cultural
indicator. Comanescu (Comanescu et al ., 2011 , 2012 ) assess the geotourism potential of 8
geomorphosites in Pono are protected area and 16 geomorphosites in Romania Vista
valley. The results of these tw o studies showed that cultural indicator have low value and
more attention needs to be focused to these criteria it in these areas. In addition, Shayan
(Shayan et al ., 2014) assessed6 geomorphosits in Karaj – Chalous road and they
concluded that the cultur al and management indicators had the lowest points than the
other indicators in this area and they are need for more attention of the authorities to
these indicators in the region. A notable point in all of these studies is the high level
scientific – educ ation value of geomorphosites .
For geomorphosites management in the Poldokhtar area, some specific
management actions are done for supporting and enhancing the existing sites.
Comprehensive plan has been carried for identify the geotourism capabilities of
Lorestan Waterfalls by Cultural Heritage, Handcrafts and Tourism Organization . For
waterfalls like Afrine necessary protection acts have been described ( Lorestan Cultural
Heritage, Handcrafts and Tourism Organization , 2008). Among the 13 geomorphosite,
only four sites (3 , 4, 5 and 6) were in the national registration . However , efforts must be
taken for further registration of other site ssuch as 1, 8 and 13. Remarkable negative
environmental consequences of tourist attraction and their increasing number in the
region caused direct increasing abrasion due to continuous walking until now .
Educational programs should be provide for visitors , especially students for
understanding the importance of the region’s geomorphosites and to further influence
their insig hts on geological and geomorphological processes of the region .
Several management proposals are presented in order to protect and identify the
geomorphosites are as:
– Reviews and revision of the laws relating to exploitation of natural resources with
a conservation approach of Landform;
– Formation and strengthening the expert advocacy groups protecting landforms ;
– Comprehensive monitoring and strict action against offenders ;
– Continuous and effective cultural actions (especially for natives ) in order to
change their attitudes towards the landforms and involvement of local community f or
protection of geomorphosites;
– Identification of landform, based on global standard scientific methods to
maintain the integrity and collection of rare samples to resto ration and validity ;
– Limiting and in certain cases prohibiting the as signment of natural resources to
the peoples that has typical and valuable landforms (especially Poldokhtar 11 ponds );
-Assigning some geomorphosites as geographylab ( geomorphology), to a large and in
dependent organization in the country , such as the ministry of science , research and technology .

Geomorphosites Assessment of Lorestan Province in Iran by Comparing of Zouros
and Comanescu’s Methods (Case Study: Poldokhtar Area, Iran)

237 CONCLUSIONS
Geomorphosites have the potential to be considered as natural and tourism resources
with remarkable economic benefits, especially if they are located in protected areas. Lorestan
province has been known as one of the choices of geotourism hub of Iran in 2014 according to
Cultural Heritage, Handcrafts and Tourism Organization. Poldokhtar is one of the county of
Lorestan provinces wit h high potential for geotourism development. Aim of this research was
the identification and ranking of geomorphosites in this region. Two methods were used for
assessment and comparing the value of geomorphosites located in the Poldokhtar area of
Iran. Th e results showed that using two methods for comparison of areas with similar
geographical conditions in order to classify the sites value is useful and can be used for better
assessment of the geomorphosites. This comparison provided the design context met hods
with a more comprehensive indicator for similar areas. Both methods emphasize on more
attention to protecting aspects of geomorphosites. In addition, the results of this study
propose assigning a protected area in Saymare area. This area provides a po ssible of setting up
a network of geomorphosites protection and monitoring activities. Additionally, promotion of
local identity, the importance of tourism build infrastructure, development of new products
and services locally, there by the creation of new employment opportunities, encouraging of
the local economy growth and thus local sustainable development will expand .
Acknowledgments
Hereby authors wished to thank Bahman Ebrahimi, Alireza Amrikazemi and
Mojtaba Yamani for offering their photos of some geomorphosites.

REFERENCES

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. Geos, 15 (1), pp. 25 43 .
Ahmadabadi, A., Rahmati, M., (2016), Application of geomorpholometric quantitative parameters in
identification of landslide susceptible areas by using SVM model (Case study: Khorramabad – paul Zal
freeway) , quantitative geomorphologica l researches, 4(3), pp. 197 -213.
Bargrizan, M., (1 996), Landslide Saymare and lake depositsin Lorestan Poldokhtar southwestern , Articles
collection the symposium first quaternary international , Tehran , Tehran university , Iran's UNESCO
national commission publications .
Bashash , Kanzagh, R., (2000), Reading in scriptions containers attributed to the Lorestan Kalmakare cave ,
Administration Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism of the Iran, Cultural and tourism heritage
research institute , Tehran .
Berberian, M., (1995), Master blind thrust faults hidden un der the Zagros folds: active basement tectonics and
surface morphotectonics , Tectonophysics, 241, pp. 193 – 224.
Bloom, A. , l., (1978), Geomorphology, a systematic analysis of late cenizoic landforms , New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Carton, N., (1994), Ricerche ambientali per l’individuazione e lavalu tazionedeibeni geomorfologici
metodiedesempi , Il Quaternario, 7(1), pp. 365 – 372.
Comanescu, L., Nedelea, A., Dobre, R., (2011), Evaluation of Geomorphosites in Vistea Valley (Fagaras
Mountains -Carpathians, R omania) , International Journal of the Physical Sciences 6(5),pp. 1161 -1168 .
Comanescu, L., Nedelea, A., Dobre, R., (2012), The Evolution of Geomorphosits from the Ponoare protected
area , Journal of Geography 11(1), pp. 54 -61.
Cope, M. , A., (2016), Derbys hire geodiversity, historical geotourism and the‘geocommercialisation’ of tourists:
setting the context of the Castleton Blue John Stone industry , Proceedings of the Geologists'
Association, 127(6), pp. 738 -746.
Coratza, P., Giusti, C., (2005), A method fo r the evaluation of impacts on scientific quality of Geomorphosites .
Quaternario 18 (1) volume special, pp. 306 -312.
Dowling, R. , K., (2013), Global Geotourism an emerging form of sustainable tourism , Czech J. Tour. 2 (2), pp. 59 -79.
Fisher, W. , B., (1968) , The Cambridge history of Iran. The land of Iran , Oxford University Press .
Geneletti, D., Dawa, D., (2009), Environmental impact assessment of mountain tourism in developing regions:
A study in Ladakh, Indian Himalaya , Environmental Impact Assessment Revi ew 29, pp. 229 –242 .
Grandgirard, V., (1997), Géomorphologie, protection de la nature etgestion du paysage . Thèse de doctorat,
Faculte des sciences, Université de Fribourg.

Mehran MAGHSOUDI, Maryam RAHMATI

238 Henriques, M. , H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J., Mota, T., (2011), Geoconservatio n as an emerging geoscience ,
Geoheritage 3, pp. 117 –128.
Hooke, J. , M., (1994), Strategies for conserving and sustaining dynamic geomorphological site . In: Ohalloran,
D. et al. (eds.): Geological and Landscape Conservation. Geological Society, London, pp. 191-195.
Kharazian, P., (2015), Assessment of geo -tourism structure in Bojnoord City Sustainable Tourism
Development , Eur. J. Sustain. Dev, 4 (2), pp. 175184 .
Khosravi, L., Mousavi, S. M., (2014), Kalmakare Cave Treasure, Administration Cultural Heritage H andicrafts
and Tourism of the Iran , Cultural and tourism heritage research institute , Tehran .
Maghsoudi, M., Alizade, M., Rahimiharabadi, S., Hodaearaei, M., (2013), Capability Assessment of Tourism
Geomorphosites in Kavir National Park , Tourism management studies, 19, pp. 49 -68.
Mahboubian, H., Sahim, H., Wilknson, G., (2003), Treasures of the mountains: The Art of the Medes , 2ened, London .
Mokhtari, D., (2015), Axioms of geomorphology and geotourism status , Geography and environmental
planning, 25 (1), pp. 91 -10.
Newsome, D., Dowling, R., (2018), Geoheritage and Geotourism , Chapter 17, Elsevier Inc, pp. 305 -321, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978 -0-12-809531 -7.00017 -4.
Ng, C. , Y., Fung , L., W., Newsome, D., (2010), Hong Kong Geopark. In: Dowling, R., Newsome, D. (Eds.), Global
Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow. Publishers, Oxford, pp. 179191.
Panizza, M., (2001), Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological surve y, Chinese
Science Bulletin, 46, Suppl. Bd 1, pp. 4 -5.
Panizza, M., Piacente, S., (1993), Geomorphological assets evaluation , Zeitschri ftfür Geomorphologie N.F.
Suppl, Bd 87, pp. 13 -18.
Parhan, S., (2014), Untold of ancient treasures of Kalmakare cave , Bukhara journal, 93(15), pp.124 -110Pralong,
J.P., (2005), A method for assessing the tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites ,
Géomorphologie. Relief, processes, environnement, 3, pp. 189 -196.
Pereira, P., Pereira, D., Caetano Alves, M. I., (2007), Geomorphosite assessment in and mapping. An
introduction , Géomorphologie, Relief, processus, environnement, 3 , pp. 177 -180.
Reynard, E., Coratza, P., (2007), Geomorphosites and geodiversity: a new domain of research . Geographica
Helvetica, 62, pp. 138 -139.
Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., Scapozza, C., (2007), A method for assessing «scientific» and «additional
values» of geomorphosites , Geographica Helvetica, 62(3), pp.148 -158.
Reynard, E., Panizza, M., (2005), Geomorphosites: definition, assessment geomorphological sites .
Géomorphologie, Relief, processes, environment, 3, pp. 189 -196.
Rivas, V., Rix, K., Frances, E., Cenderero, A., Brunsden, D., (1997), Geomorphological indicators for
environmental impact assessment: consumable and nonconsumable geo morphological resources ,
Geomorphology, 18, pp. 169 -182.
Rocha, J., Brilha, J., Henriques, M. , H., (2014), Assessment of the geological heritage of Cape Mondego Natural
Monument (Central Portugal) , Proceeding of the Geologists’ Association, 125, pp. 107 -113.
Sallam, E. , S., Ponedelnik, A. , A., Tiess, G., Yashalova, N. , N., Ruban, D. , A., (2018), The ge ological heritage of
the Kurkur Dungul area in southern Egypt , Journal of African Earth Sciences, 137, pp. 103 -115.
Sallam, E. , S., Fathy, E. E, Ruban, D. , A., Ponedelnik, A. A , Yashalova, N.N., (2018), Geological heritage diversity in the
Faiyum Oasis (Egypt): A comprehensive assessment , Journal of African Earth Sciences, 140, pp. 212 –224.
Sarkarinejad, K., Ghanbarian, M. , A., (2014), The Zagros hinterland f old-and thrust belt in -sequence thrusting ,
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 85, pp. 66 -79.
Serrano, E., Gonzalez Trueba, J. J., (2005), Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos
de Europa National Park (Spain) , Géomorphologie. Reli ef, processus, environnement, 3, pp. 197 -208,
Shayan, S., Banisafar, M., Zare, Gh., Fazli, N., (2014), Geomorphosites Sustainable Tourism Development Potential
Evaluation by Emphasis on Comanescu Method (Case Study: Geomorphosites in Tourism: Karaj -Chaloos to
Kandovan Tunnel) , Planning and tourism development, 2(5), pp. 78 -92.Yamani, M., Shamsipour, A., A,
Rahmati, M., (2015), The bounding of the present and quaternary zones of climate and morphogenesis
processes in Khorramabad – Zaal Bridge freeway , Quantit ative geomorphological researches, 2, pp. 90-103.
Zouros, N., (2007), Assessment, protection, and promotion of geomorphological and geological sites in the
Aegean area Greece , Géomorphologie: Relief Processus Environ, 3, pp. 227 -234.
*** (2014 ), Administra tion Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism of the Lorestan Province , Official
correspondence related to the tourism hub of the country with geological survey in 2014 year .
*** (2010 ), Organizing project of Kowgan cave , Administration Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism of
the Lorestan Province .
*** (2008 ), Organizing project of Lorestan waterfalls , Administration Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and
Tourism of the Lorestan Province .

Submitted: Revised: Accepted and published online
26.11 .201 7 09.0 3.201 8 12.03 .201 8