Abstract
Geomorphosites are landforms that in time have received a certain value due to human perception. This value can be scientific, ecological, aesthetic, cultural-historical and economic. The Southern Carpathians present numerous and various glacial and periglacial geomorphosites. In order to obtain an overall image of this area, the authors calculated indexes for glacial, periglacial and global geomorphic diversity. Geomorphic diversity is a dimensionless parameter that shows the number and diversity of geomorphosites within the study area. Global geomorphic diversity (glacial and periglacial) has a medium value of 0.365, with differences between glacial and periglacial. The values for glacial geomorphic diversity varied between 0 and 0.90 with a medium value of 0.30. The periglacial geomorphic diversity had higher values, ranging between 0.10 and 0.95 with a medium value of 0.43. In the Southern Carpathians, The Viștea basin (Făgăraș Mts.) was chosen as study area for an evaluation of geomorphosites. Several methods amongst the most widely used in the literature (Pralong in Géomorphol Relief Processus Environ 3:189–196, 2005; Coratza and Giusti in Il Quaternario 18(1):307–313, 2005; Bruschi and Cendrero in Il Quaternario 18(1):293–306, 2005; Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba in Géomorphol Relief Processus Environ 3:197–208, 2005; Reynard et al. in Geogr Helv 62 3:148–158, 2007; Pereira et al. in Geogr Helv 62(3):159–169, 2007; Zouros in Geogr Helv 62 3: 169–180, 2007; Comănescu et al. in Forum Geografic. Studii şi cercetări de geografie şi protecţia mediului XI:54–61, 2012) were applied and their results were subsequently compared. Each of the above-mentioned methods has their strong and weak points and the resulted global values vary on a large scale. The hierarchy obtained for each method in particular shows much smaller differences. By adding all the resulted ranks, the authors can conclude that the Viștea Valley glacial geomorphosite is the most important one from the Viștea basin.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2005) Geosite evaluation; can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18(1):293–306
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A (2009) Direct and parametric methods for the assessment of geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (eds) Geomorphosites. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munchen, pp 73–89
Bruschi VM, Cendrero A, Albertos JAC (2011) A statistical approach to the validation and optimisation of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 3:131–149
Cocean G (2011) Munţii Trascău. Relief, Geomorfosituri, Turism. Edit. Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca (in Romanian)
Cocean G, Surdeanu V (2011) The assessment of geomorphosites of tourist interest in the Trascău Mountains. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai, Geographia 2:67–81
Comănescu L, Dobre R (2009) Inventorying, evaluating and tourism valuating the geomorphosites from the Central sector of the Ceahlău National Park. GeoJ Tourism Geosites 1(3):86–96
Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R (2009) Inventoring and Evaluation of geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains. Geogr Forum Geogr Stud Environ Prot Res 8:38–44
Comănescu L, Nedelea A (2010) Analysis of some representative geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains: between scientific evaluation and tourist perception. Area 4:406–416
Comănescu L, Dobre R, Nedelea A (2011a) The identification of geomorphosites in different cartographic materials. The study case—Bucegi Mts (Romania). Egypt J Environ Change 3(1):25–33
Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R (2011b) Evaluation of geomorphosites in Vistea Valley (Fagaras Mountains-Carpathians, Romania). Int J Phys Sci 6(5):1161–1168
Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R (2012) The evaluation of Geomorphosites from the Ponoare protected area. Geogr Forum Geogr Stud Environ Prot Res 9:54–61
Comănescu L, Nedelea A, Dobre R, Bandoc G (2014) Inventoring the principal geomorphosites for determining geomorphodiversity. Case Study—the central sector of the Bucegi Mountains (The Carpathians, Romania). J Environ Prot Ecol 15(4):1849–1857
Coratza P, Giusti C (2005) Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18(1):307–313
Demek J, Kirchner K, Mackovcin P, Slavik P (2011) Geomorphodiversity derived by a GIS-based geomorphological map: case study the Czech Republic. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 55:415–435
Erhartic B (2010) Geomorphosite assessment. Acta Geographica Slovenica 50(2):295–319
Gavrilă I, Anghel T (2013) Geomorphosites inventory in the Măcin Mountains (South-Eastern Romania). GeoJ Tourism Geosites 11(1):42–53
Grandgirard V (1999) L’ evaluation des geotopes. Geol Insubr 4(1):59-66
Ilieș D (2014) Tourism planning and management for natural heritage. Edit. Bernardinum, Poland
Ilieş D, Josan N (2007) Preliminary contribution to the investigation of the geosites from Apuseni Mountains (Romania). Revista de geomorfologie 9:53–59
Ilieș D, Josan N (2009) Geosituri și geopeisaje. Edit. Universității din Oradea (in Romanian)
Ilieş D, Ilieş A, Herman G, Baias Ş, Morar C (2011) Geotourist map of Baile Felix-Băile 1 Mai-Betfia (Bihor County, Romania). GeoJ Tourism Geosites IV(8):219–227
Irimia D, Toma B (2012) The identification of the geomorphosites in Buzău Subcarpathians. Tourism capitalization options. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai—Geographia LVII 2:161–171
Irimuş IA, Petrea D, Vescan I, Toma B, Vieru I (2011) Vulnerability of touristic geomorphosites in Transylvanian saliferous areas (Romania). GeoJ Tourism Geosites 2(8):212–219
Kostrzewski A (2011) The role of relief geodiversity in geomorphology. Geographia Pol 84(2):69–74
Panizza M (2001) Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey. Chin Sci Bull 46:4–6
Panizza M (2009) The geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy): a key of geoheritage assessment. Geoheritage 1:33–42
Pereira P, Pereira D, Caetano Alves M (2007) Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugalia). Geogr Helv 62(3):159–169
Pralong JP (2005) A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphol Relief Processus Environ 3:189–196
Reynard E (2005) Géomorphosites et paysages. Géomorphol Relief Processus Environ 3:181–188
Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geogr Helv 62(3):148–158
Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini-Bissig G (2009) Geomorphosites. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munchen
Serrano E, Gonzalez-Trueba JJ (2005) Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Pico de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphol Relief Processus Environ 3:197–208
Wimbledon WAP, Ishchenko AA, Gerasimenko NP, Karis LO, Suominen V, Johansson CE, Freden C (2000) Geosites-an iugs initiative: science supported by conservations. In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management
Zouros N (2007) Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece. Case study of Lesvos island—coastal geomorphistes. Geogr Helv 62(3):169–180
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Comănescu, L., Nedelea, A. (2017). Geomorphosites Assessments of the Glacial and Periglacial Landforms from Southern Carpathians. In: Radoane, M., Vespremeanu-Stroe, A. (eds) Landform Dynamics and Evolution in Romania. Springer Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32589-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32589-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32587-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32589-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)