GEOTOPE, GEOSITE, GEOMORPHOSITE Tác giả Mihai IELENICZ

The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

`
GEOTOPE, GEOSITE, GEOMORPHOSITE
Mihai IELENICZ1
1

University of Bucharest

Abstract: During the last decennia, the terms of geosite and geomorphosite have been introduced in
the geographic literature, to delineate and to express the tourist value of certain places (mainly as
relief forms and reliefogenic processes). We have followed successively the relations between geotope
and geosite and then geosite and geomorphosite and insisted on the features leading to the
differentiation of types and subtypes of geosites and on the calculation of the tourist value of the
objectives they belong to, according to a differentiated score awarded based on several criteria.
Key words: tourism, geotope, geosite, geomorphosite, cultural geomorphology

1. Geotope-Geosite
A few decennia ago, was introduced in the geographic literature, with many
geomorphological exemplifications, the term of geotope, to define the smallest geographic
unit constituting an undividable system of this kind (the basis of all the systemic complexes
organized in a hierarchy).
During the last decennium, in some countries of the Mediterranean basin (Italy,
France), desiring to express as eloquently as possible the connections between a large part of
the relief forms and sometimes between the geomorphological processes and tourism
(especially in the sense of valorizing them for different tourist activities), in the specialized
literature was introduced the term of Geomorphosite. The meaning was that of morphological
element (indicated as process or form of relief) with a certain value for tourism. It can also be
a reply to some terms (archeological site, historical site) used with a very high frequency in
these states with an extremely rich history.

Then, there was a move on from the simple definition to the determination of four to
five features that can lead to the selection of a reliefogenic site. They were completed using
several criteria based on which they can be quantified and, finally, an average value can be
calculated, which would lead to significant hierarchies for a realistic economic valorization.
Timidly, there has appeared as well the tendency of evading towards other
components of the geographic system or of the geological, historical systems as well, in
which it is also possible to differentiate elements that through their characteristics are
significant for different tourist activities. Knowing all of them (those that belong to the relief
but also all the others) is only possible via field investigations materialized in mapping,
surveys, measurements, then followed by the realization of maps, brochures, diverse writings
and finally by the calculation of an average value that would lead to hierarchies with
significance for a valorization in tourism.
Almost in parallel have appeared, beside the terms of geomorphosite and geosite,
notions that are often used in an undifferentiated way, although the first constitutes a
component of the other.
That is why it is necessary to come with clarifications, firstly in the relations between
the notions with a larger content (geotope and geosite) and then between geosite and
geomorphosite.
The first terms phonetically express similar situations (geo=geo; tope=site=place)
small geographic spots, or small spots on the surface of the Earth with a certain specific. The
7


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

difference is given, however, not by location or size, but by the sphere of comprehension of
the functional expression of this place in relation to specific demands (in the first situation, we
are dealing with a complex level of the geographic meaning, while the significance of the
second is meaningful for a tourist valorization). In this sense, the geotope is a minor,

indivisible geographic unit (the basis of the geographic systems of different orders) with a
certain makeup, structure and functionality, resulted from a genesis, evolution and
combination of certain elements of all the environmental components, yet differentiated as
significance).
It remains the basic unit in any geographic analysis in which the main accent is of a
scientific nature (ex. river bed, talweg, river rapid, inselberg, glacis, CROV, peak, plateau,
cuesta, cliff, beach etc.). From here results the family of geomorphotopes classified according
to different criteria (agent, process etc.) or according to regions with specific
geomorpholandscapes (a set of geomorphotops) that all belong to the science of the relief
(landscapes of the glacial geomorphotopes from the massifs Făgăraş, Parâng, Retezat, Rodnei
etc.; karst landscapes of the mounts Aninei, Pădurea Craiului, Mehedinţi Plateau etc.;
sufosion and rams landscapes in the plains of Bărăgan, Covurlui etc.; structural cuesta and
plateau landscapes in the Moldavian Plateau etc.). Secondly, the sphere of comprehension of
the notion o “geotope” leads on the one hand to the possibility of realizing hierarchies on
different levels (from basic unit to regions, tiers, zones) dominated by the high frequency of a
geotope and then, on the other hand, through synthesis, to the differentiation of specific types
of geotopes.
The term of geosite, however, involves, depending on the direction in which they are
used, other assessment criteria, combined in different proportions. Their weight depends on
the final purpose of the activities (related to science, tourism, economy etc.), and also on the
person (people) who realize the assessment act. The specialist in one domain (geography,
geology, history etc.) will focus on the scientific component that he/they will consider as
basic, not just in point of location, but also in point of the attributes he/they provide(s) in the
genetic, evolutive, chronological etc. explanations, both on a general and on a local level. So,
it is the scientific knowledge that is primordial, while the aspects resulted from the
investigation of other directions will have a secondary role and only to the extent to which
they support the essential ones. For instance, let us take the case of the paleontological
knowledge of a fossiliferous spot or the interpretation of a stratigraphic column for the
chronoevolutive assessment of a relief. In this case, for the geographer, the geosite is almost
identified with the geotope.

The use of the term in a different direction (for tourism) and so collaterally in
relation to the purely scientific side changes the relative weight of these characteristics. For
example the neck on which a fortified city (Rupea) is situated has a differentiated scientific
value for the geographer (altitude, shape, evolution of the plateau, economic valorization etc.),
geologist (genesis, makeup, evolution etc.), historian (strategic basis for the building of the
fortified city, point of observation) and in a low but varied proportion for each of the other
domains (cultural, artistic etc.). Collaterally, for an architect become significant (primordial)
the type of construction through its adaptation to declivity, rock, exposure and degree of
preservation. For a tourist, significant (primordial) are the purely historical data and the
landscape, and secondarily all the others; for a military strategist, essential is the motivation
of the role of such a place in the network of Transylvanian walled cities belonging to the
middle Ages.
So, a geosite can be looked at from several directions by different specialists or by
simple passers-by (tourists), which results in distinct differences in the attribution of
characteristics, then in an assessment in point of value and eventually in decisions of

8


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

scientific patrimonial expertise (historic, artistic, architectonic etc.), on a local, national,
international level, and in an economic, tourist etc. valorization.
So, the sphere of the term of geosite is extremely large, leading to distinguishing a
group (family) of separated geosites depending on the main direction of approach of the
investigation (scientific, cultural-artistic, economic, sportive, tourist, etc.).
The connections between them impose secondary directions that can form a
hierarchy in point of the participation to the ways of valorization.
In the sphere of the scientific direction, in the geographic domain there is the term of

geotope and in the domain of history, the term of archeological site, while for the other
domains there are no such comprehensive notions.
The geographers have made the first steps in the differentiation of the geosites for
tourism. Yet, tourism is a domain which involves specialists with very different orientations.
This situation has led to the introduction and use of a diverse terminology in time (potential,
patrimony etc.) and which, in many cases, is interpretable and can even lead to confusions.
The sense the geographer gives to the term of geosite used in tourism must have a
complex character, comprising several aspects, the type of tourist objective, with the value
imposed by the sum of certain characteristics resulted from a symbiosis in time between the
natural and the anthropic patrimony (historical, architectonic, artistic elements etc.) to which
is added the level of endowment and of exploitation. So, on a local level it reflects at any time
its tourist patrimony and also the extent to which it is known and valorized.
The idea of the extension of the sites with value for tourism (correct: touristsites) and
of their inclusion in a comprehensive term – geosites implies, however, as well, the discussion
of three interpretations of a taxonomic nature of the term of geosite, related to different
extensions. The first interpretation refers to strictly geographic sites, the second includes the
interpretations from the sphere of geosciences (geographic, geological, ecological) and then
there is a third all-comprehensive interpretation (fig. 1) referring to terrestrial sites of different
geneses (to the previous interpretations are added the historical, economic, cultural etc. ones)
but which present a tourist value.

Fig. 1 – Sphere of the Geosite in 3 situations

The final purpose of some territorial analyses would be to asses the tourist potential
present in a region with the purpose of its future economic valorization. It naturally leads to
accepting the third direction of interpretation, a situation requiring nevertheless team
evaluations with specialists from a large horizon of knowledge and preoccupation
(obligatorily the tourist domain along with the specialized ones).

9

The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Through the extension of the sphere of comprehension of this notion (any site with
tourist value situated on all the surface of the earth) is overpassed the strict limitation to the
alpine units where they have a distinct concentration being frequently present in the
landscape. In this sense, the alpine areas of the Alps or of the other massifs of the
Mediterranean basin which have constituted pioneering applicative models for the ideas
related to the touristsites directly imposed by the relief (definition, categories, characteristics,
assessment criteria, score, valorisation ideas) have proven auspicious, yet insufficient (table
2).
By extension, even to the alpine areas from other geographic regions, some of the
ideas (especially the direction of the characteristics) have proven unrealistic, unconvincing for
the analysis. That is why it is necessary to determine geosite families for each domain
(geographic, geologic, ecologic, historical etc.), the verification on places (units) as varied as
possible in structure and frequency and then the determination of general and also particular
(clearly defined) assessment criteria, with a corresponding score for each family.
2. Geomorphosite
The alpine area, through the multitude of elements (dominantly those imposed by the
relief) and of landscapes with tourist value largely known and appreciated by tourists,
including also an infrastructure and endowments for diverse tourist activities, was the area
where the geographers have looked for the application and then the launch of the first term of
the family of geosites.
The geomorphosite. It refers only to certain forms of relief and reliefogenic
processes that have features conferring them a destination for tourism. In order to impose the
term and the methods of analysis, a multiple lobby has been carried out during the last few
years, supported by papers presented in scientific conferences – national or international -, by
the creation of workgroups and of a commission of the International Geomorphological

Association with a view to deepening the directions of activity and to printing several books.
It was prefigured even the idea of the belonging of this direction of investigation to a
new section in geomorphology (Cultural geomorphology) in connection to Cultural
geography, giving it, in a forced manner, the scientific support of knowledge and a side of
transposition towards the spiritual patrimony.
But, next to the reliefogenic elements specific to the geomorphosites, we have
submitted to analysis as well other elements belonging to other components of the geographic
system (e.g. glaciers, lakes that have to do with the hydrosphere etc.) or resulting from the
correlation of the forms of relief with a different geographic element (waterfall – step leading
to the falling of a river’s water). This imposes the necessity of multiplying the types of
geographic geosites, which in the natural system alone would lead to terms such as hydrosites,
glacialsits, karstsites, limnosites, ecosites, coastsites, anthroposites etc.). By this we arrive to
families of geographic geosites (Table 3) each with several divisions (e.g. the situation of the
geomorphosites).
The characteristics of the geomorphosites. They derive from those of the geosites,
as the purpose is to relate the relief to the interests of those who carry out the investigation
and to objectively determine the elements imposing the geomorphosite to the tourists’
attention, supporting different types of tourist activities that can be practiced with a certain
degree of arrangement. Important are a few demands:
- the determination based on the criterion value and importance for tourism of certain
adequate characteristics that can be used as landmarks for the selection of the geomorphosites
and coming from the set of relief forms and reliefogenic processes regardless of the region (be
it alpine, hilly, plain, plateau etc.). Here what matters is the physiognomy, the connection to
certain forms of tourist practice (camping, training, ecological education, recreation-rest etc.),

10


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

the uniqueness in a large area, the degree of accessibility corroborated with the level of
development of the infrastructure and of the material endowment, the association with other
types of geographic geosites or with sites of a different nature (table 4, 5).
The appreciation of the geomorphosites on the basis of certain features. We
distinguish two primordial categories (imposing the significance of the geomorphosite for
tourism) and secondary (highlighting some of its features) sometimes, for certain forms of
tourist activity, one of the secondary features becomes essential (for cultural tourism). The
appreciation will be made by means of a score, differentiated according to the categories
(taxonomy).
The subjectivism in the evaluation of the geomorphosites depends on the degree of
training of those that carry out the assessment, on the correct appreciation of the relation
between the elements “provided” by the geomorphosite and what interests (the demand of)
those receiving them for diverse tourist activities. Although the mainstream directions are
prevalent, those directions that are significant for a small number of tourists cannot be
neglected either (table 4).
The results of the estimations of the geomorphosites are introduced in tables, and on
the basis of these results, we can get to appreciations concerning the frequency of the
subtypes in a certain region and then we can assess the role they could have in the
development of an average region, including for the deployment of different tourist activities,
from those involving large masses of visitors (especially camping) to smaller teams taking
part in specific actions (alpinism, rafting, photographing, painting etc.). But, in order to
appreciate the potential of a given region, the data concerning the morphosites (which are
frequently the most numerous), need to be correlated to those resulting from the correlation to
those resulted from the estimation of other types of geosites present there. Only in this way
can we get to differentiated appreciations, regional averages and the realization of viable
tourist management projects (table 6). That is why the series of analyses on the
geomorphosite level will be continued by others referring to other geosites: geographic,
historical, cultural, anthropic etc.

11


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009

Table 1 – Relations between Geotope and Geosite

____________________________________________________________________________________________

12


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2. Characteristics and criteria which evidence the touristic value of a same type of a geomorphosite (after literature)
Characteristic

Scientific

Aesthetic

Criteria

Small
0,25
small
small

>7

destroyed

<25
5-7
highly
deteriorate
reduced
1
<50 m
small
low
low
difference
weak
connections
1-5
reduce
reduce
rare

25-50
3-4
medium
deteriorate
moderate
2-3
50-200 m
moderate
medium
different colors

- natural and manmade hazards

trails
>1 km
very high

- annual average of visiting from local area

<10.000

- protection degree (if the site is highly exploited it will be low protected)

- paleogeographic importance (elements for reconstruction)
- representatively (importance in differentiating the evolution forms,
suggestiveness)
- surface (percent in the region)
- singleness (rarity in the region as number of present sites)
- integrity (degree of remaining faced to natural or cultural intervention)
- ecologic interest
- number of point from where can be seen
- medium distance until the bellevue points
- site surface (km2) in relation with similar sites
- altitude (high level faced to other elements) (from grandiose to monotonous)
- colorful contrast (landscape’s contrast)
- cultural and historical relevance of the site

Cultural historic

Economic

Score
Moderate
0,50
modest
modest

Absent
0
null
null

- iconoclastic representation (paintings, engravings, pictures)
- existence of historical, archeological and architectural sights
- religious relevance, traditions, faith
- cultural and historical events (celebrating days, holidays connected with the
importance of the site)
- accessibility

- attractiveness

Total average (characteristics, global touristic value)

13

High
0,75
high
high

Very high
1
very high
very high
>90
unique
untouched

moderate
connections
6-20
medium
medium
circumstantial

50-90
1-2
Low
deteriorate
high
4-6
200-500 m
high
tall
medium
difference
strong
connections
20-50
many

many
dense

trails <1km

local road

regional road

high

strongly
controlled
1.000.000

complete

10.000 –
100.000
unlimited

partial
controlled
500.000
medium limited

limited

-

local

regional

national

0
identical
colors
-

very high
> 6
> 500 m
very high
very tall
opposite
colors
multiple
connections

>50
a lot of…
a lot of…
every year
national
road
without
hazard
>1 mil

without
protection
internatio
nal

Average


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 3. Geomorphosites types and their relations with other geosites

14


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4. Characteristics, criterias and score for geomorfosites’ estimation
Characteristic

Estimation criteria
- attractiveness
- visibility
- dimension

Spatial
position

- surface
- length or height

- constraint in landscape’s assembly
through shape and color

Primordial

- physiognomy as result of
composition, genesis and evolution

Degree of estimation through score (from 0 to 2)
1
2
3
Weak (0,5)

Medium (1)

Strong (2)

<100 m (0,5)

100-1000 m
(1)

>1000 m (2)

<5 m2 (0,5)

<50 m2 - (1)

>50 m2 (2)

<100 m (0,5)

100-500 m (1)

>500 m (2)

Weak (0,5)

Moderate (1)

High (2)

Weak (0,5)

Moderate (1)

Clear (2)

- in local horizon
- rarely
through
genesis and
dimension

Frequent (0,1)

Medium (0,5)

Rare (1,5)

- in a large region

Scientific

Frequent (0,5)

Medium (1)

Rare (2)

Reduce (0,5)

Medium (1)

Important
(1,5)

- source of investigation

- source of instruction and ecological
education

Reduce (0,5)

Medium (1)

15

Important (2)

Exemplex for the three types of score
1
2
3
Roşu
Bratocea
Zăganu Ridge
Mountain
Ridge
Babele la Sfat
Tigăile Mari
Ciucaş Peak
Sfinxul
Bratocei
Pârâul Alb
Gorges
Basaltic
column in
Firiza quarry
Carstul pe sare
de la Sovata
Towers in
Ciucaş and
Ceahlău
Mountains
Great

landslides in
Subcarpatians
Glimee
(Transilvania
Plaine)
Places with
small muddy
volcanoes
(Berca)

Babele la Sfat

Tigăile Mari

Strâmbu
Gorges
Basaltic
column in
Racoş quarry

Teleajenului
Gorges
Detunata Goală
Peak (with
basaltic
column)

Carstul pe
sare de la
Ocna Sibiu

Towers in
Bucegi
Mountains

Carstul pe sare
de la Meledic

Great
landslides in
Oriental
Carpathians
Glimeea
from
Cornăţel
Muddy
volcanoes at
Hasag and
Arbănaşi

Towers in
Călimani
Mountains
Great landslides
in Dobrogea
Glimeea from
Saschiz
Muddy
volcanoes at
Paclele Mari
and Paclele

Mici


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

- source of inspiration (pictures, photo,
poems, religious, sculpture, history,
traditional art etc.); there is a score for
each of them
Culturalhistorical

- place of an
event

Culturalhistorical

- important
place for an
event or a
personality

Domain
- historical
- cultural

- mountaineering

Secondary

Weak

Medium

0

0,5

1,5

0

Less
significant
0,5

0

0,5

Null

Significant

- climbing on peaks and ridges with
high altitude

- rafting, canyoning etc.

Any landform

who is not
imposed in
local
landscape

Absence

1,5

Absence
Absence

0

0,5

1,5

0

0,5

1,5

Null

Less
significant

Significant

0

0,5

1,5

0

0,5

1,5

0

0,5

16

Landforms
who
contribute
through
physiognomy
at the
landscape’s
harmony
(alpine
ridges,
plateaus,

beaches,
valleys)
Baia battle

1,5

- history

- culture

Sportive
performance

Null

1,5

Absence

Absence

Absence

Absence

Nonperiodical
Tabula
Traiana in the
Danube
Gorges

Nonperiodical

Steeps
partially used
Ridges at
over 2000 m
in
Carpathians
Short gorges
or defiles

Landforms
highlighted by
the contrasts
with the
landscapes
parameters
(peak, gorges,
scarp, cave,
volcano)

Alignment
Oituz SovejaMărăşeşti
Annual
Freedom Plain
(Blaj)
Annual,
biannual
Steeps
frequently used

(Bicazului
Gorges, Bucegi
Mountains)
Peaks at over
1000 m in Great
Britain
Făgăraş and
Bucegi
Mountains


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Mures Defile
and Bistriţa
Defile
- basis for this

Connection
with other
geosites

- geology,
- history

- actions at
level…

Secondary

- national

Accessibility

Significant

Important

0,1

0,5

1

- element in landscape
composition

- local
Ecological
protection

Less significant

- network (from trails to auto road)
(each type will be punctuated)

0,5

1

1,5

Null

Significant

Important

0

0,5

1

Absence

0

0,5

1

Absence

0

Unmodernized
0,5

Null

Less affected

Strongly
affected

1

0,5

0

Null

- antropic processes
Vulnerability
and degree of
conservation
- natural processes

Any peak,
ridge who can
be used as
bellevue point
River plaine of
Brasov
Depression for
Prejmer,
Hărman

1

0,5

17

Modernized
1,5

0

The ridges
for Dacian
castles on
Orasitie
Valley
The cliff
where was
sculpted
Decebal face
(Danube
Gorges)
Frequent
ecologic
activities,
plantations
Establish the
protected
areas

The plateau on
the Maigrad
Ridge
Volcanic necks
where Deva and
Rupea castles
are.

Monuments of
the nature
Effecting
protection of
this areas

Without or
with difficult
access

Trails,
forestry roads
gravel roads

Roads and auto
road

Stabile land

Partly
affected by

the rock
exploitation

Stable land

Areas
affected by
the
landslides,
gullies

Strongly
affected
through
deforestation
and quarry so.
Strongly
affected by the
geomorphologic
processes.


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

- existence of touristic arrangements

Capitalization

- number of tourist/year or an average

established on some polls in different
touristic activities focused on
geomophosites

Absent

Weak

Good for each
type

0
Sub 100

0,2

0,5

100-1000

>1000

1

2

0,5

18

Absence or a
camp

Shelter, camp

-

-

From camp to
hotel,
arrangements,
so..
-

-

-

-


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 5 – Criteria for the selection of the geomorphosites
Characteristics
Physiognomy

Frequency

Relation to other types of geosites
- lack
Accessibility Means of
communication
- not
modernized
- modernized
Endowments

Types of tourist activities

Importance for regional development

19

Criteria
- common
- bizarre
- original
- large in the local
horizon
- singular in the local
horizon
- singular in large areas
- support
- association
- in locality
- outside locality
- in locality

- outside locality
- in locality
- outside locality
- lack
- weak
- good
- camping
- rest, recreation
- training
- investigation
- not at all
- low at present
- important in the future

Score
0
1
2
0
1
2
1
2
0
0.5
0.5
1
0
1
2

0.5
0
0.5
1


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009

Table 6 – Method of analysis of the tourist patrimony in the light of its future valorization

____________________________________________________________________________________________

20


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009

Table 7 – Geosite classification according to environments and units

____________________________________________________________________________________________

21


The Annals of Valahia University of Târgovişte, Geographical Series, Tome 9 / 2009
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Selective bibliography:
Comănescu Laura, (2008), Inventarierea geomorfositurilor, Comunicări de geografie,
nr. XII, Universitatea din Bucureşti, p.17-29

Comănescu Laura, 2009, Evaluarea turistică a geomorfositurilor (Tourist assessment
of geomorphosites), Comunicări de Geografie, nr. XIII, Universitatea din
Bucureşti, p. 25-30
Comănescu Laura, Dobre R.,(2009), Inventorying, evaluating and tourism valuating
the geomorphosites from the central sector of the Ceahlău National Park,
Comunicări de Geografie, nr. 3, Universitatea din Bucureşti, p. 86-96
Panizza M. (2001), Geomorphosites, Concepts, methods, and examples of
geomorphological survey, Chinese Science Bulletin, 46, nr. 4-6
Panizza M., Piacente S., (2003), Geomorfologia culturale, Bologna, Pitagora Editrice.
Panizza M., Piacente S., (2008), Gemorphosites and geoturism, Rev. Geogr.
Academica, 2, nr. 2
Reynard E., Panizza M.,(2005), Géomorphosites: définition, évaluation et
cartographie, Une introduction, Géomorphologie – Relief, processus,
environnement, 3
Reynard E., (2005), Geomorphosites et paysages, Geomorphologie: – Relief
processus, environnement, 3
Reynard E., Fontana G, Kozlik L., Scapozza C, (2007), A method for assessing
“scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites, Geographica
Helvetia, 62, nr.3

22