سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات158
تعداد شماره‌ها6,228
تعداد مقالات67,749
تعداد مشاهده مقاله115,078,343
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله89,815,796
صیدایی, سید اسکندر, حسینی, سیده سمیه. (1396). ارزیابی، ظرفیت‌سنجی و پهنه‌بندی مناطق مستعد گردشگری با استفاده از سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیایی (مطالعۀ موردی: استان اصفهان). , 49(1), 81-94. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2017.53734
سید اسکندر صیدایی; سیده سمیه حسینی. "ارزیابی، ظرفیت‌سنجی و پهنه‌بندی مناطق مستعد گردشگری با استفاده از سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیایی (مطالعۀ موردی: استان اصفهان)". , 49, 1, 1396, 81-94. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2017.53734
صیدایی, سید اسکندر, حسینی, سیده سمیه. (1396). 'ارزیابی، ظرفیت‌سنجی و پهنه‌بندی مناطق مستعد گردشگری با استفاده از سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیایی (مطالعۀ موردی: استان اصفهان)', , 49(1), pp. 81-94. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2017.53734
صیدایی, سید اسکندر, حسینی, سیده سمیه. ارزیابی، ظرفیت‌سنجی و پهنه‌بندی مناطق مستعد گردشگری با استفاده از سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیایی (مطالعۀ موردی: استان اصفهان). , 1396; 49(1): 81-94. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2017.53734

ارزیابی، ظرفیت‌سنجی و پهنه‌بندی مناطق مستعد گردشگری با استفاده از سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیایی (مطالعۀ موردی: استان اصفهان)

پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی
مقاله 7، دوره 49، شماره 1، فروردین 1396، صفحه 81-94    اصل مقاله (1.77 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2017.53734
نویسندگان
سید اسکندر صیدایی1؛ سیده سمیه حسینی* 2
1دانشیار گروه جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه اصفهان
2دکتری توریسم، دانشگاه کازان، روسیه(بورسیه دانشکاه اصفهان)
چکیده
پژوهش حاضر با هدف ارزیابی و تعیین اولویت پهنه‌های مستعد گردشگری در استان اصفهان انجام گرفته است. با توجه به مؤلفه‌های مورد بررسی، نوع تحقیق کاربردی- توسعه‌ای است و روش تحقیق توصیفی- پیمایشی و براساس تجزیه و تحلیل سیستمی است. در این تحقیق به‌منظور ارزیابی براساس تعداد جاذبه، سطوح عملکرد (ملی، محلی، بین‌المللی) و سطوح دسترسی (پیاده، سواره) نسبت به جاذبه‌های گردشگری امتیاز داده شده است. پژوهش صورت‌گرفته در ظرفیت‌سنجی استان اصفهان به‌دلیل توسعة گردشگری نشان می‌دهد عمده‌ترین پتانسیل‌های موجود گردشگری انسان‌ساخت در شهرهای اصفهان و مبارکه است. طبق امتیازات داده‌شده 32 و 66/14 درصد پتانسیل‌های گردشگری انسان‌ساخت مربوط به این دو شهرستان است و از این جهت موقعیت خوبی در سطح استان دارند. در ارزیابی ظرفیت گردشگری تاریخی– فرهنگی استان مشاهده شد بیشترین ظرفیت در مرکز به مرکزیت شهر اصفهان و در شمال شرق به مرکزیت شهر کاشان است. تقریباً 07/34 و 55/22 درصد جاذبه‌های گردشگری تاریخی- فرهنگی منطقه براساس امتیازات داده‌شده متعلق به این دو شهرستان است که 49/76 درصد از جاذبه‌های تاریخی– فرهنگی شهرستان اصفهان متعلق به شهر اصفهان است. بیشترین ظرفیت گردشگری طبیعی استان اصفهان در دو پهنة جنوب و غرب استان است که براساس امتیازات داده‌شده به پنج گروه طبقه‌بندی شده‌اند و بیشترین امتیازات به شهرستان‌های سمیرم و فریدون‌شهر مربوط است و این مناطق برای توسعة گردشگری طبیعت‌محور مناسب‌اند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
استان اصفهان؛ سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیا؛ گردشگری انسان‌ساخت؛ گردشگری تاریخی فرهنگی؛ گردشگری طبیعی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Zonnation assessment for the areas suitable for tourism using GIS, Isfahan Province
نویسندگان [English]
Seyed Eskandar Seydaei1؛ Seyed Somayeh Hosseini2
1Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Rural Planning, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2Ph.D. Candidate in Tourism, Kazan University, Kazan, Russia
چکیده [English]
Introduction
According to Universal World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), cultural tourism refers to "the travelling of the human beings with merely cultural motivations such as academic, artistic and learning tours as well as their journeys for academic purposes. These are including taking part in the festivals and other cultural events, visit to the sites and places, travel with an academic nature, folklore or art and pilgrimage". Technically, cultural tourism includes the travelling of the human beings for the purpose of visiting the specific cultural attractions such as cultural heritage sites, cultural aesthetic symbols, arts and parades events which are situated outside of their ordinary living place.
Nature-based tourism refers to a form of tourism which depends mainly on the relatively undeveloped natural environments for their attractions. It is mainly related to the direct enjoyment of the intact and unchanged phenomenon of the nature.
Nature-based tourism can play a positive role in the development of the local target community for the host economies. The economic benefits resulting from nature-based tourism are the creation of local employment opportunities, the tourism revenues, the infrastructure improvement and foreign exchange. Nature-based tourism has been recognized as the factor linking the wildlife protection and economic development. As some authors argue, the nature-based tourism perpetuates the efficient use of all resources with some incentives for conserving the intact natural systems especially in developing countries. The benefits of nature-based tourism depend on the substitution of the productive activities in order to reduce the pressure placed on the resources through providing a reliable and sustainable resource.
 
Methodology
The present study is to determine the prioritized areas suitable for tourism in Isfahan province, Iran. With the components of this research, this study is applied-developmental in nature with descriptive-survey methodology based on systematic analysis. To carry out the assessment, scoring the areas has been done based on three variables, namely the number of attractions, the level of performance (national, local and international) and level of access (pedestrian or vehicle access) to the cultural-historical attraction sites and the natural and human-made attractions.
Results and Discussion
Based on the given scores, the highest capacity for the historical-cultural tourism of Isfahan city is centrally situated in two areas, i.e., the center area with the centrality of Isfahan city and North-East area with the centrality of Kashan city and Natanz. Since this centrality has been determined based on the number of attractions, the level of performance and the access to the attractions, it includes a radius of 40 km from the center of Isfahan and Kashan cities. Accordingly, Qohi village and Isfahan city in Isfahan town, Mashhad Ardahal, Joshaqan, Esterk, Taher Abad, Azvar, Rahq, Van, Joinan, Ravanad, qahroud villages, Natanze, Badroud cities, Abianeh and Ab senjed villages in Natanze town are located in these two areas.
Aran o Bidgoland Noush Abad cities and Yazdel and Ali Abad villages in Aran o Bidgol town, Zavareh, Ardestan cities and Moqar village in Ardestan county, Naein city in Naein county, Kolhar, Mourchekhort villages and Gaz and Borkhar city in  Shahinshar county and Meimeh enjoy the highest scores as the decentralized areas.
Based on the ratings, Isfahan province has been classified into 5 categories and the highest scores were found to be categorized in Semirom, Fereydunshahr, Freydan, Khansar, Chadegan and Dehaghan counties on the WestSouth and West as two concentrated points. The South Western area includes Semirom Town especially Dangezlu, Noghl, Khefer, Sivar, Mandegan, Sarbaz Kifteh Guisin, Ghaleh Sangi,  Roud Abad, Bibi Seidan, Ab Malakh, Ghabr Kikha, Garamuk, Agh Dash, Kezen, Cheshmeh Sard, Shams Abad villages and  Semirom, Vanak and Kameh cities. The Western domain includes Fereydunshahr and a number of its villages including Khosh Mive, Chaghirut, Sibak, Meidanak Bozorg, Surashjan, Ghahshejan, Pashandegan, Gurab Milajerd and Fereydunshahr city, the Fereydan town and Noghan Olia, its village, Ofus, Buein and Mianadasht, Daran and Damaneh, Khansar and a number of its villages including Tidjan, Ghudjan and Hasan Abad and Lahijan as well as Khansar city. Based on the given scores, the highest capacity for human-made tourism is two areas Isfahan city and Mobarake.
 
Conclusion  
Based on the findings of the study, there is a potential milieu for the nature-based tourism development in Isfahan Province. Thus, the counties and urban and rural areas are affected by the tourism. The research on the capacity analysis of Isfahan province in terms of cultural- historical tourism development shows that based on the given scores, nearly 29.51% and 19.6% of the total attractions of the province and 34.7% and 22.55% of the cultural- historical tourism attractions of the region belong to Isfahan and Kashan, respectively. In more details, 76.49% of the historical-cultural attractions of Isfahan province belong to Isfahan while the scores obtained for its different regions are as follows: 50% for region 3, 19.82% for region 1, 13.36% for region 6, and 10.91% for region 5.   
The research on the capacity-analysis of Isfahan Province regarding natural tourism development show that based on the assigned scores, Isfahan Province is divided into four categories with the highest scores for Semirom, Chadegan, Fereydunshahr and Freydan. They can be considered as the areas appropriate for nature-based tourism development. To explain more, based on the given scores, 92.06% and 68.18% of the tourism capacity of these two cities belong to the nature-based tourism. Hence, it has the highest frequency and a good situation across the province area in this regard. On the other hand, although Semirom and Fereydunshahr both account for only 14.38% of the province area, they possess 15.18% and 11.78% of the nature-based tourism attractions in this region.   
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
historical-cultural tourism, human-made tourism, Isfahan province, Geographical Information System, Nature Tourism
مراجع

-        عاشری، امامعلی، حسین‌پور، باقر و تقی مهدی‌لو، 1389، تعیین اولویت‌های سرمایه‌گذاری در مناطق اکوتوریستی شهرستان ارومیه، دو فصلنامه علمی و پژوهشی جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای، سال اول، شمارة 1، صص 109- 126.

-        سازمان مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی استان اصفهان، 1390، سالنامة آماری استان اصفهان، معاونت آمار و اطلاعات، انتشارات پویندگان توسعه، اصفهان.

-        سیدکمیل طیبی، جباری، امیر و روح‌الله بابکی، 1386، بررسی رابطة توسعة گردشگری و رشد اقتصادی در ایران (1338- 1382)، فصلنامة علمی- پژوهشی پژوهشنامة علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، سال هفتم، شمارة 26، صص 86- 110.

 

  1. Asheri, E., Hossein Pour, B. and Mahdilou, T., 2010, Investment priorities in the areas of touristy city of Uromieh, Journal Geography and Regional Planning, Vol. 1, No. 1, PP. 109- 126. (In Persian)
  2. Alzue, A., O’Leary, J. and Morrison, A. M., 1998, Cultural and heritage tourism: Identifying niches for international travelers, Journal of Travel and Tourism Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, PP. 2– 13.
  3. Ashworth, G. E. and Turn Bridge, J. E., 1990, The tourist historic city, Belhaven. London.
  4. Besculides, A., Lee, M. E. and McCormick, P. J., 2002, Residents’ perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism, Ann. Tourism Res., Vol. 29, No. 2, PP. 303- 319.
  5. Coccossis, H., 2008, Cultural heritage, local resources and sustainable tourism, Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manage., Vol. 10, No. 1, PP. 8- 14.
  6. Cohen-Hattab, K., 2004, Zionism, tourism, and the battle for Palestine: Tourism as a political-propaganda tool, Israel Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, PP. 61– 85.
  7. Dean, A., Morgan, D. and Tan, T. E., 2002, Service quality and customer’s willingness to pay more for travel services, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 2-3, PP. 95– 110.
  8. Drost, A., 1996, Developing sustainable tourism for World Heritage Sites, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, PP. 479- 484.
  9. Fletcher, J., 2008, The socio-cultural impact of tourism, In Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. and Wan hill, S. (Eds), Tourism. Principles and Practice, FT Prentice.
  10. Hall, D. R., 1995, Eastern Europe: Tourism/leisure perspective—An introduction, In D. Leslie (Ed.), Tourism and leisure: Towards the millennium. Vol. 1: Tourism and Leisure —Culture, Heritage and Participation, Leisure Studies Association Publication, Brighton, PP. 3– 10.
  11. Herbert, D., 2001, Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, PP. 312- 333.
  12. ICOM and WFFM/FMAM., 2007, Declaration of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the World Federation of Friends of Museums (WFFM) for Worldwide Sustainable Cultural Tourism, It’s Available at:  http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user upload/ pdf/Statements/ENG/tourism2007 eng.pdf (accessed 21.02.11).
  13. ICOMOS., 1993, Tourism at world heritage cultural sites, The site manager’s handbook, 2nd Edition, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
  14. Ins keep, E., 1991, Tourism planning, an integrated and sustainable development approach, Van Nostrand Reinhold,New York.
  15. Juric, B., Cornwell, B. T. B. and Mather, D., 2002, Exploring the Usefulness of an Ecotourism Interest Scale, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, No. 3, PP. 259- 269.
  16. Khan, M., 1997, Tourism development and dependency theory: Mass vs. ecotourism, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. No. 24, PP. 988- 991.
  17. Kiss, A., 2004, Making biodiversity conservation a land use priority, In: Getting biodiversity projects to work: Towards more effective conservation and development, In McShane, T. and Wells, M. (Eds), Columbia University Press, New York.
  18. Lai, P. H. and S. K. Nepal., 2006, Local perspectives of ecotourism development on Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan, Tourism Management, Vol. 7, No. 6, PP. 1117- 1129.
  19. Lowenthal, D., 1998, The heritage crusade and the spoils of history, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  20. Management and Planning Organization of Isfahan Province, 2011, Statistical Yearbook of State, Department of Statistics and Information, Publications Pooyandegan development, Isfahan. (In Persian)
  21. Mehmetoglu, M., 2007, Typologising nature-based tourists by activity - Theoretical and practical implications, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, PP. 651- 660.
  22. O’Connor, B., 1993, Myths and mirrors: Tourism images and national identity, In: Tourism in Ireland: A critical analysis, In O’Connor, B. and Cronin, M. (Eds), Cork University Press, Cork, PP. 68– 85.
  23. Prates, M., 2003, Tourism and nationalism, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, PP. 125– 142.
  24. Shackley, M., 1998, Visitor management: Case studies from World Heritage Sites, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
  25. Tayebi, S. K., Babaki, R. and Jabbari, A., 2007,  Investigate the relationship between tourism development and economic growth in Iran (1959-2004), Research Humanities and Social Sciences, Especially Economics, Vol. 7, No. 26, PP. 83- 110. (In Persian(
  26. Thorsell, J. and Sigaty, T., 1998, Human use of world heritage natural sites: A global overview [Electronic Version], Global Theme Study of World Heritage Natural Sites, Retrieved October 2005.
  27. TIES (The International Ecotourism Society), 2006, What is Ecotourism?, Washington, D.C.: TIES. It’s Available at http://www.ecotourism.org/index2.php?what-is-ecotourism Accessed November 26, 2006.
  28. Torres, R. and Mommsen, J. H., 2004, Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives, Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 4, No.4, PP. 294– 318.
  29. Tunb ridge, J. E., 1994, Whose heritage? Global problem, European nightmare, In: Building a New Heritage: Tourism, culture and identity in the New Europe, In Ashworth, G. J. and Lark ham, P. J. (Eds), Rutledge, London, PP. 123– 134.
  30. Urey, J., 1990, The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies, Sage, London.
  31. Valentine, P., 1992, Review: Nature-based tourism, In: Special Interest Tourism, In Weiler, T. and Hall, C. (Eds),  Belhaven Press, London, PP. 105- 128.
  32. WHC., 2005, It’s Available at /http://whc.unesco.orgS.
  33. WTO., 2005, Tourism high Lights, World, Madrid.
  34. WTO., 1999, International tourism: A global perspective, World, Madrid.
  35. Wunder, S., 2000, Ecotourism and economic incentives- An empirical approach, Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3, 465- 479.
  36. Wurzinger, S. and Johansson, M., 2006, Environmental concern and knowledge of ecotourism among three groups of Swedish tourists, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, No. 2, PP. 217- 226.
  37. Ziffer, K. A., 1989, Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance, Conservation International, Washington, D.C.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,174
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,721


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب