پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,500 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,084,480 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,188,733 |
بررسی سیستماتیک ادبیات علمی میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی | ||
| پژوهش های جغرافیای طبیعی | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 52، شماره 1، فروردین 1399، صفحه 1-16 اصل مقاله (1.54 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله کامل | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jphgr.2020.272819.1007325 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مهران مقصودی* 1؛ ابراهیم مقیمی2؛ مجتبی یمانی2؛ ناصر رضائی3؛ انور مرادی4 | ||
| 1دانشیار ژئومورفولوژی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران | ||
| 2استاد ژئومورفولوژی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران | ||
| 3استادیار پژوهشکدۀ گردشگری، پژوهشگاه میراث فرهنگی و گردشگری | ||
| 4دانشجوی دکتری ژئومورفولوژی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی شاخهای از ژئومورفولوژی و اساساً جغرافیاست. مطالعات و محبوبیت میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی بهسرعت در حال رشد است و به بررسی جامع ادبیات علمی نیاز دارد. هدف اصلی از مطالعة حاضر بررسی سیستماتیک ادبیات علمی میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی طی سه دهة گذشته است. در این تحقیق بازبینی ادبیات علمی میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی در سه مرحله انجام شده است: 1. جستوجوی ادبی؛ 2. انتخاب مطالعات مربوطه؛ 3. طبقهبندی و تلفیق یافتهها. در این مطالعه 207 مقالة علمی- پژوهشی منتشرشده به زبان انگلیسی بهطور عمیق بررسی شده است. نتایج نشان میدهد که محققان تمرکز بیشتری بر شناسایی و ارزیابی میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی دارند. حدود 38/48درصد مطالعات بر پتانسیل توسعة ژئوتوریسم میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی تمرکز دارند و فقط 35/4درصد بر مدیریت و حفاظت تأکید کردهاند. حدود 64درصد مطالعات براساس ترکیبی از دادههای کیفی و کمی انجام شده است. نتایج همچنین نشان میدهد که محققان کمتر علاقهمند به ذینفعان میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی مانند گردشگران و جوامع محلیاند و در تعداد بسیار کمی از مطالعات میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی در زمینة توسعة پایدار بررسی شده است. باتوجهبه نتایج پیشبینی میشود حداقل در پنج سال آینده پژوهشها بیشتر بر چالشهای مدیریتی و حفاظتی میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی و چگونگی حل این چالشها متمرکز شوند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| ادبیات علمی؛ میراث ژئومورفولوژیکی؛ سیستماتیک؛ روند توسعه؛ ژئوتوریسم | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A systematic review of the scientific literature of geomorphological heritage | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mehran Maghsoudi1؛ Ebrahim Moghimi2؛ Mojtaba Yamani2؛ Naser Rezaei3؛ Anvar Moradi4 | ||
| 1Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Professor of Geomorphology, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant Professor of Tourism Research Institute, Cultural Heritage and Tourism Research Institute | ||
| 4PhD Candidate in Geomorphology, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction The geomorphological heritage is a branch of geomorphology and is essentially geographicgeography. The concept of geomorphological heritage includes landforms and processes that play a key role in understanding earth history, but also has a link with biological and cultural heritage. The geomorphological heritage is more than ever possible in a position to become a sustainable resource through geotourism and environmental education. The search, selection and systematic classification of studies allows for clear results and reproduction, and helps limit bias potential. Studies and popularity of geomorphological heritage are growing rapidly and require a comprehensive review of literature on the subject. Due to the rapid growth of research and popularity of geomorphological heritage and its use (geotourism, geopark, world heritage, etc.), a comprehensive review of the scientific literature of geomorphological heritage is necessary. However, given the increasing growth of geomorphological heritage over the past few years, there is a need for further understanding of the main themes and methods that exist in geomorphological heritage research and the potential gap of knowledge; therefore, the main purpose of this paper is the systematic review of published scientific literature. In the case of geomorphological heritage in order to answer two questions: (1) what knowledge has been produced in the scientific literature of geomorphological heritage; and (2) what trend is evolving in geomorphological heritage research. Methodology In this research, the review of the geomorphological heritage literature carried out in three stages: (1) literary search; (2) selection of relevant studies; (3) classification and compilation of results. In this study, 207 research papers published in English have been thoroughly investigated. To ensure the quality of the review, only papers published in the searchhigh quality journals were reviewed. Search mainly in the four largest valid online databases of scientific research, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct and Springer. Given that English is widely used in scientific research, only papers published in English are selected. The key words used to search are "geomorphological heritage" and "geomorphosite". First, book chapters, conferences proceedings, editorials, reviews, research notes, short communications, and reports were excluded from this survey. A total of 207 scientific-research articles have been selected for this review. Papers are also categorized according to their goals and topics, their research methods and their results. Summarizing and synthesizing the most important results provided, identifying the main research trends in the geomorphological heritage and the areas that require further research. Results and discussion The results show an increasing concentration of research on geomorphological heritage. In the first decade, the number of papers published has been 1 or 2 articles per year, and since 2004 the number of published Papers has increased rapidly. The results show that researchers are more focused on identifying and evaluating geomorphological heritage. The geographical analysis of the study areas represents a global distribution that includes studies in 46 countries. About 48.38% of the studies focus on the potential for geotourism development of geomorphological heritage and only 4.35% emphasize management and conservation. About 64% of the papers are based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative data and 67% have used the combination of primary and secondary data for research. Primary data was mainly collected through fieldwork, including field survey and sampling. The results also show that researchers are less interested in geomorphological heritage stakeholders, such as tourists and local communities, and very few studies survey the geomorphological heritage in the context of sustainable development. In the present study, the history of geomorphological heritage studies has been studied separately in the three decades 1991-2000, 2001-2010, and 2011-2018. During these three decades of research, the most important published works and the development of geomorphological heritage studies have been discussed and analyzed. These three periods include the appearance of new concepts, the development of theory and methodology, and the focus on specific contexts of geomorphological heritage. The results of this literature review indicate that the subjects studied include identifying, inventorying, describing, assessing the potential of geotourism in study areas, conservation issues, tools for promote geomorphological heritage, modeling for geomorphosite and other methodological approaches as well as tourists' understanding and motivation. Regarding the study process, the main topics that need further research include the feasibility of a geomorphological heritage for inclusion in the World Heritage List, geoparks and national heritage, the management and conservation challenges of the geomorphological heritage, the positive and negative effects of geotourism on geomorphologic heritage and the main challenges faces of managers and different groups of stakeholders of geomorphological heritage. The stability of geomorphological heritage is one of the main goals that should be achieved by raising the awareness of tourists and local people of the importance of preserving the geomorphological heritage. Conclusion Considering Given studies of geomorphological heritage, more studies are needed to study how geomorphological heritage studies and related challenges are addressed and how to solve these challenges. Next challenges for the international community of geomorphologists and in general geologists are the creation of guidelines and principles for the development of scientific achievements of the geomorphological heritage scientific achievements. Management and conservation of geomorphological heritage in pursuit of sustainable development goals requires study more investigation by the scientific community. The proper management of the geomorphological heritage not only affects the proper characteristics of the sites but also determines their geographic boundaries, which Brilha (2018) also emphasizes on this subject. In addition, in none of the geomorphological heritage studies, so far, integrated management approach has not been considered and this approach has not been studied; therefore, moving towards integrated management of geomorphological heritage with the participation of researchers in the humanities and social / political sciences as well as economists and Communication science professionals are essential. However, other issues require further research to provide the knowledge and understanding necessary for the development and successful management of geomorphological heritage. According to the development trend of studies, at least in the next five years, research is expected to concentrate on the management and conservation challenges of geomorphological heritage and how to solve these challenges. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Scientific literature, Geomorphological Heritage, Systematic, Development Trend, Geotourism | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Badang, D.; Ali, C. A.; Komoo, I. and Shafeea Leman, M. (2017). Sustainable Geological Heritage Development Approach in Sarawak Delta, Malaysia, Geoheritage, 9(4): 43-54. Booth, A.; Sutton, A. and Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review, Geoheritage, 8(2): 119-134. Brilha, J. (2018). Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation, In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J, (Eds) Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 69-86. Carreras, J.; Druguet, E. and Siddoway, C. S. (2012). Geological heritage beyond natural spaces: the red rocks amphitheatre (Morrison, CO, USA), an example of syncretism between urban development and geoconservation, Geoheritage, 4: 205-212. Comanescu, L.; Nedelea, A. and Robert, D. (2012). The Evaluation of Geomorphosits from the Ponoare protected area, Journal of Geography, Vol., XI. Comanescu, L. and Nedelea, A. (2015). Public perception of the hazards affecting geomorphological heritage-case study: the central area of Bucegi Mts. (Southern Carpathians, Romania), Environ Earth Sci, 73 (4): 84-87. Cayla, N. (2014). An overview of new technologies applied to the management geoheritage, Geoheritage, 6(2): 91-102. Carton, A.; Cavallin, A.; Francavilla, F.; Mantovani, F.; Panizza, M.; Pellegrini, G.B.; Tellini, C.; Bini, A.; Castaldini, D.; Giorgi, G.; Floris, B.; Marchetti, M.; Soldati, M. and Surian, N. (1994). Environmental research for the Identification and assessment of geomorphological assets - Methods and examples, Alpine and Mediterranean Quaternary, 7(1): 365-372. Coratza, P. and Giusti, C. (2005). Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomor-phosites, Quaternario, 18(1): 303-313. Coratza, P. and Hoblea, F. (2018). The Specificities of Geomorphological Heritage, In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J., (Eds). Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 87-104. Craik, K.H. (1970). Environmental psychology, In K. H. Craik et al., New Directions in Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 4: 1-120. Da Silva, C. M. (2017). Urban Geodiversity and Decorative Arts: the Curious Case of the “Rudist Tiles” of Lisbon (Portugal), Geoheritage, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0253. Davallon, J. (2006). Le don du patrimoine: Une approche communicationnelle de la patrimonialisation, Paris, Hermes sciences publications. De Waele, J. and Melis, M.T. (2009). Geomorphology and geomorphological heritage of the Ifrane–Azrou region (Middle Atlas, Morocco), Environ Geol, 58(587). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1533-4. Dowling, R.K. (2011). Geotourism’s global growth, Geoheritage, 3: 1-13. Erikstad, L.; Nakrem, H. A. and Markussen, J. A. (2017). Protected geosites in an urban area of Norway. Inventories, values, and management, Geoheritage, Doi: 10.1007/s12371-017-0223-6. Fassoulas, C.; Mouriki, D.; Dimitriou -Nikolakis, P. and Iliopoulos, G. (2011). Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for Geoheritage Management, Geoheritage, 4(3): 177-193. Feuillet, T. and Sourp, E. (2011). Geomorphological heritage of the Pyrenees National Park (France): Assessment, clustering, and promotion of geomorphosites, Geoheritage, 3: 151-162. Gifford, R. (2016). Research Methods for Environmental Psychology (1st Edition), Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1-440. Gordon, J. E. and Barron, H. F. (2011). Scotland’s geodiversity: development of the basis for a national framework, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, No. 417. Gordon, J. E. (2012). Rediscovering a sense of wonder: geoheritage, geotourism and cultural landscape experi-ences, Geoheritage, 4(1): 65-77. Gordon, J.E.; Crofts, R.; Diaz-Martinez, E. and Woo, K.S. (2017). Enhancing the role of geoconservation in protected area management and nature conservation, Geoheritage, Doi: 10.107/s123710-17-0240-5. Grandigirard, V. (1995). Methode pour la realisation d’un inventairre de geotopes geomorphologiques, UKPIK, Cahiers de l’Institut de Geographie de l’Universite´ de Fribourg 10: 121- 137 (in French). Gray, M. (2013). Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, second ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester. Gray, M.; Gordon, J.E.and Brown, E.J. (2013). Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management, Proc. Geol. Assoc, 124(4): 659-673. Harmon, B. and Viles, H. (2013). Beyond geomorphosites: trade-offs, optimization, and networking in heritage landscapes. Environ Syst Decis, 33(272). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-94483. Hoblea, F. (2009). Karstic geomorphosites: managing subterranean natural-cultural heritage sites, In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites, Pfeil Verlag, Munchen, pp. 189-200. Hoblea, F. (2014). In the folds of the earth: French Prealpine Geomorphological landscapes. In: Fort, M., Andre, M. F. (Eds.), Landscapes and Landforms of France, World Geomorphological Landscapes, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 183-194. Hooke, J. M. (1994). Strategies for conserving and sustaining dynamic geomorphological sites, In: O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Knill, J. (Eds.), Geological and Landscape Conservation, the Geological Society, London, pp. 191-195. Hose, T. A. (2000). European Geotourism-Geological Interpretation and Geoconservation Promotion for Tourists, In Geological Heritage: Its Conservation and Management; Barretino, D., Wimbledon, W. P., Gallego, E., Eds., Instituto Tecnologico Geominero de Espana: Madrid, Spain, pp. 127-146. Newsome, D. and Dowling, R. K. (2010). Setting an agenda for Geotourism, In Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape, Newsome, D., Dowling, R., Eds., Goodfellow Publishers Limited: Oxford, UK, pp. 1-12. Niculita, M. and Margarint, M. C. (2017). Landslides and Fortified Settlements as Valuable Cultural Geomorphosites and Geoheritage Sites in the Moldavian Plateau, North-Eastern Romania, Geoheritage, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0261-0. Maghsoudi, M.; Moradi, A.; Moradipour, F. and Nezammahalleh M.A. (2018). Geotourism Development in World Heritage of the Lut Desert, Geoheritage, (in press). pp. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0303-2. Martin, S. (2014). Interactive visual media for geomorphological heritage interpretation. Theoretical approach and examples, Geoheritage, 6(2): 149-157. Martin, S. (2013). Valoriser le geopatrimoine par la mediation indirecte ET la visualisation des objets géomorphologiques, Geovisions 41, PhD Thesis. Université de Lausanne, Institut de Geographie ET Durabilite. Migon, P. and Pijet-Migoń, E. (2016). Overlooked Geomorphological Component of Volcanic Geoheritage-Diversity and Perspectives for Tourism Industry, Pogórze Kaczawskie Region, SW Poland, Geoheritage, 8(333). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0166-8. Migon, P. and Pijet-Migon, E. (2017). Viewpoint geosites-Values, conservation and management, Proc. Geol. Assoc., 128: 511-522. Orru`, P. and Panizza, V. (2009). Assessment and management of submerged geomorphosites. A case study in Sardinia. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites, Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 201-212. Palacio-Prieto, J. (2014). Geoheritage within cities: urban geosites in Mexico City, Geoheritage, 7(4): 365-373. Panizza, M. (2001). Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey, chin. Sci. Bull, 46(4): 1-6. Panizza, M. and Piacente, S. (1993). Geomorphological assets evaluation, Zeitschr. Fu¨r Geomorphologie, 87: 13-18. Panizza, M. and Piacente, S. (2009). Cultural geomorphology and geodiversity, In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G., (Eds). Geomorphosites, Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 35-48. Pereira, P.; Pereira, D. and Caetano Alves, M.I. (2007). Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal), Geogr. Helv, 62: 159-168. Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions, BMJ Br. Med. J, 322: 98-101. Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, Blackwell: Oxford, UK. Pica, A.; Vergari, F.; Fredi, P. and Del Monte, M. (2016). The Aeterna Urbs geomorphological heritage (Rome, Italy), Geoheritage, 8(1): 31-42. Pica, A.; Luberti, G.M.; Vergari, F.; Fredi, P. and Del Monte, M. (2017). Contribution for an urban geomorphoheritage assessment method: Proposal from three geomorphosites in Rome (Italy), Quaest. Geogr, 36: 21-36. Portal, C. (2010). Reliefs ET patrimoine geomorphologique, Applications aux parcs naturels de la fac¸ade atlantique europ´eenne. Ph.D Thesis, University of Nantes. Pralong, J. (2005). A Method for assessing the tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites, Geomorphologacal, Rrlief, Processus, Environment, 3: 189-196. Quaranta, G. (1993). Geomorphological assets: conceptual aspect and application in the area of Croda da lago (Cortina d’Ampezzo, Dolomites), in: Panizza, M., Soldati, M., Barani, D., (Eds.), European Intensive Course on Applied Geomorphology Proceedings, Istituto di Geologia, Universita` degli Studi di Modena, pp. 49-60. Ravanel, L.; Bodin, X. and Deline, P. (2014). Using terrestrial laser scanning for the recognition and promotion of high-alpine geomorphosites, Geoheritage, 6(2): 129-140. Ravanel, L.; Deline, P. and Bodin, X. (2015). LIDAR-helped recognition and promotion of high-alpine geomorpho-sites, In: Lollino, G., Giordan, D., Marunteanu, C., Christaras, B., Yoshinori, I., Margottini, C., (Eds.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, 8, Preservation of Cultural Heritage, Springer, pp. 249-252. Reynard, E. and Coratza, P. (2013). Scientific research on geomorphosites: A review of the activities of the IAG working group on geomorphosites over the last twelve years, Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat, 36(2): 159-168. Reynard, E. and Coratza, P. (2016). The importance of mountain geomorphosites for environmental education, Examples from the Italian Dolomites and the Swiss Alps, Acta geogr. Slov, 56(2): 291-303. Reynard, E. and Giusti, C. (2018). The landscape and the cultural value of geoheritage, In: Reynard, E., Brilha, J. (Eds.), Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 147-166. Reynard, E.; Fontana, G.; Kozlik, L. and Scapozza, C. (2007). A method for assessing the scientific and additional values of geomorphosites, Geogr. Helv, 62(2): 148-158. Reynard, E.; Coratza, P. and Regolini-Bissig, G. (2009). Scientific research on geomorphosites over the last eight years: improvements and aims of the book, In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites, Pfeil Verlag, Mu¨nchen, pp. 5-8. Reynard, E.; Coratza, P. and Hoblea, ´ F. (2016). Current research on geomorphosites. Geoheritage, 8(1): 1-3. Reynard, E.; Perret, A.; Bussard, J. et al. (2016). Integrated Approach for the Inventory and Management of Geomorphological Heritage at the Regional Scale, Geoheritage, 8(1): 43-60. Reynard, E. and Brilha, J. (Eds.) (2018). Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management, Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 482. Rovere, A.; Vacchi, M.; Parravicini, V.; Bianchi, C. N.; Zouros, N. and Firpo, M. (2011). Bringing geoheritage underwater: Definitions, methods, and application in two Mediterranean marine areas, Environmental Earth Sciences, 64(1): 133-142. Rivas, V.; Rix, K.; Feances, E.; Cendeeeo, A. and Beunsden D. (1997). Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources, Geomorphology, 18: 169-182. Rypl, J.; Kirchner, K. and Dvořáčková, S. (2016). Geomorphological Inventory as a Tool for Proclaiming Geomorphosite (a Case Study of Mt. Myslivna in the Novohradské hory Mts, Czech Republic), Geoheritage, 8(4): 393-400. Ruban, D.A. (2015). Geotourism-ـــA geographical review of the literature, Tour, Manag, Perspect, 15(1): 1-15. Serrano, E. and Gonzalez´-Trueba, J.J. (2005). Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Geomorphol´, Relief Proces, Environ, 11(3): 197-208. Szepesi, J.; Harangi, S.; Ésik, Z. et al. (2017). Volcanic Geoheritage and Geotourism Perspectives in Hungary: a Case of an UNESCO World Heritage Site, Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape, Hungary, Geoheritage, 9(2): 329-349. Vujiči´c, M.D.; Vasiljevi´c, D.A.; Markovi´c, S.B.; Hose, T.A.; Luki´c, T.; Hadˇzi´c, O. et al. (2011). Preliminary geosite assessment model (GAM) and its application on Fruˇska Gora Mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia, Acta geogr, Slov, 51(2): 361-377. Zgłobicki, W. and Baran-Zgłobicka, B. (2013). Geomorphological Heritage as a Tourist Attraction, A Case Study in Lubelskie Province, SE Poland, Geoheritage, 5(2): 137-149. Zouros, N. (2007). Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece, Case study of the Lesvos Island-coastal geomorphosites, Geogr. Helv, 62(3): 69-180. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 899 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 524 |
||