Printer Friendly

Geotourism in the Nisava River Midstream Valley, Southeastern Serbia--current state and issues of future development/Geoturismo del Valle Medio del Rio Nisava, sureste de serbia situacion y cuestiones actuales para su desarrollo futuro/Geoturismo no Medio Vale do Rio Nisava, Sudeste da Servia-Estado atual e questoes para o seu desenvolvimento futuro.

1. INTRODUCTION

Geodiversity, considered as geological heritage and geoconservation have been understood as new challenges in geological research in the last years of the twentieth century (GRAY 2004). Informations provided by geodiversity help the scientists to understand how the Earth has changed over time. According to DIXON (1995) components of geodiversity that have significant value to humans, with scientific, educational, aesthetical and inspirational meaning can be considered as geoheritage. In the recent times, the phenomena of geoheritage is increasingly revealed to the general public through the new type of tourism, geotourism (VASILJEVIC, et al., 2011).

Geotourism represents a special form of tourism that focuses od geology and landscape forms (HOSE, 1995). Therefore, we can say that geotourism is connected to sustainable development of some area. Geotourism started being popular in some tourists' circles, eg. to the tourists who search for new adventures and are interested in geological features of the planet (DOWLING, NEWSOME, 2006; NEWSOME, DOWLING, 2010). Authors CHEN, et al. (2014) say that it is clear that geotourism is a "child of the new age". According to them, one can thank geotourism for creating a solid base of new tourism based on geoheritage, which will serve to nature conservation and its sustainable using. Definition has recently been refined as a form of tourism that specifically focuses on landscape and geology (NEWSOME, DOWLING, 2010). This advances an earlier concept of geotourism as strictly 'geological tourism'. Geotourism promotes tourism to 'geo-sites' and conservation of geodiversity and understanding of earth sciences through appreciation and learning. The aim of geotourism is to make visitors aware of, and to gain some understanding of geological features that surround them. It has links with adventure tourism, cultural tourism and ecotourism, but is not synonymous with any of these forms of tourism. It is about creating a geotourism product that protects geoheritage, helps build communities, communicates and promotes geological heritage, and works with a wide range of different people. Geotourism has an increasingly important contribution to the economy by creating jobs for local residents: tour companies, drivers, guides, accommodation providers, food outlets.

As mentioned earlier, geotourism is based on geoheritage promotion on tourist market. "Geoheritage consists of all geological, geomorfological, pedological and special archaeological values formed within lithosphere constitution, its morphological formatting and dependence between nature and culture, which (due to their unique value) have to be under a special care of all the official factors" (MIJOVIC, 2002). Even though the term geoheritage, as well as the term geodiversity is a modern term, it is actually present in the work of J. Cvijic, J. Cujovic, V. Petkovic. Later on, many different nature scientists started focusing on nature preservation, calling these natural features "curiosities". Today, these are the objects of geoheritage, and many of them are recognized thanks to the scientists who discovered and researched them.

Since 1995 Serbia is a member of ProGEO association, when the National Council for geoheritage was formed (with 11 members-5 geologists, 4 geomorfologists, 1 archaeologist, 1 pedologist). The inventory of 650 geoheritage sites is far from complete. Groups for geomorphology and speleology made some preliminary lists with 210 geoheritage sites-the sites that fulfill the minimum conditions to be a part of this list. The following activities should be forming of two geoparks-Loess geopark (Titel loess site, Stari Slankamen, Cot in Stari Slankamen, Surduk, Batajnica, Zemun, Ruma, Negotin, Grocka, Pozarevac and Stalac) and Karst Geopark (Karst phenomena of Dubasnica, mountains Kucaj and Beljanica) (BELIJ, 2007). As already noted, Serbia is just at the beginning of geotourism development. Significant improvements are visible when speaking about the number of tourists, but the offer is still not rich enough to attract more tourists. Objects of geoheritage in Serbia are visited by students mostly as well as the professors and scientists who research these objects.

There are potentials for geotourism development: Serbia has over 650 objects of geoheritage identified. However, it is not realistic to expect that all of the geoheritage objects will find their way to the geotourists, because not every object of geoheritage is a geosite. The subject of this paper is the identification of the potentials for geotourism development, as well as pointing out the current state of this type of tourism in the Nisava river Midstream Valley (Srednje Ponisavlje). The need to examine this area by studying the tourism potential emerged due to a lack of data on the sites themselves, a very small number of scientific papers related to given topics which would certainly, at least to a lesser extent, assist participants in planning tourism development.

The initial hypothesis of this study points to the existence of exceptional potential on which can the geotourism offer of the Nisava river Midstream valley be based on, but also points to the existence of major shortcomings that would contribute to the development of geotourism.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

In order to assess the value of the geosites, a preliminary Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) proposed by VUJICIC, et al. (2011) was used. This model can identify the most attractive geosites, which should assist in planning and in the sustainable management of natural resources, as well as in the application of natural resources for geotourism. The assessment includes an inventory of sites as well as proposals for their protection, promotion and monitoring (PEREIRA, et al. 2007). The methodology is based on several existing models and is represented by two main groups of values (Main Values) and additional criteria (Additional Values), which are divided into primary and secondary indicators (Table 1). Based on the proposed inventory, geosites are assessed individually to achieve final evaluations. The first group (Main Values) constists of three types of values: scientific/educational (VSE), landscape/aestetic (VSA) and protection/conservation (VPr). The second group (Additional Values) consists of functional (VFn) and tourist values (VTr). We can conclude that there are 12 subindicators for Main Values and 15 subindicators for Additional Values. All the subindicators are marked from 0 to 1 (VUJICIC, et al., 2011).

The result of the assessment is a chart consisting of nine fields in which geosites are classified according to their suitability in respect of the basic characteristics of tourism and in terms of additional key values represented on the X and Y axes. Those fields are indicated by Z (i,j) (i,j=1,2,3), and this is based on the grades received in the previous evaluation process. Main gridlines that create fields for the X axis have a value of 4 and for the Y axis of 5 units (VUJICIC, et al. 2011).

2.1 STUDY AREA

Srednje Ponisavlje is located in southeastern part of the Republic of Serbia (N9 43[degrees] 19' 00", EX 22[degrees] 07' 00") (Figure 1).

The area of the Nisava river valley attracted the attention of geographers and biologists very early. As early as 1891 D. Jovanovic wrote about the caves in the gorge and in 1909 P. Jankovic devoted a comprehensive monograph to the development Nisavska valley. Among botanists S. Petrovic researched the flora of this region on two occasions (in 1882 and 1885, respectively) (JAKSIC, MOMIROVIC, 2010).

Nisava river minstream valley (Srednje Ponisavlje) can be described as a composite geomorphological whole consisting of Belopalanacka and Koritnicka pit and Crvena reka wellhead (PETROVIC, 1998). Belopalanacka pit is 22 km long with the width of 4 km. Koritnicka pit is 18 km long. The area of the Nisava river midstream valley covers an area of 516 [km.sup.2] (MITlC, 2006). Author KOSTlC (1952) includes also Burdevo polje pit in the area of Nisava river midstream valley (Figure 2).

In the geological structure, we find gread differences. In the north and east of the overwhelming mass of rocks consisting of Mesozoic limestone. The area is in NW-SE cut off by the Balkan and Rhodope tectonic dislocation. Tectonic brokenness of the field enabled the intensive process of karst cycle of the limestone mass. The upper limestones contain all the parties, both surface and underground karst morphologically developed forms. A large number of caves, caverns, rock shelters, cliffs and other geomorphological forms, make the area very interesting.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The bed of the Nisava River was formed after the Neogene lakes retreated and dried out. This river made several terraces during its formation, the highest of which is 508 m above sea level.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

This area of the Balkan Peninsula is a part of seismically highly active area and is included in the Mediterranean-Trans-Asian Seismic Belt. An interesting hydrological phenomenon are hot springs. Of special value are numerous monuments of culture, especially monasteries of the Holy Mother of God and St. Petka.

Based on the criteria identified for the selection of geosites for geotourism (CONDORACHI 2011; LADANYI, et al. 2011) and the research of their aesthetic attractiveness and accessibility for visitors (MIJOVIC, 2002), a list of geosites has been complied (Table 2). The list of geosites is inspired by the list of author MITIC (2006) and presented in figure 2.

After making an inventory of the geoheritage objects considered to be tourist potentials, it is necessary to determine that potential quantitavely in order to choose geoheritage objects which are worth investing in.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

According to GAM model, the two major groups of factors are assessed: the main values, where the scientific, educational, aesthetic, ecological values are assessed, as well as the added value, where the tourist equipment is assessed. The experts are the ones who assess and eventually obtain a table with grades, divided into main and additional values.

In general, Srednje Ponisavlje represents an undiscovered geodestination, which hides many intresting contents, interesting firstly to geotourists. The scientific values of many localities has a regional significance, but represents extraordinary examples for wide audience, which is its main value. When analyzing the basic values according to GAM model, the focus of our interests should be scientific, educational, aesthetic and ecological values. Scientific values are represented by a number of publications concerning the geosites. When analyzed from this perspective we see that geosites representing regional phenomenon, or that the degree of rarities is at a low level. Furthermore, scientific publications are of national importance, and as pointed out in the introduction, are very rare and out of date. If there are any, they are a monograph of certain municipalities that belong to the Nisava river Midstream valley and physical-geographical features are mentioned to a lesser extent.

If the educational importance is examined, geosites represent a relatively good examples for explanation the wider audience. The representativeness of the site is in excellent condition and aesthetic characteristics can boast the highest marks.

However, if we talk about the level of protection the situation is not suitable. Most of the geosites are protected by the Republic of Serbia, which guarantees degradation reduction, even though the geosites aren't threatened by any anthropological nor natural degradation.

Krupacko vrelo ([GS.sub.1]). Degradation of this spring reached its maximum by building a concrete wall around it, which made the spring to lose much of its beauty and landscape attractiveness. Even though it is protected, the spring suffered from much degradation. The road that leads to the spring is narrow and old and unsuitable for big transport means (such as bus). Since its protection in 1975, no scientific work has been conducted regarding to this spring.

Visokoplaninski kras Valozja ([GS.sub.2]). This plateau is still well protected and isn't degraded by human or any other factor. The main problem is with uncontrolled cottages constructions and forest roads that are being built without any control. This area needs to be protected more in order to keep it unique and to preserve its nature. Since its protection in 1983, no scientific work has been conducted.

Sinkhole under Trem ([GS.sub.3]). This sinkhole is unique due to the fact that it is a constant freezer and provides ice and snowy mass during the whole year. This type of a cave is unique in the Balkans and is very rare in the world so it needs to be protected. Currently, the cave is hardly accessible to the visitors, except the experienced climbers. It needs to be more investigated by the scientists (geographers, biologists etc.).

Belava ([GS.sub.4]). This interesting karst terrain is suitable for scientific research because it provides a clear picture of ex-underground karst terrain that can be easily seen and reach. Not scientifically explored since the middle XIX century, this terrain needs more exploring and could be noted as a perfect site for all the potential geotourists and scientists interested in karst relief.

Sicevacka klisura ([GS.sub.5]). Regional nature park, 17 km long, between Nis and Pirot pit. Composed from many geological formations, such as Gradistanski canyon, Prosek gorge etc. Sicevacka klisura is rich with geosites such as: caves, sinkholes, cracks, thermal springs ... Sicevacka klisura is already equipped with the infrastructure, as the international road Nis-Sofia with 13 tunnels goes through the gorge. Sicevacka klisura is actually totally accessible and this could be easily used for geotourism purposes.

The occurrence of magmatic rock gabbro in Toponica ([GS.sub.6]). This phenomena is interesting because of the rock gabbro and could be especially interesting for geography and petrology students. Exploatation of this rock is also possible, but in order to do this, the total flow of Toponica river should be moved and endangered.

Suteska Sv. Otac ([GS.sub.7]). Geomorphological structure combined with a few archaeological sites, habitat of rare species of Rhamonda Serbica Panc and an old Monastery of St. Nikola is easily accessible and could be interesting for potential geotourists. This area should be protected due to its remarkable position and content and therefore organized for visits.

Krupac lake ([GS.sub.8]). A unique peat in this part of Serbia, an area of extraordinary beauty and a unique natural ecosystem. This peat is a home of some endangered fish and plant species and in whole a home of more than 250 types of species. Urgent protection is necessary.

As for the additional values, the situation is worse then when it come to the main values. The existence of traffic and tourist infrastructure is an imperative to any mean of tourism. The traffic network in the area of the Nisava river midstream valley is not at the suitable level.

The territory investigated gravitates towards the emitive centers, such as: Nis, Pirot, Leskovac but also Vranje, Kragujevac and Beograd. Improtant international and national roads, such as E-75 and Coridor X, go through or near this area, which provides easy access to the sites. But, the access to the very sites is pretty hard and unsecured. Some of the sites aren't available by any kind of vehicles, only on foot. Also, the paths aren't marked, which makes the localities more unaccessable.

In most of the cases, the sites don't have tourist infrastructure. In most of the cases there is an info board which notes the name and the protection category of the site (if protected). After the scores are given (Table 3), each of the geosites are distributed in a certain field (according to the scores) (Figure 3). Thus, as can be seen from the table, the best rated site is Sicevacka klisura, which is deployed in the field [Z.sub.32]. The lowest ranked site is a Sinkhole under Trem, which received the lowest scores in the evaluation process.

Figure 3 shows a graph with the positions of all geosites. It is evident that the fields [Z.sub.32] and [Z.sub.33] are the best fields, with the best prospects for tourism development, and that one should consider the geosites located within these fields. Of course, this does not mean that the sites ranked poorly cannot be of concern to the management in the planning process of tourism development, but it means that these sites require more effort, especially funds for geotourism training.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

As it is evident from the table, the highest value is obtained by geosite Sicevacka klisura, which score put it on [Z.sub.32] field which means this geosite has high level of main values, firstly scientific, and middle level of additional values, represented by tourism development at on location. Namely, even though the tourism practiced is mostly excursion tourism, this is the most developed geosite in this area.

On the other side, geosite near Toponica river, has the lowest score, that tells us that tourism on this geosite isn't developed, even though there is a possibility for tourism development. Other geosites stand on Z21 field, except for Krupacko vrelo and Krupacko jezero. The first geosite has extraordinary prepositions for development, because of its high score in the fiels of representativness and the significance, arrangement and protection status, and the second geosite is special, because tourism in this area isn't developed, but there is tourism infrastructure, and there is a possibility to adjust this geosite to tourism visits with some minor modifications.

After all the geosites are being analysed, it is possible to get a clear picture about which of the gesites could attract tourists attention in the future. However, despite the highest marks considering the Main values, some of the geosites can't be interesting for the geotourists. This is because sometimes, the existence of the scientific, educative or ecological values isn't enough of a motive to attract tourist, even if it is interesting for the scientists.

We can conclude that the geosites that have high Additional values could be interesting tourist geodestinations in future. Due to the adverse financial situation, it is not possible to talk about large projects nor plans for geotourism development in this area. That is why it is most cost-effective to use the existing touristic infrastructure and with the minimal alterations (ecological and financial) to adjust the space for geotourism. This would be the easiest to achieve in Sicevacka klisura, where we can find some tourist activities.

Furthermore, regulation status of landscape protection is mandatory, in order to avoid further degradation. Among the most vulnerable are karst landforms in Jelasnicka klisura, which due to intensive use (by climbers), are in danger of collapse and permanent destruction. Obtaining a certain level of protection at the state level, the actions that are permitted are regulated.

For any further development of a tourist destination, funds are necessary, but which lack in this area. One of the solutions could be privatization, foreign investments or cross border cooperations.

4. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

As mentioned, Sicevacka klisura ([GS.sub.5]) gained the highest score in Table 3. As the only unit that is complete with infrastructure and accessible, it also homes a variety of endangered and rare species. Also, Sicevacka klisura is rich with various geosites interesting and accessible for potential geotourists. Besides this, Sicevacka klisura is a home of many monasteries, hydro power plants, archaeological sites, that could only complete the creation of a unique geotoruism product enriched with cultural treasure. Krupacko vrelo ([GS.sub.1]) also gained high score in this table, because of its accessibility and infrastructure. After its conservation and planned protection, it could be a potential geotourism destination.

The lowest score was obtained by most of the other geosites ([GS.sub.2], [GS.sub.3], [GS.sub.4], [GS.sub.6], [GS.sub.7]). Besides their value as rarities, the sites aren't properly organized nor protected the way they should be in order to preserve the rarities they are. First step is definitely preservation of the sites, and then recognizing them as a potential geotourism destinations.

Besides many geomorphological formations, numerous historical monuments that represent additional value, in the combination with natural sites Nisava river midstream valley surely presents a high quality and a high potential for tourism development. It is necessary to put some major effort and large funds so the area of Nisava river midstream valley could be affirmed the way it should be. In the future it is necessary to prevent significant changes in the geographic space, which could harm the aesthetic components of the landscape, while at the same time there is the need to adapt this area for the potential geotourists. However, as geotourism is a part of sustainable tourism we can conclude that the development of geotourism could only facilitate the preservation of the original features of the landscape.

REFERENCES

BELIJ, S. Geodiverzitet i geonaslede-savremeni trend razvoja geomorfologije u svetu i kod nas, Geographical institute "Jovan Cvijic" Collection of papers No 57, 2, 2007. In Serbian

CHEN ET AL. The Principles of Geotourism, Springer Geography, 2015 263p.

CONDORACHI, D. Geomorphological mapping using GIS for large tableland areas-an example for Falciu hills in eastern Romania. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, No. 6, Vol.2, p. 115-124, 2011.

DIXON, G. Aspects of Geoconservation in Tasmania: A Preliminary Review of Significant Earth Features. Report to the Australian Heritage Commission, Occasional Paper No. 32. Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, 1995.

DOWLING, R.K. The emergence of geotourism and geoparks. Journal of Tourism No. 9, Vol. 2, p. 227-236, 2011.

DOWLING, R.K..; NEWSOME, D. Global Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow Publishers Ltd, Oxford, p. 266, 2011.

GRAY, M. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 2004.

HOSE, T.A. Selling the story of Britain's stone. Environmental interpretation No. 10, Vol. 2, p. 16-17, 2004.

KOSTIC, M. Burdevo polje, antropogeografska promatranja, Glasnik Srpskog geografskog drustva, sveska XXXII br 1, Beograd. p. 27-32, 1952. In Serbian JAKSIC, P.; MOMIROVIC, M. Contribution to understanding the origin and the genesis of the Nisava riverside valley fauna. Biologica Nyssana, No. 1, Vol (1-2), p. 123-130. 2010.

LADANYI, Z.S.; RAKONCZAI, J.; DEAK, A.J. A Hungarian landscape under strong natural and human impact in the last century. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, No. 6, Vol. 2, p. 35- 44. 2011.

MIJOVIC, D. Management of geoheritage objects in Serbia-a road to geotourism. Nature Conservation, No.53, Vol. 2, p. 135-142. 2002.

MITIC, D. Srednje Ponisavlje. Osnove strategije zastite prirodnih i stvorenih vrednosti, Biblioteka Scientia-Nis, 2006. In Serbian NEWSOME, D.; DOWLING, R. The scope and nature of geotourism, Geotourism-sustainbility, impacts and managements. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann. 2006312 p.

NEWSOME, D; DOWLING, R.K. Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape. Goodfellow Publishers Ltd, Oxford, 2010 260 p.

PEREIRA, P,; PEREIRA, D.; CAETANO ALVES, M.I. Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica No. 62, 159-168, 2007.

PETROVIC, J. Priroda Bele Palanke i srednjeg Ponisavlja, Institut za geografiju Prirodno-matematickog fakulteta Univerziteta u Novom Sadu, Novi Sad. 1998. In Serbian. VUJICIC, M.D.; VASILJEVIC, A.DJ.; MARKOVIC, B.S; HOSE, A.T.; LUKIC, T.; HADZIC, O.Preliminary Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) and Its Application on Fruska Gora Mountain, Potential Geotourism Destination of Serbia. Acta Geographica Slovenica No. 51, Vol. 2, p. 361-377.

Milica Began

University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department for Geography, Tourism and Hospitality, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, voyageouse@gmail.com

Tamara Visnic

University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department for Geography, Tourism and Hospitality, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, visnic.tamara@gmail.com
Table 1--The list of the primary and secondary
indicators according to GAM model

Main Values

Grade                    0                 0.25
Scientific/Educational values (VSE)
Rarity                   Common            Regional

Representativeness       None              Low
Knowledge on             None              Local
  geoscientific issues                       publications
Level of                 None              Moderate
  interpretation                             level of
                                             processes
                                             but hard
                                             to explain
                                             to non
                                             experts
Scenic/Aesthetic values (VSA)
Viewpoints               None              1
Surface                  Small             --
Surrounding landscape    --                Low
  and nature
Environmental fitting    Unfitting         --
  of sites
Protection (VPr)
Current condition        Totally damaged   Highly
                           as a result       damaged as
                           of human          a result
                           activities        of natural
                                             processes

Protection level         None              Local
Vulnerability            Irreversible      High (could
                           (with             be easly
                           possibility       damaged)
                           of total
                           loss)

Suitable number of       0                 0 to 10
  visitors
Additional Values
Grade                    0 0.25
Functional values (VFn)
Accessibility            Inaccessible      Low (on foot
                                             with special
                                             equipment)
Additional natural       None              1
  values
Additional               None              1
  anthropogenic values
Vicinity of emissive     More than         100 to 50 km
  centres                  100 km
Vicinity of important    None              Local
  road network
Additional functional    None              Low
  values
Touristic values (VTr)
Promotion                None              Local
Annual number of         None              Less than
  organized visits                           12 per year
Vicinity of visitors     More than         50 to 20 km
  centres                  50 km
Interpretative panels    None              Low quality

Annual number of         None              Low (less
  visitors                                   than 5000)

Tourism infrastructure   None              Low
Tour guide service       None              Low
Accomodation             More than         50 to 25 km
                           50 km
Restaurants              More than         25 to 10 km
                           25 km
Main Values

Grade                    0.5                0.75
Scientific/Educational values (VSE)
Rarity                   National           International

Representativeness       Moderate           High
Knowledge on             Regional           National
  geoscientific issues     publications       publications
Level of                 Good example       Moderate level
  interpretation           of                 of processes
                           processes,         but easy to
                           but hard to        explain to
                           explain to         common
                           non experts        visitor

Scenic/Aesthetic values (VSA)
Viewpoints               2 do 3             4 do 6
Surface                  Medium             --
Surrounding landscape    Medium             High
  and nature
Environmental fitting    Neutral            --
  of sites
Protection (VPr)
Current condition        Medium damaged     Slightly
                           (with              damaged
                           essential
                           geomorphologic
                           features
                           preserved)
Protection level         Regional           National
Vulnerability            Medium (could      Low (could be
                           be damaged         damaged only
                           by natural         by human
                           processes or       activities)
                           human
                           activities)
Suitable number of       10 to 20           20 to 50
  visitors
Additional Values
Grade                    0.5                0.75
Functional values (VFn)
Accessibility            Medium (by         High (by car)
                           bicycle)

Additional natural       2 to 3             4 to 6
  values
Additional               2 to 3             4 to 6
  anthropogenic values
Vicinity of emissive     50 to 25 km        25 to 5 km
  centres
Vicinity of important    Regional           National
  road network
Additional functional    Medium             High
  values
Touristic values (VTr)
Promotion                Regional           National
Annual number of         12 to 24 per       24 to 48 per
  organized visits         year               year
Vicinity of visitors     20 to 5 km         5 to 1 km
  centres
Interpretative panels    Medium             High quality
                           quality
Annual number of         Medium             High (10 001
  visitors                 (5001 to           to 100 000)
                           10 000)
Tourism infrastructure   Medium             High
Tour guide service       Medium             High
Accomodation             25 to 10 km        10 to 5 km

Restaurants              10 to 5 km         5 to 1 km

Main Values

Grade                    1
Scientific/Educational values (VSE)
Rarity                   The only
                           occurrence
Representativeness       Utmost
Knowledge on             International
  geoscientific issues     publications
Level of                 Good example
  interpretation           of processes
                           and easy to
                           explain to
                           common
                           visitor

Scenic/Aesthetic values (VSA)
Viewpoints               More than 6
Surface                  Large
Surrounding landscape    Utmost
  and nature
Environmental fitting    Fitting
  of sites
Protection (VPr)
Current condition        No damage

Protection level         International
Vulnerability            None

Suitable number of       More than 50
  visitors
Additional Values
Grade                    1
Functional values (VFn)
Accessibility            Utmost (by bus)

Additional natural       More than 6
  values
Additional               More than 6
  anthropogenic values
Vicinity of emissive     Less than 5 km
  centres
Vicinity of important    International
  road network
Additional functional    Utmost
  values
Touristic values (VTr)
Promotion                International
Annual number of         More than 48
  organized visits         per year
Vicinity of visitors     Less than 1 km
  centres
Interpretative panels    Utmost quality

Annual number of         Utmost (more
  visitors                 than 100 000)

Tourism infrastructure   Utmost
Tour guide service       Utmost
Accomodation             Less than 5 km

Restaurants              Less than 1 km

Table 2--The list of geosites according to classification of
Mitic (2006) (modified)

Mark         Proposed            Description
             geosite name

SURFACE KARST RELIEFS
[GS.sub.1]   Krupacko vrelo      It springs from the slope of
                                   Svrljiske planine, near Krupac
                                   village, in an submerged
                                   sinkhole depression. The
                                   basins' maximum depth is 16,5m.
                                   The highest yield in the rubble
                                   of Eastern Serbia. Protected
                                   since 1975.
[GS.sub.2]   Visokoplaninski     Surface 16 [km.sup.2]; The highest and
               kras Valozja        the largest plateau of Srednje
UNDERGROUND KARST RELIEFS          Ponisavlje; It was built from
                                   the lower Cretaceous limestone ;
                                   High degree of karstification ;
                                   The pristine valleys, hanging
                                   valleys, cracks and pits ;
                                   Protected since 1983.
[GS.sub.3]   Sinkhole under      The abyss pit, occurs at the end
               Trem                of the karst depressions;
                                   highest karst cave in Eastern
                                   Serbia and the only constant
                                   freezer, which permanently
                                   provides snowy ice mass.
[GS.sub.4]   Belava              Karst terrain created by a
FLUVIAL RELIEF                     complete cave breaking
[GS.sub.5]   Sicevacka klisura   Nisava gorge. Its length is 17km,
                                   deep 260 to 360m. Bela
                                   Palanka ravine connects with
                                   Donje Ponisavlje (Nisava river
                                   low stream valley). It is
                                   divided by Ostrovica valley to
                                   the upper--and lower canyon. The
                                   valley floors in the gorge bend
                                   in the form of arches or vaults.
                                   Fissure lines and zones are
                                   determined by the direction of
                                   interference, firstly by lake
                                   island, later by the inherited
                                   Nisava Valley. Protected since
                                   1976
[GS.sub.6]   The occurrence of   The research of metamorphic gabbro
               magmatic rock       from Toponica river demonstrated
               gabbro in           the high quality of this rock.
               Toponica            Stone is a dark green to black
                                   in color, easy to cut and polish
                                   to a high gloss. There is a
                                   possibility of its exploitation,
                                   which could threaten the flow of
                                   Toponica river, which is why it
                                   is necessary to put it under
                                   protection.
[GS.sub.7]   Suteska Sv. Otac    Pointed epigeny of Nisava river,
PEATS                              1.5km long; Connects
                                   Burdevpoljska valley with Bela
                                   Palanka basin; it is cut in the
                                   north edge of the mountain
                                   Belava; On the right side of the
                                   Nisava valley terraced, rocky
                                   plateau are preserved; Ramonda
                                   Serbica could be found in the
                                   easternmost part; archaeological
                                   sites; Monasteries
[GS.sub.8]   Krupac lake         Low peat; Its length is about 1km
                                   and average width ranges from 50
                                   to 60 m. The depth varies, and
                                   near the dam is about 4 m, while
                                   the upper part is shallow;
                                   Supplied with water from springs
                                   and several underwater springs.

Table 3--Final results of using GAM model on the geosites

Geosite      Main values (VSe +        Additional values   Field
             Vsa + VPr)                (VFn + VTr)

[GS.sub.1]   2.5 + 3 + 3.5 = 9         1.5 + 1.75 = 3.25   [Z.sub.31]
[GS.sub.2]   2.75 + 2 + 2.25 = 7       1.5 + 0.75 = 2.25   [Z.sub.21]
[GS.sub.3]   2.75 + 2 + 2.25 = 7       0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5   [Z.sub.21]
[GS.sub.4]   2.5 + 2.75 + 2 = 7.25     1 + 0.75 = 1.75     [Z.sub.21]
[GS.sub.5]   2.75 + 3 + 3.25 = 9       3 + 2.75 = 5.75     [Z.sub.32]
[GS.sub.6]   1.5 + 1.75 + 2.5 = 5.75   1.25 + 0.75 = 2     [Z.sub.21]
[GS.sub.7]   1.5 + 2.25 + 2.75 = 6.5   1.75 + 0.75 = 2.5   [Z.sub.21]
[GS.sub.8]   1.25 + 2.5 + 2 = 5.75     2.75 + 2.5 = 5.25   [Z.sub.22]
COPYRIGHT 2015 Universidade Federal de Goias
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:texto en ingles
Author:Began, Milica; Visnic, Tamara
Publication:Revista Geografica Academica
Date:Jul 1, 2015
Words:5060
Previous Article:Analysis of digital elevation model for relief modeling in the Municipality of Francisco Beltrao-PR/Analise de modelos digitais de elevacao para...
Next Article:The arrangement of livestock in sustainable development reserve Uatuma, AM, Brazil/ El arreglo ganadero en la reserva de desarrollo sostenible Del...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters