Geodiversity refers to geographical diversity of geological materials, forms, and processes that comprise the planet Earth. Geodiversity is a fundamental concept for determining the importance of non-living natural resources. Accordingly, development of geodiversity-related studies, particularly in Iran with its rich geology and geomorphology, can open a new window toward exploring natural potentials of different areas around the country. Indeed, the geodiversity and, even more importantly, geomorphodiversity have been acknowledged as effective potentials for tourism, and may comprise building blocks of tourism in Zagros Mountain Chain in Iran. With its karstic landforms, Fars Province possesses numerous geomorphodiversity capabilities. Accordingly, the present research aims at investigating the geodiversity of the Mamasani Watershed in western Fars Province, where a range of unique geological features like waterfalls, caves, tight lapies, karstic valleys, natural arches, etc. are hosted. In order to evaluate geodiversity potentials of the study area, we used geodiversity index (GDI), per-area roughness density (PRD), Simpson’s evenness index (SIEI), Shannon’s evenness index (SHEI), Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI), Simpson’s diversity index (SIDI), roughness density, modified Simpson’s diversity index (MSIDI), and modified Simpson’s evenness index (MSIEI). Results of GDI, PRD, SHDI, SIEI, SIDI, SHEI, MSIDI, and MSIEI in Unit 1 (i.e., Tang-e-Buan) were found to be maximal (i.e., equal to 12.7, 0.031, 1.56, 0.76, 0.87, 0.84, 1.5, and 0.93, respectively). Unit 3 in the western part of the watershed finished second while Units 2 and 4 were ranked 3rd and 4th, respectively.
Article
Evaluation of Geodiversity Capabilities for Ground Protection (Case Study: Nourabad Mamasani Watershed, Fars Province, Iran)
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3550562/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
geodiversity
GDI
tourism
7 metrics of Fragstsase
Nourabad Watershed
The term geodiversity refers to geographical diversity of geological materials, forms, and processes that comprise the planet Earth. Geodiversity is a fundamental concept for determining the importance of non-living natural resources (Gray, 2011).
According to Lopez (2010), the geographic diversity refers to the “the number and diversity of structures (i.e., depositional, tectonic, geological – mineralogical, petrological, fossil-related, and soil structures) comprising the substrate of a particular area hosting organic activity, including human activities. Geodiversity allows for the analysis of the elements that are related to forces affecting an ecosystem, which are generally ignored in the biodiversity-related studies. The diversity and distribution of biological factors can be determinant to ecological and land studies (Serrano and Ruiz-Flano, 2007).
Geodiversity not only is the land protection but also provides the required basis for ground protection. Geodiversity values (e.g., inherent, cultural, aesthetic, economic, performance values, etc.) and threats (e.g., environmental damages to adjacent areas to geosites, the visitors’ swarm, and lack of awareness) shall be carefully considered. In addition, management of geosites and recreational activities must be adjusted and implemented with reference to the local geodiversity. Hosting a diverse spectrum of unique geological and geomorphological landforms, Iran is among the most wonderful countries around the world, with huge potentials for developing geoparks and hence realizing sustainable development. For countries with historical and tourism potentials, the tourism serves as a relatively inexpensive industry that brings about high revenues. In the meantime, the need for attracting tourists to Iran with such a vast area in the region and such high potentials for creating jobs and revenues and fueling the sustainable development process is felt more than ever (Nasiri et al., 2022).
Introduction of geological phenomena to tourists while presenting their spatial identity can pave the way toward attracting more tourists to a region of numerous natural and geological features, producing lots of economic and social benefits. The study of existing potentials for the development of geomorphotourism and establishment of geoparks in the studied area can not only stimulate the job creation and people’s revenues, fuel social developments and industrialization of local communities, and preserve the existing geological heritage, but also contribute to preservation and recovery of local arts, old customs ad rituals, and cultural and historical heritages (Shayan Yeganeh et al., 2019).
Zowlinski (2009) prepared a geomorphodiversity map of Carpathian Mountains in Poland and results of their research showed that the geodiversity map was classified into five landform diversity classes of very high, high, moderate, low, and very low.
Comanescu and Nedelea (2013) used the formula Gd = Eg / S to calculate geodiversity in a geopark in the Buzǎului County, Romania, and further expressed the geopark function based on these diversities.
Fassoulas et al. (2012) presented a work where they quantitatively evaluated geosites as an effective instrument for geo-heritage management. This paper was focused on the development of the required indices for quantitating the tourism and training importance of geosites and the necessity of protecting them.
Gray (2011) defined natural ranges of diversity in geology (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorphology (landforms, topography, physical processes), soil, and hydrologic characteristics.
Pereira et al. (2013) evaluated geodiversity across a region based on five sub-criteria, namely geology, geomorphology, mineralogy, paleontology, and pedology. Warowna (2014) studied a total of 76 geosites in the geopark of the Vistula River Bed in Poland based on 18 criteria, followed by clustering similar assessment groups. Brilha (2016) investigated the strengths and weaknesses of evaluations and formulated a criterion for evaluating geosites and geodiversity. Kubalíková and Kirchner (2016) evaluated geomorphosites in the Highland, Czech Republic, investigating the strengths, weaknesses, and capabilities of the geomorphosites. Śleszyński and Solon (2017) prepared a then-new map of different landforms in Poland based on a variety of different geodiversity criteria across the region. Kuleta (2018) believed that the geo-tourism can help complete geodiversity analysis. He further established a link between the current research methods in geodiversity with a focus on the geo-tourism, which lists the living elements and their classifications based on the type of analyses.
Crisp et al. (2020) presented a quantitative evaluation of geodiversity and suggested than 10% of all research are strongly related to the biodiversity. In addition, from a geographic point of view, quantitative analysis can provide survey inputs for identifying potential locations for establishing a geopark.
Nasiri et al. (2022) investigated the geodiversity of Nourabad Mamasani Watershed. The southern sub-watershed ended up with a higher geodiversity score as it hosted a more diverse set of geological formations, geomorphologies, and climatologic conditions. They obtained the highest per-area roughness density (PRD), Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI), Shannon’s evenness index (SHEI), Simpson’s diversity index (SIDI), and Simpson’s evenness index (SIEI) of 0.31, 1.56, 0.76, 0.87, and 0.93, respectively for the mentioned sub-watershed because of the higher diversity and development of the formation, while the highest levels of morphometric factors and final layer were assigned to Nourabad Watershed, which possesses a high geodiversity due to the high levels of slope, height, roughness, and curvature as well as the wet climate in its northern parts. Scammacca et al. (2022) evaluated geodiversity in the French Guiana with an emphasis on the challenges and consequences of geo-sustainable planning. Results of their research showed that the lithology takes the largest part in the geodiversity. Carrion-Mero (2022) analyzed geodiversity of Ecuador. According to their findings, 47% of the study area was classified as very high- and high-geodiversity. Golimokhtari et al. (2019) conducted a research where they evaluated and analyzed the geodiversity in Eshtehard Township, Iran. Based on their studies, the G1 unit was found to host the most diverse set of living elements, G2 unit was identified as having the highest landform diversity, and G3 unit was the one with the highest geodiversity value across the study area.
Shayan Yeganeh et al. (2019) quantitatively evaluated the geodiversity of a proposed geopark in the west of Khorasan Razavi Province, Iran, to protect its geological heritage. Findings of this research showed that 3.9% of the study area in the north and southwest exhibit very high geodiversity. In this respect, wind process was found to serve as the dominant geomorphologically land-forming system in the study area, largely contributing to the geomorphological setting of the area.
In 2019, Maghsoudi et al. used the GLM metric to investigate the geomorphodiversity of the Damavand Volcano and the surrounding area. Results indicated that the eastern part of Damavand attains the highest geomorphodiversity score (20). Sistani Badooei et al. (2021) investigated the geodiversity and geomorphodiversity differences between the coastal zone of Oman Sea and the Makran Zone (from the Jask Bay to the Guatr Gulf). Results show that the Makran Zone exhibits higher geodiversity, as reflected by a PRD of 0.0009, SHDI of 3.3529, a SHEI of 0.9329, a SIDI of 0.9578, and a SIDI of 0.9774.
Salehipour Milani et al. (2021) evaluated the geodiversity of the watersheds in the vicinity of the Salt Lake and Hawz-e-Soltan. Results showed that the maximum geodiversity score was attained by the Zone 4 with an average GDI of 2.55. In another piece of work, Shafiei et al. (2022) investigated the role of geodiversity in the development of tourism in Firoozabad Township, and the results showed that the highest GDIs, including SIDI, SIEI, SHDI, and SHEI were associated with the Firoozabad Watershed, indicating the large potentials of this area for tourism activities, as compared to other watersheds (e.g., Meymand, Dehram, and Mahkouyeh).
Ghoohrodi Tali et al. (2022) investigated the application of geodiversity in environmental management (case study of the watershed at upstream of Karaj Dam). Results of typology studies in the Karaj Dam Watershed led to identification of such point features as waterfalls in the vicinity of roads as well as caves, which were exposed to damages.
In this research, geodiversity of the Noorabad Baisn was investigated. The study area is located in the northwest of Fars Province, southern Iran. Our focus was on a number of sub-baisns (SWs) in the central and eastern parts of Noorabad Mamasani Townships, some 150 km to the northwest of Shiraz, which are extended over a total area of about 756 km2 at an average height of 935 m from the mean sea level. In terms of geological divisions, the study area is a part of the Zagros Fault-Thrust Zone (Shafiei, 2022). General folding scheme and morphology of the Zagros are results of two orogeny stages affecting the deposits on the terrestrial pate of Iran and the western plate in the late Cretaceous and then Pliocene. During the orogeny occurred in the Pliocene, the depositional basins in this region were thoroughly folded, with the general structure and faulting system of the Zagros developed in this stage. Since then, the morphology of Zagros has been affected by nothing but the erosional factors and local displacements at faults. The folds have developed along a generally northwest – southeast trend. The highlands on the margins of the studied plains are usually composed of anticlines that are occasionally displaced by faults or large-scale fractures and noorabad baisn consists of 5 sub-basins (Golimokhtari, 2019) (Fig. 1).
In this research, geodiversity evaluation was based on the Serano and Fellano’s, Simpson’s, and Shannon’s GDIs (Fig. 2).
In order to calculate the GDI, we began by dividing the studied watershed into four sub-watersheds. Next, digital elevation map (DEM) was used to prepare layers of slope, slope direction, and roughness, simulate waterways, and prepare drainage density map, while the geological map was used to prepare maps of lithology and distance to fault. Based on these 10 parameters, all required factors in Table 1 were obtained. Finally, GDI was calculated (Table 3) by evaluating the roughness, counting the geomorphological features in each class, and dividing the results by the area of that class, as per Eq. (1):
|
Gd = Eg × R / ln (S)
|
(1)
|
where Gd is the GDI, Eg is the number of all parameters affecting the geodiversity, R is the roughness index, and S is the surface area of the considered unit (Table 1).
3.1 Evaluating the 7 GDIs
In order to understand the natural richness of the landscape classes in terms of geodiversity across the study area, we used modified Simpson’s diversity and evenness indices (MSIDI and MSIEI, respectively) and modified Shannon’s diversity and evenness indices (MSHIDI and MSHEI, respectively). The studied watershed was divided to 4 sub-watersheds for the sake of evaluation and accurate comparison of different parts in terms of natural landscapes. (Table 2).
Unit 1 is located in the southeast of the plain area. In terms of lithology, this unit is made from Eocene Asmari limestones, Sarvak limestones, Darian, Kazhdumi, and Cretaceous Fahlian. The presence of water-created valleys, concentrated canyons, waterfalls, rocky structures, numerous limy springs, and trench lapies characterizes this area. The soil in this area is made from entisols, inceptisols and stony zones. Drainage density is 0.82 m/m2 and the fault density is maximal (i.e., 11.9 km/km2). In terms of climate, the area exhibits very high diversity. The slope and height are at their maximum levels of about 57° and 2676 m, respectively, with the roughness density being at peak (Fig. 3 ,4, 5).
Unit 2 is located in the central part of the plain, where the land is covered by alluvial sediments. Numerous aqueducts, springs, and water wells characterize this area. The soil in this area is made from entisols, inceptisols, and stony zones. Drainage density is 1.65 m/m2, that is the highest level among other zones. The regional Kazerun Fault cuts through this area, forming a number of mineral water springs with medical geo-tourism potentials (Fig. 3 ,4, 5).
Unit 3 is extended over the western and northwestern parts of the plain. The dominant lithology is the Jurassic conglomerates. In terms of geomorphology, this area hosts extensive alluvial fans with aqueducts that have been developed across these fans. Canyons represent another common landform in this unit. The soil in this area is made from entisols, inceptisols and stony zones, with a drainage density of 0.85 m/m2. The area exhibits different slopes in the range of 0–5% and various heights in the range of 1000–1500 m. Notably, this area hosts some of the lowest heights across the study area. The climate is semiarid. A reduction in the roughness is evident considering the sediment material (Fig. 3 ,4, 5).
Unit 4 is extended over western parts of the study area. It is dominantly composed of gypsum – marl formations and hosts a number of rough terrains exhibiting different forms of linear trench erosion and ditch-like erosion. The soil in this area is made from entisols, inceptisols, and stony zones, with a drainage density of 1.13 m/m2. Local climate is semiarid. Results of GDI calculation showed that, among other units, Unit 1 in the southeast ended up with the highest GDI value (i.e., 12.7). Diversity of formations in this unit (e.g., Sarvak, Darian, Fahlian, Gadvan, Asmari, Pabdeh, and Gurpi) was a major cause of such a high GDI score. The high fault density in this unit paves the way for the development of karstic springs. The unit is dominantly covered with two soil types and hosts the highest number of landform types due to the presence of karstic sediments (Fig. 3 ,4, 5).
The value of GDI in Unit 3 in the western part of the watershed was found to be 11.04, where the slope is zero. Formation diversity decreased to about 1 unit, including young and old alluvial sediments. Various types of streams are found in this unit, with the corresponding score being 14. Fault density encompasses all classes. Only one type of soil is seen across this unit, and 15 geomorphologic features exist in this area. Given that the area exhibits the lowest slope, its score is minimal. Hydrologically speaking, since the main stream across the region cuts through this unit, it has attained the highest score, with the stream type being highly branched, as is obviously seen on the results. GDIs of Units 2 and 4 were evaluated at 9.11 and 7.5, respectively. These units exhibit reduced landform diversity by about 2 units. Moreover, the unit exhibits reduced drainage density coupled with poor vegetation coverage. (Fig. 6)
Investigation of Fig. 7 shows that, at the final stage where geological, morphometric, and climatic factors were combined, the MSHEI, MSHDI, MSIEI, and MSIDI were maximal in the northern sub-watershed. On the other hand, since the sub-watershed 1 has a humid climate, receives some 600 mm of rainfall per year, and is relatively colder than the other 4 sub-watersheds, it contributes to the development of morphometric and roughness diversity across the watershed. This has led to the formation of very high walls, numerous water springs, valleys, and extensive canyons in the northern part of the study area, where the water resources are much more abundant and this has led to the development of vegetation and forests. The southeastern part of the plain is dominated by Eocene Asmari limestones, Sarvak limestones, Darian, Kazhdumi, and Cretaceous Fahlian formations. The presence of these formations has resulted in the formation of numerous geomorphological features in this part of the watershed. The presence of water-created valleys, concentrated canyons, waterfalls, rocky structures, numerous limy springs, and trench lapies has effectively contributed to transforming the Buan Area into a virgin tourism district in the south of Nourabad Mamasani. (Fig. 7)
Results of analyzing the 7 GDIs, including PRD, SHDI, SHEI, SIDI, SIEI, MSIDI, and MSIEI showed that the highest values were associated with Unit 1 (0.031, 1.56, 0.76, 0.87, 0.84, 1.50, and 0.93, respectively) in the southeast of the study area. In other units, relatively reduced levels of MSIDI and MSIEI were observed. Investigation of morphometric factors of the study area showed that the density of geomorphological landforms in each unit is much higher. For instance, the densities of valleys, fluvial fans, sulphureous mineral springs, and dense lapies increase significantly, which is itself a determinant factor in the level of roughness index (Fig. 8). In a similar research, Goli Mokhtari et al. (2023) investigated the analysis of land diversity in the range of Binalud heights. The results showed that based on the findings of the research, it can be said that the difference of the indicators in the two domains is very insignificant, but due to the structural and stratigraphic condition. And the influence of secondary factors, the southern slopes of Binalud Mountains have more geodiversity than its northern slopes. The obtained results show that based on the comparison of the northern slope and the southern slope of Binaloud mountains with the five geodiversity indices, the contribution of geological factors was more than the morphometric and climatic factors.
Measuring 10 effective parameters in the studied watershed, the GDI ended up with accurate results that reflected the actual situation. Results of the GDI method showed that the fault density, high diversity of geological formations, snowfall, and low temperature in the southern part, as compared to the other parts of the study area, have resulted in a high GDI of about 12.7. the value of GFI in the central, western, and northern parts of the study area was evaluated at about 9.11, 11.04, and 7.5, respectively. That is, as one moves from the south to the north, the geodiversity decreases.
Results of analyzing the PRD, SHDI, SHEI, SIDI, SIEI, MSIDI, and MSIEI showed that the highest geodiversity was associated with the southeast unit (Buan Sub-watershed), as shown by the index values of 0.031, 1.56, 0.76, 0.87, 0.84, 1.50, and 0.93, respectively. Unit 2 (i.e., western sub-watershed) closely followed Unit 1. In other units, relatively reduced levels of MSIDI and MSIEI were observed (Table 4).
The southeastern unit is midway along the main road connecting Fars, Bushehr, Khuzestan, and Kohgiluye and Boyer-Ahmad provinces, providing timely access to highly populated cities in the region. The vast watershed coupled with high-rainfall forest zone in the upstream of this canyon have extended the availability of fresh water resources in the Buan Canyon, so that beautiful waterfalls develop in the rocky walls of the canyon during different seasons (especially the Spring). This water-rich area has long been a countryside to Mamasani nomads who were busy doing horticulture and animal husbandry. The thick walnut trees in the region are so old, some of which block the sunlight within a radius of 10–15 m. In the hot summer days, the temperature difference between this canyon and Nourabad city exceeds 10°C. Another advantage of this canyon is the existing paved road to access it. These advantages have made the canyon suitable for tourism applications.
Geologists have long sought to better recognize the earth and expand their information about the ground to get rid of ambiguities. But they have largely ignored the geodiversity, not spending so much time on investigating the geological diversities. Nevertheless, it can be stipulated that a better knowledge of geological diversity paves the way toward a better understanding of natural resources of the earth. Despite the great importance of geodiversity in various dimensions, this phenomenon is at risk of human activities. Therefore, there is a need for protecting the geodiversity, which is a necessity for the development of geo-tourism. The protection objectives and methods must account for different elements of geodiversity, and associated planning must be appropriated to the type of the respective geosite. Management of geo-tourism and related recreational activities as well as geoparks is often dependent on the type of geodiversity.
Geodiversity refers to geographical diversity of geological materials, forms, and processes that comprise the planet Earth. Geodiversity is a fundamental concept for determining the importance of non-living natural resources. Accordingly, development of geodiversity-related studies, particularly in Iran with its rich geology and geomorphology, can open a new window toward exploring natural potentials of different areas around the country. Indeed, the geodiversity and, even more importantly, geomorphodiversity have been acknowledged as effective potentials for tourism, and may comprise building blocks of tourism in Zagros Mountain Chain in Iran. With its karstic landforms, Fars Province possesses numerous geomorphodiversity capabilities. Accordingly, the present research aims at investigating the geodiversity of the Mamasani Watershed in western Fars Province, where a range of unique geological features like waterfalls, caves, tight lapies, karstic valleys, natural arches, etc. are hosted. In order to evaluate geodiversity potentials of the study area, we used geodiversity index (GDI), per-area roughness density (PRD), Simpson’s evenness index (SIEI), Shannon’s evenness index (SHEI), Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI), Simpson’s diversity index (SIDI), roughness density, modified Simpson’s diversity index (MSIDI), and modified Simpson’s evenness index (MSIEI). Results of GDI, PRD, SHDI, SIEI, SIDI, SHEI, MSIDI, and MSIEI in Unit 1 (i.e., Tang-e-Buan) were found to be maximal (i.e., equal to 12.7, 0.031, 1.56, 0.76, 0.87, 0.84, 1.5, and 0.93, respectively). Unit 3 in the western part of the watershed finished second while Units 2 and 4 were ranked 3rd and 4th, respectively.
Author Contribution
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Contribution: All authors: Abouzar Nasiri, Najmeh Sahfiei, Mohammad Ali Zanganeh Assadi, Rahman Zandi) discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.Abouzar Nasiri: working on program, writing and analyzing results Najmeh Sahfiei: program running, work organizing and editingMohammad Ali Zanganeh Assadi: editing and reviewingRahman Zandi: editing and reviewing
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.s
- Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: A Review Geoheritage.The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage, 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3.
- Carrion-Mero, P., JDueñas-Tovar, M., Jaya-Montalvo, E., Berrezueta, N., Orellana, J. (2022). Geodiversity assessment to regional scale: Ecuador as a case study. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.06.009.
- Comanescu, L., Nedelea, A. (2013). The assessment of geodiversity - A premise for declaring the geopark Buzǎului County (Romania). Journal of Earth System Science 121(6). DOI: 10.1007/s12040-012-0244-0
- Crisp, Jake RA., Ellison, J., Fischer, A. (2020). Current trends and future directions in quantitative geodiversity assessment. Progress in Physical Geography Earth and Environment, 45(3). DOI: 10.1177/0309133320967219
- Fassoulas, C.D., Mouriki, D., Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P., Iliopoulos, G. (2012). Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for Geoheritage Management. Geoheritage Journal, 4, 177–193. DOI:10.1007/s12371-011-0046-9.
- Ghoohrodi Tali, M., Alinoori, Kh., Farjadinia, S. (2022). Application of geodiversity in environmental management (case study of Karaj dam upstream basin. Quantitative Geomorphological Research, 10(4), 1–17. 10.22034/GMPJ.2021.291188.1283
- Golimokhtari, L., Negahban, S., Shafiei, N. (2019). comparative study of geodiversity in northwest Fars. Quantitative Geomorphology, 3, 151–163.
- Gray, M. (2011). Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environmental Conservation, 38, 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000117.
- Kubalíková, L., Kirchner, K. (2016). Geosite and Geomorphosite Assessment as a Tool for Geoconservation and Geotourism Purposes: A Case Study from Vizovická vrchovina Highland (Eastern Part of the Czech Republic). Geoheritage, 8, 5–14. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-015-0143-2
- Kuleta, M. (2018). Geodiversity research methods in geotourism. Geosciences, 8(6), 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060197.
- Lopez, S., Sierra, R. (2010). Agricultural change in the Pastaza River basin: a spatially explicit model of native Amazonian cultivation. Applied Geography. 30, 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.10.004
- Maghsoudi, M., Moghimi, E., Yamani, M., Rezaei, N., Moradi, A. (2019). Geomorphodiversity Investigation of Damavand volcano and its surroundings based on the GmI Index. Quantitative Geomorphological Research, 8(1), 52–69.
- McGarigal, K., Cushman, SA., Neel, MC., Ene, E. (2002). FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computersoftware program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
- Nasiri, A., Shafiei, N. Zandi, R. (2022). Evaluation of Geodiversity Across Noorabad Basin (Fars Province, Iran). Geoheritage, 14, 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-0075.
- Pereira, D.I., Pereira, P., Brilha, J., Santos, L. (2013). Geodiversity assessment of Parana ´ State (Brazil): an innovative approach. Environmental Management. 52, 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0100-2.
- Salehipour Milani, A., Sadouq, H., Rafiei, R. (2021). Geodiversity assessment of watersheds overlooking Namak Lake and Sultan Pond. Quantitative Geomorphological Researches, 10(2), 84–105. 10.22034/GMPJ.2021.289193.1277
- Scammacca, O., Bétard, F., Aertgeerts, G. (2022). Geodiversity Assessment of French Guiana: Challenges and Implications for Sustainable Land Planning. Geoheritage, 14, 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00716-6.
- Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flano, P., (2007). Geodiversity: a theoretical and applied concept. Geographica Helvetica, 62(3),140–147. DOI:10.5194/gh-62-140-2007
- Shafiei, N., Nasiri, A., Nowrozi, S., Shah Pasandi, M. (2022). Investigating the role of geo-diversity in the development of tourism in Firozabad. Journal of Tourism Space, 11(43), 117–130
- Shayan Yeganeh, A. A., Zanganeh Asdi, M. A, Amir Ahmadi, A. (2019). Quantitative Geodiversity Evaluation of the Proposed Geopark of West Khorasan Razavi for the Protection of its Geological Heritage. Geographical planning of space year,10(36), 77–90.
- Sistani Badooei, M., Fotoohi, S., Nagaresh, H., Ramesht, M. H., Roostaei, M. (2021). Geodiversity and Geomorphodiversity Differences in the Coastal of Oman Sea and Makran Zone from Cape Jask to Gwadar Bay. Geography and Development, 19(63), 39–66. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22111/J10.22111.2021.6169
- Śleszyński, P., Solon, J. (2017). A map of the landscape diversity of Poland. Geographia Polonica. 90, 369–377. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0100.
- Warowna, J., Zgłobicki, W., Grzegorz, G., Małgorzata, T., Kołodyńska-Gawrysia,R., Zieliński, P. (2014). Geomorphpsite asissment in The proposet geopark vistula river gap (E Poland). Quaestiones Geographicae, 33(3),173–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2014-0040.
- Zowlinski, Z. (2009). The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. Landform Analysis, 11, 77–85.
|
Elements
|
calculation method
|
|---|---|
|
Formation
|
Formation diversity in each unit
Extraction of fault lines from the geological layer,
|
|
Soil classification
|
From the soil classification layer of Iran. Soil
|
|
In a GIS environment
In Arc Hydro environment
From the DEM layer in the GIS environment
From the DEM layer in the GIS environment
Hydrography
River type
Hydrography
Drainage density
Waterway classification
direction of the river
river slope
|
Basin simulation was done from DEM layer and the type of waterways was prepared in this way
From the waterway layer using the GIS environment, LINE DENCITY
In a GIS environment
In Arc Hydro environment
From the DEM layer in the GIS environment
From the DEM layer in the GIS environment
|
|
Roughness
|
From the DEM layer in the GIS environment
|
|
Geomorphology
Landform
Slope
Aspect
|
From the DEM layer in the GIS environment
|
Table 2 Geodiversity indices (McGarigal, 2002)
|
Landscape units
|
SB4
|
SB3
|
SB2
|
SB1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
lithology
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
5
|
|
Distance from the fault
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
14
|
|
Landform
|
6
|
15
|
10
|
16
|
|
slope
|
7
|
7
|
0
|
14
|
|
steep direction
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
|
Hydrology
River type
|
7
7
|
7
14
|
14
14
|
14
14
|
|
Sum of elements
|
36
|
53
|
46
|
72
|
|
Ln
|
7.5
|
11.04
|
9.11
|
12.7
|
|
Geodiversity index
|
4.81
|
4.84
|
5.1
|
5.7
|
|
area
|
123
|
127
|
174
|
319
|
| Calculation of GDI index | ||||
|
PRD
|
SHDI
|
SHEI
|
SIDI
|
SIEI
|
MSIDI
|
MSIEI
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
0.031
|
1.56
|
0.76
|
0.87
|
0.93
|
1.5
|
0.84
|
|
2
|
0.034
|
1.34
|
0.68
|
0.75
|
0.82
|
1.43
|
0.79
|
|
3
|
0.039
|
1.44
|
0.72
|
0.8
|
0.87
|
1.46
|
0.81
|
|
4
|
0.05
|
1.3
|
0.68
|
0.76
|
0.81
|
1.5
|
0.84
|
No competing interests reported.