Interface of Geodiversity, Geomorphosites, Geotourism and Seasonal Economy in Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, India

• Autorzy: Krishnanand

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12657/landfana-038-003

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Interface of Geodiversity with human response can be understood simply as, the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorphological (landforms, topography, physical processes), soil and hydrological features including their assemblages, structures, systems and contributions to landscapes together with the anthropogenic amalgamation in the landscape system. Geomorphosites are those components of geodiversity that have acquired a scientific, cultural/historical, aesthetic and socio-economic value due to human perception or exploitation (Panizza, 2001). The trans-Himalayan district of Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, India is a landlocked district in trans-Himalaya accessible seasonally through high mountain passes; where the interface is manifested though human response to the geodiversity elements. The abiotic factors play a significant role in generating stimuli and the human response varies accordingly in the study area. It is also known as the Tethyan Himalayan region, where the interface (interactive zone/ crossing point/edge) of Geomorphosites and human response in terms of geotourism has been analysed and mapped. The data has been collected through extensive field work using structured questionnaire survey and field observations at geomorphosites having unique characteristics. The field work has been done in May–June 2017 and June 2018. The assessment of human response in terms of seasonal economy and geotourism has been done using GIS environment, GPS and SWOT analysis. The study highlights that potential geotourism sites have to be further identified, explored and developed in the region and the existing sites have to be conserved in order to harness the tremendous geotourism potential of the region and thereby boosting the seasonal economy.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

geodiversity; geotourism; geomorphosites; Trans-Himalaya; seasonal economy

• Wydawca: Stowarzyszenie Geomorfologów Polskich
• Czasopismo: Landform Analysis
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 38
• Strony: 25--34
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 19 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Krishnanand

• Department of Geography, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, India

Bibliografia

• Bruschi V.M., Cendrero A., Albertos J.A.C., 2011. A statistical approach to the validation and optimization of geoheritage assessment procedures. Geoheritage 3: 131–149.
• Comanescu L., Nedelea A., 2010. Analysis of some representative geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains: between scientific evaluation and tourist perception. Area 42(4): 406– 416.
• Coratza P., Giusti C., 2005. Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario 18(1): 305–313.
• Coratza P., Reynard E., Zwolinski Zb., 2018. Geodiversity and Geoheritage: Crossing Disciplines and Approaches. Geoheritage 10: 525–526. DOI: 10.1007/s12371-018-0333-9.
• Dowling R.K., 2013. Global Geotourism – An Emerging Form of Sustainable Tourism. Czech Journal of Tourism 2(2): 59–79.DOI: 10.2478/cjot-2013-0004.
• Gray M. (2013). Geodiversity: Valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester.
• Hassan S., 2012. A tourism demand based method of geosites assessment on geotourism prioritization modeling: The case of Razavi Khorasan Province. Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism 3: 82–94. 10.5897/JHMT12.009.
• Kale V.S., 2014. Geomorphosites and Geoheritage Sites in India.In: V.S.Kale (ed), Landscapes and Landforms of India, Springer, Dordrecht: 247–267.
• Krishnanand, Raman V.A.V. 2019. Geographical Analysis of Geotourism based Seasonal Economy in Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh (India). GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 24(1): 118–132.
• Neches I.-M., 2013. From Geomorphosite Evaluation to Geotourism Interpretation. Case Study: The Sphinx of Romania’s Southern Carpathians. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 12(2): 145–162.
• Panizza M., 2001. Geomorphosites: concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science Bulletin (Suppl.) 46: 4–6.
• Panizza M., Piacente S., 2003. Geomorfologia Culturale. Pitagora Editrice, Bologna, 350 pp.
• Pereira P., Pereira D., 2010. Methodological guidelines for geomorphosite assessment. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 1(3): 215–222.
• Pica A., Vergari F., Fredi P., Del Monte M., 2016. The Aeterna Urbs Geomorphological Heritage (Rome, Italy). Geoheritage 8(1): 31–42.
• Reynard E., Fontana G., Koźlik L., Capozza C., 2007. A method for assessing scientific and additional values of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62(3): 148–158.
• Shayan S., Sharifikia M., Zare G.R., 2011. Evaluating the geomorphotourism potential of landforms based on Praloong method (Case Study: Darab Township). Arid Regions Geographic Studies 1(2): 73–91.
• The Times of India, 2010. Saviour couple of Spiti valley. Online: timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010/india/Saviour-couple-of-Spitivalley/articleshow/6094462.cms (accessed 20.10.2019).
• Yamani M., Negahban S., Harabadi S., Alizadeh M., 2012. Geomorphotourism and Comparison of Methods for the Assessment of Geomorphosites in Tourism Development (Case Study: Hormozgan Provice). Journal of Tourism Planning and Development 1(1): 83–104.
• Zwoliński Zb., 2004. Geodiversity. In: Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, A.Goudie (ed.), Routledge: 417–418.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).