geomorpho sites in bugeci mountains

Analysis of some representative geomorphosites inthe Bucegi Mountains: between scientific

evaluation and tourist perception

Laura Comanescu and Alexandru NedeleaThe Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

Email: [email protected]

Revised manuscript received 13 November 2009

Geomorphosites are landforms that have acquired, in time, a certain value (scientific, cultural, aesthetic,ecological and/or economic). This article presents a statistical analysis of the results obtained during ourevaluation of geomorphosites, including their associated value in the minds of tourists. The BucegiMountains were considered to be an appropriate study area given their great variety in geomorphositesand their accessibility (the highest infrastructure density in the whole Carpathian area). We selected,catalogued and evaluated the best-known geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains without making itour goal to map them. Tourists opinions were assessed by questionnaire and the data obtained werestatistically processed.

Key words: geomorphosite, evaluation, value, Bucegi Mountains, Romania

Theoretical considerationsA geomorphosite is part of the terrestrial surface of theearth that holds special importance for understanding theEarths history (Panizza 2001, 4), and which also benefitsfrom a certain perception quotient. Geomorphositesacquire scientific, cultural, historical, aesthetic and socio-economic value (Panizza and Piacente 1993, 1314) oncenoticed and made accessible by people, for example bythe development of tourist infrastructure and by peopleundertaking leisure activities in or near the geomoprhosite(Panizza 2001, 5; Reynard 2005, 185). As such, geomor-phosites should be considered multifunctional entities.

Geomorphosites were defined for the first time by M.Panizza in 1993, and received further attention in 2003with the release of Cultural geomorphology (Panizza andPiacente 2003, 21617); the most important work in thesubject. Many specialists associated geomorphosites withnatural, relief-related tourist attractions but the notions arenot synonymous, because for such an attraction to beconsidered a geomorphosite, it needs to hold consider-ably more features (value) than just topographic distinc-tions (Coratza and Giusti 2005, 312).

Learning more about geomorphosites is important notonly for geomorphologists, who are more interested intheir scientific value, but also for experts in tourism geog-

raphy, who appreciate their aesthetic value and theirimportance as tourist attractions. Experts in environmentalgeography and biogeography will also value their ecologi-cal significance. To this end it is necessary to correctlyassess not only the intrinsic value of a geomorphosite, butalso its capacity to attract tourists, which is determined bythe place it occupies in the minds of the tourists and ofcourse by the current state of preservation of the geomor-phosite. Should such a study acquire a more commercialvalue with the purpose of generating income, then itbecomes of relevance for economists, authorities andbusinessmen. Acquiring greater knowledge on geomor-phosites can also serve for teaching purposes such aspreparing learning materials or organising field trips forstudents, as part of their training as future professionals(Pralong and Reynard 2005, 316).

MethodologyGeomorphosite evaluation is an issue that raised the inter-est of geographers all over the world whose efforts con-centrated on developing and refining effective evaluationmethods that they further published, for example, see thesolutions offered by universities such as Modena, Cant-abria, Valladolid, Lausanne, Minho (Reynard et al. 2009,6670). For our study we chose to apply the Swiss

Area (2010) doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00937.x

Area 2010ISSN 0004-0894 2010 The Authors.Journal compilation Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2010

method, as we considered it to be the most appropriategiven the features of the study area and because it allowsa correlation between the results obtained through evalu-ation of the total value and the data from the question-naire. For the calibration of this method and in order toproduce a unitary methodology we need to apply the verysame practice to areas with different natural (mountain,hillside, flatlands and seaside) or tourism potential (masstourism, soft tourism). As a baseline our research used themodel proposed by Pralong (2005) and Reynard et al.(2007). In this approach the value that a geomorphositehas for the tourism industry is calculated as the average offour values, using the formula:

Vtour Vsce Vsci Vcult Veco 4= + + +( ) (1)where Vtour is tourism value, Vsce is aesthetic value, Vsciis scientific value, Vcult is cultural-historical value andVeco is socio-economic value (Reynard et al. 2007, 1502). The four values are computed based on the criteriasummarised in Table 1.

A 0 to 1 rating scale was used for each criterion.Further, the final scores for each criterion and subse-quently the global tourism value were calculated usingPralongs formula. The data obtained were statisticallyanalysed and used to determine those parameters thathelped define the grouping of data and also to makecorrelations between the resulting values and the globalvalue of the geomorphosite.

In light of the previous work outlined above, the meth-odological approach requires several steps (Figure 1):

1. Studying the specific literature, the available geologi-cal, geomorphologic and biogeography materials, aswell as any cultural and historical facts or literature,usually also considered by the geography of tourism.

2. Identifying and locating geomorphosites in the studyarea, classifying and grading them. Identification, clas-sification and gradation are useful tools in devising andapplying a correct and complete inventory sheet.

3. Creating a database, including the specific attributes ofthe respective geomorphosite.

4. Interviewing tourists to learn more about what they areinterested in with the purpose of using that informationto design the best geotourist products and to plan themost appropriate hiking trails. The questionnaireapplied is presented in Table 2; it was devised by usand can be improved and adapted to mirror the spe-cific nature of an area and/or the purpose of the study.

5. Processing and statistically analysing the questionnairedata and further comparing the values obtained withthose from using the classical method of evaluation(Figure 1).

Study areaThe Bucegi Range lies in the eastern part of the SouthernCarpathians, between Prahova Valley (east) and Rucar-Bran Trench (west) (Figure 2). The Massif is a horse-shoe-shaped mountainous arch with a greatly fragmentedcentral body of the Ialomita Valley, carved into gorges andbasins (Ielenicz and Comanescu 2006, 102). The twomajor branches of this arch come together into the OmuPeak (2505 metres), the highest in the Massif and one ofthe loftiest in the Romanian Carpathians. The easternbranch is quite massive, several of its peaks exceed 2000metres (Bucura, Obrsia, Costila, Caraiman, Jepii Mici,Jepii Mari, Piatra Arsa, Furnica and Vrfu cu Dor) andeach could stand as a separate geomorphosite. Thisbranch descends gradually westward towards IzvoruDorului and Ialomita Valley forming a structural plateau

Table 1 Criteria for geomorphosite evaluation (modified from Pralong 2005, 1936; Reynard et al. 2007, 152)

Aesthetic value Scientific value Cultural value Economic value

Number of belvedere points Palaeogeographical interest Cultural legacy AccessibilityAverage distance from

belvedere pointsRepresentativeness (cultured

opinion)As presented in

iconographicrepresentations and/or indifferent writings

Attractiveness

Impact of colour against thesurroundings

Surface Historical andarchaeological relevance

Annual number of visitors

Altitude and climbing effort Singularity Religious and symbolicrelevance

Level of official protection

Shape Integrity, state ofconservation

Artistic and cultural events Inclusion in promotionalmaterials or in other suchproducts

Location in the landscape Ecological interest Natural risksThe presence of study

stations or points

2 Comanescu and Nedelea

Area 2010ISSN 0004-0894 2010 The Authors.

Journal compilation Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2010

dominated by peaks such as Babele, Cocora and Laptici.West of the Ialomita Valley lies the second branch thatincludes ranges such as Doamnele, Batrna, Grohotisu,Strunga Mare and Tataru (Ielenicz and Comanescu 2006,102). Several other small steep ranges that converge intothe Omu Peak have been reduced by erosion to ruggedsharp crests (Moraru, Bucsoiu, Padina Crucii, Tiganestiand Gaura).

The geology of the area consists of thick stacks of con-glomerates (over 1000 metres) that overlie a crystallinebasement which outcrops locally. Besides these, forma-tions such as limestone and marl-arenaceous flysch arequite frequent. The sedimentary superstructure is part of a

large syncline fold. Limestone and conglomerates areeasy to spot in the landscape because differential erosionhas shaped the land surface into a specific type of reliefwhich therefore has produced potentially valuable geo-morphosites.

The Massif benefits from a variety of landforms andgeomorphosites, the result of complex geology anderosion patterns (Figure 3). We present the most importantcategories identified, illustrating these with examples(Ielenicz and Comanescu 2006, 103):

structural drops (e.g. Prahova and Bran) with a differ-ence in level of over 1000 metres asl,

Figure 1 Stages of geomorphosite evaluation

Analysis of some representative geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains 3


large structural plateaus that lie at altitudes between18002000 metres asl,

the Ialomita Valley with its basins and gorges (Ursilor,Tatarul Mic, Tatarul Mare, Zanoaga Mica, ZanoagaMare and Orzei) (Figure 4 a,b),

peaks that are good belvedere points,

alpine ridges, ruiniform relief shaped by differential erosion, such as

pinnacles, tower assemblages and crags amongst whichBabele (The Hags) and the Sphinx are the most famous,

glacial relief with glacier complexes surrounding OmuPeak (Malaesti, Tiganesti, Obrsia and Valea Cerbului),

Table 2 Questionnaire model

1. How often do you go on trips inthe Bucegi Mountains?

2. How long are your trips usually? 3. What are your usual activities onsuch trips?

a. Monthly a. One day a. Hikingb. Seasonally/temporarily b. One weekend b. Cave tourismc. Yearly c. 3 to 5 days c. Sports tourism (including alpinism

and extreme sports)d. Less than once a year d. One week or more d. Scientific tourism4. What is your opinion on the

infrastructure available in theBucegi Mountains?

5. What do you cherish most aboutthe Bucegi Mountains?

6. What do you appreciate most at anatural site?

a. Very good a. Natural sites a. Aesthetic attributesb. Good b. Scenery as a whole b. Scientific importancec. Reasonable c. Anthropic sites c. Cultural valued. Unsatisfactory d. Recreational facilities d. Economic value7. List the sites below in terms of the

impression made upon you(increasing order)The Hags, theSphinx, Ialomicioara Cave, OmuPeak, Urlatoarea Waterfall,Caraiman Plateau, Franz JosefsRock, Tatarului Gorges, GauraGlacial Cirque, Morarului Crags

8. How would you describe yourfavourite site should you chosefrom the list below?

9. What other sites (landforms) wouldyou consider visiting in the BucegiMountains?

a. Unique a. Malaiesti Valley

b. Attractive b. Horoabei Gorges

c. Representative c. Prahovas Vertical Drop

d. Accessible d. Others (name them)

10. In your opinion, which of thenatural or anthropic phenomenalisted below has a greater negativeimpact on the respective site?

11. If you have visited the BucegiMountains on several occasions,what word would you use todescribe the current state of thesites listed under question 7

12. Would you consider that the siteslisted under question 7 are madeaccessible/utilised for tourismactivities:

a. Human activity (tourism included) a. Worsened a. Very wellb. Floods b. Improved b. Wellc. Landslides c. The same c. Satisfactoryd. Climatic phenomena d. I dont know d. Unsatisfactory

13. Will you come again?a. Yesb. Noc. I dont know

14. Interview sheet1. Agea. Under 20b. 2140c. 4160d. Over 602. Sexa. Maleb. Female3.Nationalitya. Romanianb. Other: (name it)4. Studiesa. Secondary schoolb. Higher education5. Birth placea. Urbanb. Rural




karst relief (gorges and caves; Ialomita Cave is the mostfamous),

glacial or structural drop-offs with waterfalls (e.g.Urlatoarele).

Results and discussionDuring the study, we considered and evaluated variousgeomorphosites of different genesis, importance, visualimpact or tourist flows and activities (Plate 1 a, b, c).Table 3 summarises the scores obtained per criteria.

The scores for aesthetic value range between 0.9(Morarului Crags) and 0.4; Urlatoarea Waterfall scoredlow for this because of reduced visibility as there is nobelvedere point overlooking it. Generally, the aestheticcomponent scored high: none of these geomorphositeswas evaluated under 0.2 and most values ranged between0.4 and 0.6, marking a spectacular difference in level, thecontrast of colour against the general scenery (especiallyfor limestone and conglomerates) or the visual impact ofa special shape.

In terms of scientific value, the Hags and the Sphinxscored highest with 0.65, and the Urlatoarea Waterfall atthe other end of the scale with only 0.45. Most scoresranged between 0.4 and 0.6 (80%), but there were a fewextremes too. Geomorphosites in Bucegi are generallyeasy to access and therefore perfect for research (they arethe subject of different ongoing studies) and didactic acti-vates (a compulsory stop for most didactic fieldtrips).

Opinions varied greatly in terms of the cultural value tobe assigned to the geomorphosites under study. Thus,geomorphosites that are not present in any iconographicrepresentations, lack historical or archaeological evi-dence or have no special symbolic meaning attachedwere marked 0. In comparison the Caraiman Plateau(graded highest with 0.6) gained considerable creditbecause of its presence in numerous iconographic repre-sentations and geotouristic promotional materials; theMonument of Heroes being one of the most recognisable

images. The score range is low (00.6) compared with theother evaluation criteria, and therefore a good indicator ofthe fact that the cultural component of the area is not verywell promoted.

The general opinion was that geomorphosites in theMassif have great economic value; the scores vary from0.95, the highest, for the Caraiman Plateau, to 0.5 for theGaura Glacial Cirque. This high score range reflects thetourist infrastructure already in place (cable transport,marked trails), the easy access and tourist flows.

The values for global tourism ranged between 0.387 forGaura Glacial Cirque, which scored low given its reducedaesthetic value (no belvedere points overlooking it) andlack of cultural attributes, up to 0.655 for the CaraimanPlateau, which besides have easy access, also benefitsfrom good cultural and scientific representation.

Even though restricted to small areas, geomorphositessuch as the Hags, the Sphinx or Urlatoarea Waterfall enjoygreat popularity and hold great intrinsic value for theirparticularity. Others, on the other hand, such as the exten-sive Caraiman Plateau hold an extrinsic value because aswell as the overall large scale feature, the geomorphositeis an accumulation of smaller scale, more localised geo-morphotosites within the location of the CaraimanPlateau, each associated with its own, individual worth.

The statistical analysis (Figure 5) reveals the following:

1. The calculus of absolute and relative frequenciesreveals that the aesthetic component falls into fourvalue classes, the scientific component into twoclasses of value, and the cultural and economic com-ponents into three classes of value. Naturally, theglobal tourism value falls into 3 classes (Table 4).

2. Relative frequencies vary between 0 per cent and 80per cent, indicating a fairly wide diversity of geomor-phosites (Table 5).

3. The rating scores varied most for the aesthetic compo-nent and the lowest grade was granted for the scientific

Figure 2 Geographic location of the Bucegi Mountains in Romania



component, a fair index of relief complexity as a resultof geology and erosion patterns (Table 4).

4. Usually in statistics, similar average and median linesindicate a homogeneous opinion as in the case of theaesthetic and cultural components.These indexes dontdiffer that much for the other criteria either (Table 5).

5. It is therefore obvious that for more consistent results,the study needs to continue by interviewing morepeople in order to acquire greater statistical evidence.

The values obtained by Pralong, using the formula hedeveloped for geomorphosites in the Alps, were similar to

Figure 3 Location and global value of geomorphosites located in Bucegi Mountains (number in Table 3, the radius ofcircles is proportional to the global value of the geomorphosites)




ours, even though slightly higher for the Alps. Mer deGlace (one of the most famous alpine glaciers but withconsiderably lower didactic value compared with otherglaciers) was graded as follows: scenic value 0.7, scien-tific value 0.75, cultural value 0.75, economic value 0.75,resulting in a global tourism value of 0.74, reasonablyhigher than that of any of the geomorphosites under studyin the Carpathians (Table 6). This similarity is evident forgeomorphosites produced through the same geneticprocess, thus the global tourism value of caves is almostequal while that of gorges differs slightly in favour ofDiosaz gorges in the Alps that benefit from greater culturalvalue (Table 6). Geomorphosites in the Alps are moreactively employed for tourism pruposes compared withthose in the Carpathians. In terms of didactic and scien-tific employment, geomorphosites in the Carpathiansseem to be less well appreciated.

Applying the questionnaire was a difficult task becausethe large number of tourists makes quantification difficultand there are several access routes/entrance points whichmakes it difficult to representatively sample visitors.However, the body administering the Bucegi Natural Parkwere very helpful in selecting a representative sample(250 persons) based on the usual criteria: country oforigin, age, sex, income, etc. and tourism activity prac-tised (Table 7).

The questionnaire proved more than useful as itallowed us to assess both the opinions of professionals

and tourism consumers. As tourists are not familiar withthe technical vocabulary usually used by professionals,the questionnaire structure had to be kept simple, there-fore we avoided using words such as geomorphosite.However, we were pleased to learn that frequent tourists(over 83%) practising all sorts of activities in the area area source of interesting and useful information.

Based on the answers provided, we learned that hikingis the most frequent activity; the average trip was 35 dayslong and in 76 per cent of these cases, consisted ofweekend trips.

More than 80 per cent of the respondents thought thatthe infrastructure available in the Massif was good, eventhough unevenly distributed, meaning that most of thegeomorphosites under study benefit from an easy access.Such a conclusion matches perfectly the high rating scalefor the economic component (accessibility being one ofits major vectors considered).

The impact of geomorphosites (the wording used inthe questionnaire was natural or relief-related attrac-tions) is clearly demonstrated by the answers from 89per cent of the respondents who considered thesenatural attractions as reason enough to take the trip(Figure 6); attractions such as plants or water sites areusually considered to be elements of the scenery. TheBucegi Mountains are clearly identified as a first optionfor tourism activities of all sorts, including specificactivities such as learning climbing. Moreover, some of

A B

Figure 4 Tatarului Gorges geomorphological sketch (a: general; b: detail) (after Velcea 1961, 54, 101 modified)



the geomorphosites in the area (see question 9) are con-sidered to be among the most attractive and interestingin Romania (e.g. Prahovas Drop, Horoabei Gorges,Malaiesti Valley, Orzei Gorges).

In the mind of the tourist there is no clear difference asto why a certain criteria is more important than the other,meaning that they assign almost equal importance toeither value (scientific, aesthetic, cultural or economic)(Figure 7). Considering this, we regard the formula used

(J.P. Pralongs) as the most reliable, although some profes-sionals do find certain values to be more eloquent thanothers.

Determining a hierarchy of importance that these geo-morphosites hold in the minds of tourists was achievedwith the help of questions 7 and 9. It became obvious thatthe most famous sites in the Massif are the CaraimanPlateau and the ruiniform landforms, the Hags and theSphinx. Omu Peak is also well rated for its altitude and

a

c

b

Plate 1 Different geomorphosites located in the Bucegi Mountains (a: The Hags; b: The Sphinx; c: Tatarului Gorges)

Table 3 Bucegi Massif geomorphosites global value assessment

No. Geomorphosite name Scenic value Scientific value Cultural value Economic value Global value

1 The Hags 0.75 0.65 0.25 0.85 0.6252 The Sphinx 0.75 0.65 0.25 0.85 0.6253 Ialomicioara Cave 0.5 0.6 0.45 0.6 0.537

Omu Peak 0.75 0.45 0.10 0.65 0.4875 Urlatoarea Waterfall 0.4 0.45 0.05 0.85 0.4376 Caraiman Plateau 0.6 0.47 0.6 0.95 0.6557 Franz Josefs Rock 0.55 0.45 0.3 0.55 0.4628 Tatarului Gorges 0.65 0.5 0 0.75 0.4759 Gaura Glacial Cirque 0.5 0.55 0 0.5 0.38710 Morarului Crags 0.9 0.6 0.05 0.65 0.55




panoramic view, while Morarului Crags occupy a lowerposition, presumably because the area is less accessible,especially during the cold season and also because touristsarent so aware of its intrinsic scientific value (Figure 8).

Asked to describe their favourite attraction (question 8),tourists disclosed that what matters most is the uniquecharacter of a site and second, accessibility of the area(Figure 9). Respondents with a higher level of educationalattainment seem to appreciate the representativeness of asite more than those with a lower level.

Figure 5 Relative frequency of data gathered for each criterion (Table 5)

Table 4 Statistical analysis of geomorphosite specificcriteria

ValueNumberof values Amplitude Average

Medianline

Aesthetic 10 0.5 0.63 0.625Scientific 10 0.20 0.572 0.525Cultural 10 0.45 0.25 0.25Economic 10 0.45 0.72 0.70Global 10 0.268 0.519 0.493

Table 5 Absolute and relative frequency of data gathered for each criterion

Value

Aesthetic Scientific Cultural Economic Global

F abs F relat F abs F relat F abs F relat F abs F relat F abs F relat

00.2 0 0 0 0 5 50 0 0 0 00.20.4 1 10 0 0 3 30 0 0 0 00.40.6 4 40 8 80 2 20 3 30 1 100.60.8 4 40 2 20 0 0 3 30 6 60Over 0.8 1 10 0 0 0 0 4 40 3 30

Table 6 Global tourism value of geomorphosites in Bucegi Mountains and their counterparts in the Alps (Pralong 2005,1924)

Name Scenic value Scientific value Cultural value Economic value Global value

Ialomicioara Cave (Bucegi) 0.5 0.6 0.45 0.6 0.537Vaas Cave (Alps) 0.65 0.85 0.08 0.45 0.51Tatarului Gorges (Bucegi) 0.65 0.5 0 0.75 0.475Diosaz Gorges (Alps) 0.75 0.75 0.42 0.75 0.67

Table 7 Structure of the sample

Country of origin Age (years) Sex Income Practised tourism activity

Romania 230 Under 20 45 M 148 Under 100 Euros 23 Hiking 97France 8 2040 118 F 102 100300 Euros 202 Recreational activities 76Germany 4 4060 67 300500 Euros 23 Climbing 2Other country 8 Over 60 20 Over 500 Euros 2 Other activities 75



Question 10 is formulated in order to allow an under-standing of whether tourists are aware of the multitude offactors that risk the integrity of these geomorphosites. Thegeneral opinion is that excessive tourism and irrationaldeforestation are the main matters of concern. Risk phe-nomena dont seem to be a factor, possibly because theircurrent state of preservation is good.

Even though most of these geomorphosites are pro-tected as part of the Bucegi National Park or as individualNature Reserves, hikers pointed out that some of thetourists visiting the area dont behave properly, and geo-mophosites such as the Hags, the Sphinx, Morarului Cragsor Ialomicioara Cave have suffered as a result of their

actions, such as carved inscriptions and destroyed stalac-tites and stalagmites.

For a successful implementation of sustainable devel-opment, the potential values, as assessed by means ofscientific evaluation and questionnaire application, needto be employed by maintaining a suitable balancebetween the geomorphosites significance in terms ofpotential to attract tourists and its integrity, meaning theability to sustain the geomorphosite in a good state tomaintain its existing potential as an attraction.

We learned that through interaction with touriststhatthe study of geomorphosites can benefit from first-handreliable information on the frequency and reason of visitto the geomorphosites in the area for tourism activities(tourist flows). Based on this information trails for geot-ourism and didactic purposes can be further develope-d(the offer of geotourism packages increased constantly inthe area).

After thorough consideration of the resulting globalvalue and the potential risks the geomophosite is exposedto, management solutions could be proposed. Accord-ingly, solutions for the protection and promotion of thearea should be considered.

Both active (building of protection infrastructure) andpassive (territorial planning and institutional measures

Figure 6 Tourist preferences towards attractions locatedin the Bucegi Massif

Figure 7 Tourist opinions on values that definegeomorphosites

Figure 9 Tourist opinions concerning the maincharacteristics of geomorphosites

Figure 8 Tourist opinions on geomorphosite hierarchy




such as public policies) protection measures should beconsidered. Promotional measures need to tackle thedevelopment of tourism or educational materials and ser-vices (Reynard et al. 2007, 152).

ConclusionsAn accurate inventory and evaluation of geomorphositeshas practical utility in developing and promoting newgeotourist products as well as in planning hiking trails. Thecurrent study revealed a very important fact: the opinionsof professionals and tourists dont really match, therefore itis very important to consider and analyse both sides.

We make it our goal to raise the awareness of theRomanian public, through a series of articles and promo-tional materials, of the importance of developing geotour-ism products promoting a sustainable use of the existingtourist attractions. The method weve used in evaluatingand inventorying geomorphosites in the area was success-fully applied in several other countries, such as Italy,Switzerland, Spain and Greece (Serrano and Gonzalez-Trueba 2005, 2012; Zouros 2005, 230), although this isthe first such trial in Romania. Given that such anapproach has considerable benefits, we encourage alarger use of this method for an improved management ofthe existing tourism potential of the Romanian Car-pathians in general and Bucegi Massif, in particular.

Geomorphosites may become natural tourist attractionsas a result of employment of their scenic, scientific, cul-tural and economic values with the purpose to developrecreational activities bearing a commercial effect(Pralong 2005, 195). We consider that protecting andconserving the geomorphosites under study is moreimportant than employing their tourism potential (most ofthem are part of the Bucegi National Park).

Acknowledgements

The results in this article are part of the research project PN II/Ideifinanced by CNCSIS (Inventarierea, evaluarea si cartografierea

geomorfositurilor. Studii de caz: Podisul Dobrogei si CarpatiiMeridionali), project manager conf. univ. dr. Laura Comanescu.

References

Coratza P and Giusti C 2005 Methodological proposal for theassessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites Il Qua-ternario 18 30713

Ielenicz M and Comanescu L 2006 Romnia potential turisticEdit. Universitara, Bucuresti

Panizza M 2001 Geomorphosites: concepts, methods andexamples of geomorphological survey Chinese Science Bulletin46 46

Panizza M and Piacente S 1993 Geomorphological assets evalu-ation Zeitschrift fr Geomorphologie N.F. Suppl.-Bd. 87 1318

Panizza M and Piacente S 2003 Geomorfologia culturale PitagoraEditrice, Bologna

Pralong J-P 2005 A method for assessing tourist potential and useof geomorphological sites Gomorphologie: Relief, Processus,Environnement 3 18996

Pralong J-P and Reynard E 2005 A proposal for the classificationof geomorphological sites depending on their tourist value IlQuaternario 18 31521

Reynard E 2005 Gomorphosites et paysages Gomorphologie:Relief, Processus, Environnement 3 1818

Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L and Scapozza C 2007 A methodfor assessing scientific and additional values of geomor-phosites Geographica Helvetica 62 14858

Reynard E, Coratza P and Regolini-Bissig G 2009 Geomor-phosites Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munchen

Serrano E and Gonzalez-Trueba J J 2005 Assessment of geomor-phosites in natural protected areas: the Pico de Europa NationalPark (Spain) Gomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement3 197208

Velcea V 1961 Masivul Bucegi. Studiu geomorfologic Edit. Acad-emiei, Bucuresti

Zouros N 2005 Assessment, protection, and promotion ofgeomorphological and geological sites in the Aegean area,Greece Gomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 322734



geomorpho sites in bugeci mountains

Documents

aesthetic value

scientific value

associated value

intrinsic value

features value

socioeconomic value

certain value scientific

geomorphosites withnatural