Analyzing Geotourism of Khas-e- Tarash Cave by Pralong method

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ph.d Student of Geomorphology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Geology, Islamic Azad University, Khoorasgan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Mapping, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran


Extended abstract
1- Introduction
The khas-e Tarash cave is one of the caves of the Isfahan region that can considers as a Geo-touristic area. This cave is a limestone cave and based on speleology is located in vadose area. This cave is located near khas-e Tarash village, about 55 Km away from the city of Isfahan. Studying formation of cave is very important in speleological studies. Tectonic is the main factor of khas-e Tarash cave forming. Its architecture is based on backup process which caused widening, cutting of rock blocks and gaps that redound to form the passages and halls.
According to the cave classifications, this cave is an irregular fissure network cave.
2- Methodology
In this study, for identification of the khas-e Tarash cave was used field studies, Lab and digital methods. During these studies the tectonic map of the cave was prepared. For determining mineralogy of cave, imaging electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and atomic absorption (AAS) methods were used. The results identified aragonite layers from calcite (figure 1). The Pralong uses to evaluate scientific, economic and cultural Matrix of the four indicators. This model is for assessing the tourism potential of the four aspects of a geomorphological Landforms deals (appearance beauty, scientific, cultural - historical and society - economic). In this method, applies the specific criteria for determining the value of every aspect of the geomorphologic features of tourism.


Figure 1- pictures by scanning electron microscope (SEM), 1. Gypsum bladedminerals &
 2. Needle Aragonite

3- Discussion
Results of geology studies classified the cave as a limestone cave which located in Vados area.  Formation of this cave provides a tourist attraction. It formed by two factors tectonic and solution. Tectonic as a primary factor formed the fractures and joints in stones, then in the next step solution of rocks along extension and gaps redound to unique passage and halls. According to the cave classification, this cave is network and irregular fissure network. Speleological varieties of along the passages and halls are another tourist attraction of the cave. These varieties are in wide range of carbonate (aragonite, calcite), evaporated minerals (Gypsume, Halite &Thenardite) and in some cases deposits with silica combination. After chemical combination appointing, speleothems named based on morphology and Palmer method. Most of the carbonate speleothems of the cave are observable in forms of stalagmites,stalactites, pillars, popcorns, helictite, anthodites,globulites, flowstone, drapery, rimstone pool, crasts, and needles with dispersal and different frequencies. Variety of Gypsumecrystal's types is one of the rare phenomena of the cave. Few types of different Gypsume morphology are rhomboidral’s Gypsume, prismatic’s Gypsume, subhedral’s Gypsume in few morphologies, angel hair Gypsume, amorphous, very tiny crystals outspread in soil which can be observed spread and make all over the wall, on the floor and roof in the halls and defiles. Traits of this landform are assessed by Pralongmethod, which prepared in papers as a geomorphologic landform identity. Thus after preparing recommended formulas, marking tables organized and related coefficient calculated *Social- economical value 0.5, cultural-historical value 0.5, scientific value 0.92, beauty valuation 0.75 in total come to 0.64 which is a good mark. At the end the mark of assessment of statistic summery for tourism values and productivity concerning gained marks were organized in the table by Pralongmethod, then the mark of related landform 0.64 assessed as a good degree (figure 2). 


Figure 2. Statistic of assessment for tourism values landform productivity
Of geomorphology for the area of the study by Pralong method.

4- Conclusion
In this research, have been used prolong method for marking and coefficient evaluation tourism of the khas-e Tarash cave which consists of based on four indicators of the method, the value of social-economic, cultural-historical, scientific value in matrix evaluation resulted in: based on obtained marks and beauty valuation, the cave obtained 0.64 that this point is comparable with UNESCO's standards for geo-tourism cave.


امری کاظمی، علیرضا، 1381، آغازی بر ژئوتوریسم ایران، مجموعه مقالات بیست و یکمین گردهمائی علوم زمین، سازمان زمین شناسی و اکتشافات معدنی کشور.
بیاتی خطیبی مریم، شهابی هیمن، قادری زاده هانا 1388، ژئوتوریسم، رویکردی نو در بهره گیری از جاذبه های ژئومورفولوژیکی ‹‹طالعه موردی: غار کرفتو در استان کردستان›› مجله علمی- پژوهشی فضای جغرافیا، شماره ی 29، صفحه 50-27.
پسندی مهرداد، پاکزاد حمیدرضا، سبک خیز فاطمه، 1388، مطالعه زمین شناسی و نامگذاری تعدادی از غار نهشته ها در غار چال نخجیر، سازمان میراث فرهنگی و صنایع دستی و گردشگری اراک، 20 صفحه.
ثروتی محمدرضا، قاسمی افشان، 1387، راهبردهای ژئوتوریسم در استان فارس، مجله علمی-پژوهشی فضای جغرافیایی، شماره 24، ص، 50-23.
خسروتهرانی خسرو، 1367، کلیاتی در باره چینه شناسی ایران و مقاطع تیپ تشکیلات: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران،319 صفحه.
کارگر بهمن، 1386، اکولوژی و رشد صنعت گزدشگری (اکوتوریسم و ژئوتوریسم)، نشریه سپهر، سال شانزدهم، شماره 63، صفحه 21-11.
کامیابی سعید، 1387، ارزیابی نقش جاذبه های طبیعی و ژئوتوریسمی حوضه حلبه رود و پارک ملی کویر استان سمنان، چهارمین همایش زمین شناسی و زیست محیطی، 17 صفحه.
نکوئی صدر بهرام، 1384، ژئوتوریسم صنعت بدون دود(کش)، فصل نامه ژئوماین، سازمان نظام مهندسی معدن استان آذربایجان شرقی، سال اول، شماره دوم، ص 46-43.
نکوئی صدر بهرام، مقصودی مهران، 1387، ژئوتوریسم دریچه ای نو به سوی توسعه گردشگری ایران نشریه سپهر، سال شانزدهم، شماره 64، صفحه 61-64.
نوجوان محمدرضا، میرحسینی سیدابولقاسم، رامشت محمد حسین، 1388، ژئوتوپهای یزد و جاذبه‌های آن، مجله جغرافیا و توسعه، شماره 13، صفحه 60-.47
Amrikazemi, A. and Mehrpooya, A., 2006. Geotourism: Elsevier, Part one, p. 78-92.
Bogli, A., 1980- Karst Hydrology and Physical Speleology: Berlin, Spingervergal, 284p.
Butler, R.W. 1980- The concept of Tourism Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications Formanagement of Resources. Canadian Geographer. 24 (1), p. 5-12.
David, C.C., White, W. B., 2005- Encyclopedia of Caves, Book. Elsevier Academic press,654 p.
Dowling, K.R., and Newsome, D., 2006- Geotourism, Elsevier,289 p.
Frey, M.L., 1998- Geologie Geo-Tourismus– Umweltbildung: Themen and Atigkeitsbereiche im Spannungsfeld Okonomie and Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Programme and Summary of the Meeting Contributions, Technical University Berlin.
Gillieson, D., 1996- Caves: Processes, Development and Management, Blackwell Publishers, 338 P.
Gunn,C.A., 2002-.Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases, 4th edn (with T.Var.(
Kasig, W., 1993- Der eifel -Geo- Pfad Zwischen Aachen und Daun als Beispiel.
Coratza-.P, Chinoi.A, Piacentini. D and Valdati. J, 2008, Management of Geomorphosites in hight tourist vocation area: an example of geo- hiking maps in the Alpe di fanes (natural park of fanes-senes-braies, Italian dolomites), Geo Journal of tourism and Geosites, no 2, vol 2, 106- 117.
Palmer,A.N., 2007- Cave Geology, Published by Cave Books, Dauton, Ohio,454 p
Pralong, J, 2005, A method for assessing the tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites, Geomorphologie, Rrlief, processus, environment 3, p.189-196.
Reynard, E, 2007, A method for assessing the scientific and additional values of geomorphosie, Geographica Helventa, 3, p.1-13
Valentine, P., 1992- Nature - Based Tourism, Belhaven Press, London.