Volume 18, Issue 1 (1-2026)
jorar 2026, 18(1): 8-18 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Farjadinia S, Ghahroudi Tali M. Hazard Assessment and Zonation of Visitor Risk at Geosites: A Case Study of the Mayan Basin, Binalood Mountain Range, Iran. jorar 2026; 18 (1) :8-18
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-1062-en.html
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-1062-en.html
Professor of geomorphology, Department of Physical Geography, Earth Science Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (337 Views)
INTRODUCTION: The rapid growth of geotourism and the increasing number of visitors to geosites have made visitor safety a critical challenge in geotourism destination management. In many mountainous regions, insufficient spatial hazard assessment and the lack of strategically planned rescue infrastructure can lead to severe consequences for tourists. Accordingly, this study aims to assess and map visitor hazard at geosites and to identify optimal locations for rescue stations in the Mayan Basin of the Binalood Mountain Range.
METHODS: This study employed a descriptive–analytical approach by integrating fuzzy logic, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and GIS-based spatial analysis. Geomorphological, topographic, accessibility, land-use, and environmental parameters were collected and fuzzified within a GIS environment. The resulting fuzzy layers were subsequently input into a single-layer neural network model to determine the relative weights of the criteria. Based on the weighted integration of these factors, a continuous hazard index, a hazard zoning map, and an optimal spatial allocation of rescue stations were generated.
FINDINGS: The hazard zoning results indicated that the largest portion of the study area falls within the moderate hazard class, while all 12 selected geosites are located in moderate to very high hazard classes. This pattern reflects the simultaneous occurrence of high geotourism value and potentially hazardous geomorphological conditions. The hazard zoning results indicate that a large proportion of the study area falls within the moderate hazard class, while all twelve identified geosites are located within moderate to very high hazard zones. This distribution highlights the coexistence of high geotourism potential and hazardous geomorphological conditions. Furthermore, the spatial allocation analysis reveals that the proposed rescue stations are primarily situated in moderate hazard zones adjacent to high-risk areas, allowing effective coverage of vulnerable geosites.
CONCLUSION: According to the results, The results underscore the importance of integrating hazard assessment with spatial planning in geotourism management. The proposed framework offers an effective tool for enhancing visitor safety, mitigating natural hazard risks, and supporting the sustainable development of geotourism in mountainous regions.
METHODS: This study employed a descriptive–analytical approach by integrating fuzzy logic, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and GIS-based spatial analysis. Geomorphological, topographic, accessibility, land-use, and environmental parameters were collected and fuzzified within a GIS environment. The resulting fuzzy layers were subsequently input into a single-layer neural network model to determine the relative weights of the criteria. Based on the weighted integration of these factors, a continuous hazard index, a hazard zoning map, and an optimal spatial allocation of rescue stations were generated.
FINDINGS: The hazard zoning results indicated that the largest portion of the study area falls within the moderate hazard class, while all 12 selected geosites are located in moderate to very high hazard classes. This pattern reflects the simultaneous occurrence of high geotourism value and potentially hazardous geomorphological conditions. The hazard zoning results indicate that a large proportion of the study area falls within the moderate hazard class, while all twelve identified geosites are located within moderate to very high hazard zones. This distribution highlights the coexistence of high geotourism potential and hazardous geomorphological conditions. Furthermore, the spatial allocation analysis reveals that the proposed rescue stations are primarily situated in moderate hazard zones adjacent to high-risk areas, allowing effective coverage of vulnerable geosites.
CONCLUSION: According to the results, The results underscore the importance of integrating hazard assessment with spatial planning in geotourism management. The proposed framework offers an effective tool for enhancing visitor safety, mitigating natural hazard risks, and supporting the sustainable development of geotourism in mountainous regions.
Article Type: Research article |
Subject:
Environmental disasters
References
1. Newsome D, Dowling R. Geoheritage and geotourism. In: Geoheritage: assessment, protection, and management. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2025:479–502. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-443-28997-2.00029-7]
2. Štrba Ľ, Bodzáš Palgutová S, Derco J, Kršák B, Sidor C. The geotourism product—what it is and what it is not. Geosciences. 2025;15(7):270. [DOI:10.3390/ geosciences15070270]
3. Herlinawati, Setiawan IF, Rohaendi N, Wahyudi. Safety assessment for geotourism in Ciletuh-Palabuhanratu UNESCO Global Geopark, West Java. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2025;1451(1):012045. [DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/1451/1/012045]
4. Sunkar A, Lakspriyanti AP, Haryono E, Brahmi M, Setiawan P, Jaya AF. Geotourism hazards and carrying capacity in geosites of Sangkulirang-Mangkalihat Karst, Indonesia. Sustainability. 2022;14(3):1704. [DOI:10.3390/su14031704]
5. Muoneke N. Safety and security concerns in Nigeria's tourism sector: the issue of geotourism destinations. Int J Manag Bus Res. 2024;16(3):4014. [DOI:10.22610/imbr.v16i3(I).4014]
6. Badiora W, Adedotun SB, Oladimeji ST. Safety and security assessment of tourist destinations: a field study in a Nigerian geopark. J Event Tour Hosp Stud. 2022;2:106–149. [DOI:10.32890/jeth2022.2.5]
7. Rosselló J, Becken S, Santana-Gallego M. The effects of natural disasters on international tourism: a global analysis. Tour Manag. 2020;79:104080. [DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104080]
8. Cui A, Fountain J, Espiner S. Communicating natural hazard risks to Chinese visitors: a case study from New Zealand. Front Sustain Tour. 2023;2:1192124. [DOI:10.3389/frsut.2023.1192124]
9. Ilieş DC, Dehoorne O, Ilieş A. Some examples of natural hazards affecting geosites and tourist activities. GeoJournal Tour Geosites. 2011;7(1):33–38.
10. Salazar J, Hritz N. Measuring the impacts of a natural disaster on visitor confidence. Tour Plan Dev. 2021;21(3):354–362. [DOI:10.1080/21568316.2021.1953120]
11. Dowling R, Newsome D, editors. Geotourism: the tourism of geology and landscape. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers; 2010. [DOI:10.23912/978-1-906884-09-3-21]
12. Ruban DA. Geosite risk and geotourism safety: a conceptual approach. Tour Manag Perspect. 2015;15:97–104. [DOI:10.1016/j.tmp.2015.03. 005]
13. Shan Y, Zhang R. Study on the allocation of a rescue base in the Arctic. Symmetry. 2019;11(9):1073. [DOI:10.3390/sym11091073]
14. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H. The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, central Japan. Geomorphology. 2005;65(1–2):15–31. [DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.06.010]
15. Haykin S. Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1999.
16. Bishop CM. Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer; 2006.
17. Pradhan B, Lee S. Landslide susceptibility assessment and factor effect analysis: backpropagation artificial neural networks and their comparison with frequency ratio and bivariate logistic regression modelling. Environ Model Softw. 2010;25(6):747–759. [DOI:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.10.016]
18. Zanganehasadi MA, Saadatifar R, Golimokhtari L. Effects of geomorphosites in mountainous areas on tourism development (northwest of Neishabour-Firoozeh City). Geogr Stud Mt Areas. 2020;1(4):69–87.
19. Saadatyfar R, Zanganehasadi MA, Golimokhtari L. Evaluation of tourism land capabilities in the southwest of Binalood Mountain, Khorasan Razavi. Geogr Eng Territ. 2022;6(4):945–962.
20. Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C. Application of fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks for landslide susceptibility assessment. Catena. 2012;92:1–14. [DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2011.10.012]
21. Grekousis G. Artificial neural networks and deep learning in urban geography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2019;74:244–256. [DOI:10.1016/j.compenv urbsys.2018.10.008]
22. Pradhan B, Lee S. Landslide risk analysis using artificial neural network model focusing on different training sites. Environ Geol. 2009;57(2):337–349.
23. Alizadeh M, Ngah I, Hashim M, Pradhan B. A hybrid analytic network process and artificial neural network (ANP-ANN) model for urban earthquake vulnerability assessment. Remote Sens. 2018;10(6):975. [DOI:10.3390/rs10060975]
24. Sagintayev Z, Atanov S, Gafurov A. Overview of modelling techniques for geo hazard risk assessment. Cent Asian J Water Res. 2017;3(1):35–42.
25. Tien Bui D, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I. Landslide susceptibility mapping using support vector machines, decision trees, and neural networks. Geomorphology. 2016;253:55–67.
26. Gorsevski PV, Gessler PE, Boll J, Elliot WJ, Foltz RB. Spatially and temporally distributed modeling of landslide susceptibility. Geomorphology. 2006;80(3–4):178–198. [DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.02.011]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
