پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 418 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 10,002 |
| تعداد مقالات | 83,589 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 78,205,359 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 55,240,829 |
The Increasing Need for Geographical Information Technology (GIT) Tools in Geoconservation and Geotourism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Geoconservation Research | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| مقاله 2، دوره 3، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 3، شهریور 2020، صفحه 17-32 اصل مقاله (3.09 M) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30486/gcr.2020.1901102.1019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| نویسندگان | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mark Williams* ؛ Melinda McHenry | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The University of Tasmania, Australia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| چکیده | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The use of GIS, remote sensing, and other geographic tools in geoconservation and geotourism is increasing. These tools – hereafter referred to as ‘Geographic Information Technology’ (GIT) tools – have the potential to simplify workflow in geoconservation assessment and inventory, be employed as decision support and decision making tools for complex decisions, or be used to enhance communication and user experience in geotourism. In this paper, we review the progress on the use of GIT tools in geoheritage and geotourism to date, highlighting current gaps in practice. By way of an interview of prominent global geoconservation and geotourism professionals conducted in 2018, we show that approximately 25% of the surveyed workforce use some type of GIT tool to aid in decision support, decision making, or for communication(s) of inventory elements and features of interest. Upon review of the literature, it appears that the vast majority of tools are used for communications of inventory, features and site maps. Opportunities for further improvement in the field will most likely be realised when more sophisticated decision-making tools become available for geoconservationists and geotourism professionals, especially in the use of GIS Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (GIS-MCDA) to rank and curate inventory, geosites or geotouristic experiences. We conclude our discussion with a case study demonstrating the use of selected GIT tools in the process of decision support, decision-making, and communications. We show that at each step in the process of geoconservation, there is a GIT tool that can simplify workflow, and be used to cross-collaborate with other users or platforms. With further refinement, GIT tools should be able to support geoconservationists and geotouristic professionals in global decision making – for assessment, inventory, and standardisation of interpretations of landscape values and potential use. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Education؛ Degradation؛ Scientific value؛ Tourism؛ Drone؛ Web map؛ Mobile app | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| اصل مقاله | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction The numerous applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing used in geoheritage and geotourism can be summarily grouped under the nomenclature ‘Geographical Information Technologies (GIT)’, that being GIS, remote sensing techniques such as image processing and Global Positioning Systems (Napieralski et al. 2013). The ways in which these GIT tools are currently (and could potentially) be applied within the geoheritage field are many and varied. Some of these technologies will be of great support to the field, and others are simply digital means of performing existing tasks, sometimes with a time or financial saving.
Presently, use of GIT tools in the fields of geoconservation and geotourism ranges from non-existent to extremely sophisticated techniques and approaches. These approaches, which could potentially (and increasingly, already) assist practitioners and researchers to collect, interpret, visualise and communicate inventory and ideas, have not to date been described and contextualised specifically for a geoconservation audience. In this paper, we:
It is our aim, therefore, to document the ways that GIT tools are being used in geoconservation and geotourism, and to inform readers of the ways that these tools could be used to address common issues in the geoconservation process regarding repeatability of methods, accurate boundary delineation, quality image capture for ex situ analyses, communication of inventory, and geotouristic experience planning. We have written the paper in a format designed for readers who may be familiar with the geoconservation process, but may not have used GIT tools before, or in particular geoconservation applications and approaches.
How are practitioners and researchers already using GIS and remote sensing in geoconservation? In late 2018, we conducted interviews with 39 of the worlds’ most prominent geoheritage and geoparks academics and practitioners (Williams et al. 2020). Almost 30% of participants (6/8 academics and 5/8 practitioners from Asia, the Americas and Oceania) indicated that they were using drones in geoheritage management and research, with a further 14.3% (3/4 academics) having the intention of using drones and other GIT in future work (Fig. 1a). One practitioner stated:
“Drones, 3D models are useful to impress people for communication and interpretation.”
Despite participants actively describing how they have observed an increase in usage of ‘common’ GIT tools like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), over 50% of participants (10/16 academics) were not using drones and did not have any intention of using them. Instead, GIS was much more widely used with over 78.6% (13/22 academics) of participants employing GIS in their work (Fig. 1b), as illustrated by one practitioner:
“(GIS) is used for mapping and providing information to tourists through the website and app.”
Another practitioner stated that GIS is useful in:
“making an inventory - to protect geosites you need very accurate spatial boundaries of geosites.”
Figure 1. Usage of drones (a) and GIS (b), by 39 prominent geoheritage and geoparks researchers and practitioners after Williams et al. (2020).
The most prominent uses of GIT tools described by participants were in the storage of geoinformation, monitoring degradation, and communicating geoheritage values through maps, web-GIS and mobile applications. UAVs, commonly known as drones, are being increasingly used for geomorphological studies, accessing geosites in difficult terrain as decision-support tools and 3D models for communications. Participants reported that the most common roles were in education products (19.8%), setting the extent of geosites, geodiversity sites, or protected areas boundaries (12.6%) and inventorying (13.5%). One academic stated:
"GIS allows you to put geoheritage in its geographical context, an inventory on its own is not enough."
The practitioners cited delineating boundaries, education and planning equally as their most common roles while the top three most common roles for academics were education, inventorying and monitoring. One practitioner stated:
“(GIS has a role) in boundaries, planning, inventory, community engagement. Even fostering sense of place!”
Other roles given for GIS/remote sensing in decreasing commonality were monitoring, planning, mapping, tourism, access in difficult and/or remote terrain, tourism, geomorphology, field assessment and geodiversity assessment. UAVs are finding increasingly more usage with two practitioners with expertise in the management and interpretation of geoparks, commenting that:
"Drones are revolutionary in understanding geomorphology" and "are cheap and data rich, great for limited resources too."
How have GIT tools been used in published research (on geoconservation and geotourism)? Published applications of GIT tools in geoconservation and geotourism fall into three categories. First are those that provide decision-support in producing inventories, evaluating geosites and planning geotourism initiatives. Less commonly, GIT tool are used for decision-making – such as identifying prospective geodiversity sites for geotourism areas and in the evaluation of the most appropriate geosites assessment criteria for inventory, some of which can be achieved through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis GIS-MCDA. Overwhelmingly GIT tools are used in geotourism and education communications.
Figure 2. Mind map showing the wide range of uses for GIT in the field of geoheritage, with examples of each application provided in references.
The use of GIT tools are not yet very common as decision-making tools in geoheritage and geotourism research and practice. This is because the data (e.g. population density data, mineral occurrences, cultural heritage information) related to assessment criterion is often not available and basic geoconservation decisions (inventory purpose, criteria, geological frameworks) have not been made for many parts of the world. In geoconservation and geotourism, these attributes for conservation are expressed as values. The Brilha (2016) method comprehensively and quantitatively allows the practitioner to rank qualitative values in a number of domains – scientific, potential educational use, potential touristic use and degradation risk. Though originally intended to be a geosite assessment method it also provides a useful framework through which to interpret landscape level values and opportunities for decision-making at provincial and national levels.
When applying the Brilha (2016) method to landscape scale activities, it has become apparent that there are a number of examples of the application of GIT tools to the assessment or detection of values in geoheritage and geotourism. With respect to scientific value (Table 1), research has been most popular in using GIT tools for geoheritage detection, lithological classification, geosite monitoring and terrain analysis, enabling decision-support and decision-making for the evaluation of representativeness, integrity and rarity. Communication-based GIT tools, including UAV outputs, geoinformation databases; cartographic and digital mapping products are useful for understanding integrity, key localities and scientific knowledge. No research has been conducted in producing a universal geological framework or in forming guidelines around measuring geodiversity elements at an appropriate scale. Opportunities exist to address these issues and develop a universal classification system using an XML schema or web ontology language, removing some of the ambiguity when evaluating scientific value.
In the domain of potential educational use and potential touristic use (Table 2), research has been focused on proximity and buffer analyses, UAV and satellite surveying and monitoring, which assists in the decision-support and decision-making of many educational and touristic criteria including safety, logistics, uniqueness, geological diversity and observation conditions.
Table 1: GIT tools applied to the scientific evaluation of geosites using the Brilha (2016) assessment method. Y = yes, N = no.
Table 2: GIT tools applied to the assessment of PTU and PEU evaluation of geosites using the using the Brilha (2016) assessment method. Y = yes, N = no.
The assessment of degradation risk (Table 3) has been focused on proximity and buffer analyses and using UAV and satellite surveying techniques for monitoring. These applications have enabled decision-making in the detection of deteriorating geological elements and have supported the determination and measurement of accessibility criteria. Outputs from UAVs (e.g. 3D models) were also used as communications for management to understand geosite deterioration. No research has been undertaken yet to spatially represent legal protection, density of population and proximity to areas to cause degradation, presenting opportunities to use similar GIT tools as mentioned above to improve the robustness of degradation risk evaluation.
Table 3: GIT tools applied to the degradation risk evaluation of geosites using the using the Brilha (2016) assessment method. Y= yes, N = no.
It can reasonably be stated that the application of GIT to geoheritage and geotourism is increasing, both in rigour, and in global reach. However, this is being achieved against a backdrop of subjectivity in assessment criteria, lack of agreement over the implementation of various technologies, and a limited global understanding or acceptance of geoheritage conservation. There is hence a lot of potential for the increased use of GIT tools, but it must be demonstrably useful, either in reducing time, finance and efforts of researchers and practitioners to understand and implement it, or to make available datasets or information that could not reasonably have been collected, analysed or presented by small groups of researchers and practitioners before.
What needs to be done? There are a myriad of opportunities to use or configure new GIT tools for the purposes of geoconservation and geotourism decision-support, decision-making and communication. The GIT tools can additionally be employed in all parts of the geoheritage and geotourism planning and data acquisition life cycle. Examples include accessing difficult terrain, boundary delineation, data collection, geoheritage detection, geoheritage classification, geomorphic mapping, storage of geoinformation, monitoring, terrain analysis, GIS modelling, lithology and surface composition classification, communication and promotion. The most significant of these would be the configuration of a global classification system for prospective geosites and geodiversity sites, via the use of open-access schemas and collaborative platforms. Inventory could then be communicated via online platforms, and decision-making (site alternatives, criteria alternatives and substitutions, etc.) tools could be pre-set with site evaluation criteria, enabling new assessors to more easily communicate with the existing frameworks and expectations.
It is the greatest remaining challenge for practitioners and researchers in using GIT tools - accessing modestly-priced, easy-to-use technologies that allow efficient data collection, inventory assessment and communication of values for conservation and tourism purposes. Enhanced GIT tools could allow geoheritage academics and practitioners to communicate geoconservation, geotouristic and geoeducational ideas and outputs easily and globally, helping to solve methodological arguments and values criteria associated with geoheritage and geotourism. At present, this knowledge is constrained at a local or provincial/state scale – but GIT tools and techniques can have global applicability. Therefore, investigating and reflecting on how these tools could be used to solve problems at a range of spatial scales is paramount to assisting in the resolution, scale and inventory in geoheritage and geotourism.
Members of international geoscientific and geoheritage associations could work with geoscientific apps developers to create cross-platform articulation and data translation - giving the practitioner the ability to quickly record large amounts of data with the one device that can assist in qualitative field assessments. Qualitative field assessments, such as those assessing representativeness, integrity, rarity and scientific knowledge appear also to have potential to be improved by a GIT approach using, for instance, a modified mobile collector app to assess prospective geosites and geodiversity sites in Tasmania (hereafter referred to as ‘the case study’ – (Williams & McHenry 2020, unpublished). By providing easy access to the current inventory list and other available data layers such as geology, comparisons and decisions are more easily made within the field, rather than in sometimes an ad-hoc fashion later on. Figure 3 demonstrates the easy link between the use decision-support tools used in the field (using ESRI ‘Collector for ArcGIS’ mobile app) and other GIT tools used to capture aerial footage and communicate inventory. The collector mobile app was setup using a customised geosite feature class with a number of attributes and attribute domains, representing geosite parameters to be collected, which was then uploaded as a web map to ArcGIS Online, to be used in the field.
Figure 3. Workflow demonstrating the creation of a web-based inventory using a UAV, ‘Collector for ArcGIS’ and ArcGIS Online Web Maps, Apps and a Story Map.
Collector-style apps may greatly assist in overcoming known challenges in the existing approaches to the collection of field data. The traditional approach generally involves transcribing the notes into electronic form where data can be later entered into an inventory, which may typically be presented as a key or booklet. This process creates redundancy and introduces further human data entry error and is additionally time consuming. One of the major advantages of the GIT approach during data collection is that it requires minimal desktop work and data is only recorded once, increasing the accuracy and reducing the time and workforce required to conduct fieldwork. In the case study example depicted in Figure 4 below, we used the collector mobile app to accurately determine geosite boundaries, and to input field-observed data and photography. UAVs were useful in the field data collection stage, for the purposes of remotely-assessing degradation of geosites and monuments. Additionally, the accurate determination of site and other feature boundaries has implications for protected areas monitoring and planning. In the future, UAVs could be used extensively in geoconservation research to help to determine the integrity of a geosite by allowing large-scale degradation to be assessed, improving the accuracy of geosite assessment and of monitoring of geosite health in general.
Data captured from field surveys along with remotely sensed data from satellites and UAVs can be linked to a GIS to produce geoheritage inventories and maps (decision-support), which can additionally be used to enhance the geotouristic educational experience. Core functions of GIS include the ability to produce geodiversity maps using spatial operations, such as map algebra (Zwolinski et al. 2018) and kernel density (Forte et al. 2018), on multiple data layers. These maps can be used by land managers to be target areas for tourism or conservation (decision-support and decision making).
Figure 4. Mobile data collection using ‘Collector for ArcGIS’. Boundaries are accurately delineated (a), geosites are characterised (b) and photographs are directly attached in the field (c).
State-of-the-art visualisation tools linked to a GIS can enhance the communication (via communication technologies) of geoheritage value to stakeholders including government bodies, the scientific community and the public. These technologies, including Virtual Globes, 3-Dimensional (3D) models and web-GIS platforms, can further enhance tourism experiences through the promotion of geoconservation. Figure 4 demonstrates an example of these technologies from the case study example. The 3D model displayed forms part of an online geoconservation inventory, and was created using Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry techniques.
Using the range of GIT tools described in this article and in the case study, educational experiences embedded in geotourism could be transformed from in-person knowledge transfer to the use of digital technologies including virtual globes such as Google Earth, augmented and virtual reality experiences using a GIS. There is even the possibility in the near future for ‘virtual tourism’ – virtual reality experiences allowing virtual tourists to remotely fly UAVs over touristic regions as a low-cost, minimally-invasive touristic experience, without needing to visit the location.
Figure 5. Annotated 3D Model of the Organ Pipes hosted on Sketchfab (link to 3D model https://skfb.ly/6TvWX)
How could the use of GIT tools be possible in routine geoconservation and geotouristic research and practice?
GIT tools can be used across various geographic scales, from local to global, providing communications, decision-support and decision-making tools for geoconservation and geotourism initiatives. Throughout the rest of this section, we will illustrate our discussion of potential GIT tools with actual examples of their first-time use, in the collection, assessment and communication of a regional-scale inventory, in Tasmania, Australia.
A mobile collector app is a useful decision-support tool to undertake field surveys, and a web-based inventory, applicable to specific legislative contexts and evaluation styles, provides an effective decision-support and communications tool (Williams & McHenry 2020, unpublished). Additionally, a GIS multi-criteria decision analysis (GIS-MCDA) designed for a potential global geotourism initiative (crossing multiple tenure boundaries and legislative contexts) can provide a useful decision-making tool. To demonstrate these examples, a quasi-cost-benefit analysis using estimates of costs associated with workforce, time, equipment, training, and finance for ‘traditional’ versus GIT approaches will be presented (Table 4).
Table 4: Example GIT tools presented in a quasi-cost-benefit analysis using estimates of costs associated with workforce, time, equipment, training, and finance for ‘traditional’ versus GIT approaches
The mobile collector app demonstrates efficiency gains in time, equipment and training across most of the key workflow steps, including field data attributes, field measurements, qualitative assessment and desktop work. Traditional methods tend to use paper-based data collection where the transcription process is prone to errors, and information can be lost completely because of misplaced or soiled data sheets. The GIT approach uses a readily accessible mobile collector app where geosite attributes are recorded quickly by choosing from a list of drop-down menus, increasing the speed of data collection and reducing the number of possible data entry errors. Although this is basic decision-support application, access to the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD) in Australia, directly on the mobile collector app, has enabled efficient comparison to a list of existing geosites. The use of mobile technology, using iOS or Android operating systems is familiar to most practitioners, providing a data collection workflow that is very simple and intuitive. For example, a group of 30 students were able to be effectively taught to use this technology with only 30 mins of training. The cost of required equipment has also reduced, not requiring specialist cameras, Pocket PCs etc., as standard smartphones capable of running mobile apps that harness a built-in GPS are now sufficient. The GIT approach appears to have improved the geosite boundary delineation workflow step, allowing the practitioner to walk around a geosite using the streaming GPS function, where possible, to more accurately capture the extent of a geosite in less time and with less equipment. Traditional methods require recording lots of GPS waypoints where these can be used to create manual polygons during subsequent desktop work. The more common approach, chosen because it is often difficult to traverse the boundary, is to roughly draw a polygon around the geosite using satellite photographs available within a mobile collector app. This cannot be completed using the traditional approach in the field. The use of UAVs further increase the accuracy of boundary delineation and provide large time efficiencies, particularly when geosites are very large. Conversely, surveying with a UAV is associated with larger up-front equipment cost, permits, training and desktop processing, making it prohibitive to some practitioners. Even with the absence of UAV technology, however, there were still advantages in using some simple mobile technologies in boundary delineation – even at the landform scale. Many field measurements such as strike and dip, for example, were taken in the field using a host of free and low-cost mobile apps e.g. ‘Fieldmove Clino’. These apps recorded location and azimuth in addition to recording measurements and landform boundary parameters, each of which could be immediately exported as XML or CSV files.
The Web-based Inventory is a decision-support and communication tool that demonstrates efficiency gains in the key workflow steps of, inventory compilation and geosite assessments. The traditional method for inventory compilation requires manual data entry into a database or spreadsheet whereas the mobile collector app interfaces directly with the inventory, requiring no further data entry. The GIT tool has a higher cost of software but is exceeded by the efficiency gains in workforce and time required to compile and maintain the inventory. Accuracy is also higher, simply since data is not duplicated, reducing the human error aspect of data entry. Geosite assessments are also improved because many criteria can be assessed quantitatively and efficiently using spatial layers, although only a select number of these were implemented in this study. For example, a proximity analysis can easily be used to determine the distance from a geosite to the nearest road. This allows assessments to be completed by less workforce and in less time but may require more training to conduct these analyses.
The communication tools of a web-based inventory are maps and web apps that can be configured for both management and public use (for example, Figure 6). Once in-field data has been collected there is very little time input and no further cost to setup. For example, a web app such as the one used for mobile collector app, can be simply configured to display publicly or to a limited audience such as management. Communications used for a traditional approach may involve producing maps and promotion materials for the public that need to be created from scratch, based on database or spreadsheet information, requiring significant amounts of workforce, time and training to produce these materials resulting in larger financial costs.
Figure 6. Inventory web app that is used to search and visualise geosite data through a web browser (link to online inventory https://arcg.is/WLuan)
GIS-MCDA can be used as a decision-support and decision-making tool to create a new geotourism experience such as a geotrail. GIS-MCDA involves the following workflow steps; the nomination of the best touristic geosites, determining the route of the trail and then promoting and visualising the geotrail. The nomination of best touristic geosites is a process that takes similar time and human effort in both approaches. Therefore, the main benefit of the GIT approach is to assist in determining the route and enhancing the tourism appeal through the use of spatial technologies such as 3D models. Hence, decisions still need to be made by humans in the conceptualisation of a geotrail, but the ultimate route of the geotrail can be aided by the GIT tool. It is in this sense that the design and planning of the geotourism trail route using GIT workflow steps is significantly different from traditional methods. The GIT approach relies on a quantitative method that allows a path to be determined according to strict trail criteria. The modelling of a trail using GIS-MCDA allows the path to be modelled accurately before fieldwork commences, reducing the workforce, time and equipment required to produce a trail route during initial stages of the planning. The traditional approach relies on substantial fieldwork and expert knowledge making it difficult to adhere to strict trail design guidelines across a large area. The efficiency gains are in all areas except training where substantial GIS knowledge and data is needed for the area being considered.
Together with the communications from the web-based inventory, a web app for a geotrail could easily be created to visualise the geotrail (for example, Figure 7). Walking times for the main trail and side trails along with a subset of the inventory could allow for an engaging virtual geotrail tool that can be used by the public, providing a planning tool for recreation purposes. Some knowledge of web apps is required, although efficiency gains are encountered in workforce and time required to plan a geotrail.
Figure 7. Wellington Park geotrail web app showing the main geotrail, elevation profile and estimated walking time. Side trails are represented by dashed lines (link to geotrail web app https://arcg.is/1DqeSn).
Conclusion The GIT approach can transform workflows, increase transparency and robustness of methods, and provide effective communications tools for management and the public. There are many other challenges which may be tackled with assistance of GIT tools including comparative geodiversity assessments, classification systems for landforms and representative types, and monitoring degradation of geosites. The future of geoheritage and GIT requires practitioners and academics to progress from point observations, surveys and qualitative assessments, to airborne and space borne remote sensing, geostatistical analysis, object-based image classification and spatial modelling. These tools will not entirely replace field-based mapping and traditional approaches but will provide a suite of tools that may improve the accuracy and efficiently of many steps in the geoconservation strategy. Additionally, GIT might just be the way to facilitate international communication and comparison of inventories, value sets, measurement approaches and degradation assessments that still suffer from a lack of translation between workgroups, organisations and regions.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the interview participants for their enthusiastic and insightful commentary and greatly appreciate their support of this research. This research was supported by a travel grant to the authors from the School of Technology, Environments and Design, University of Tasmania. Mark Williams received a 2018 Tasmanian Governors Environmental Scholarship, which in part, supported this work. This research was conducted with the permission of the University of Tasmania Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) - No H0017623.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| مراجع | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aldighieri B, Testa B, Bertini A (2016). 3D exploration of the San Lucano Valley: virtual geo-routes for everyone who would like to understand the landscape of the Dolomites. Geoheritage. 8(1):77-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0164-x
Araujo AM, Pereira DI (2018). A New Methodological Contribution for the Geodiversity Assessment: Applicability to Ceará State (Brazil). Geoheritage. 10(4):591–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0250-3
Bailey JJ, Boyd DS, Hjort J, Lavers, CP, Field, R (2017). Modelling native and alien vascular plant species richness: At which scales is geodiversity most relevant? Global Ecology and Biogeography. 26(7):763–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12574
Banjac N, Savić L, Maran A, Cukavac, M, Ganic, M, Nikic, Z (2011). The Geology in Digital Age. In Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of the Association of European Geological Societies. Serbia: Serbian Geological Society.
Benito-Calvo A, Pérez-González A, Magri O, Meza P (2009). Assessing regional geodiversity: the Iberian Peninsula. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 34(10):1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1840
Bishop M (2013). Remote Sensing and GIScience in Geomorphology: Introduction and Overview. Treatise on Geomorphology. 3:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374739-6.00040-3
Brandolini P, Pelfini M (2010). Mapping geomorphological hazards in relation to geotourism and hiking trails. In Mapping Geoheritage, pp. 31-45, Lausanne, Institut de géographie, Géovisions n°35.
Bratton A, Smith B, McKinley J, Lilley K (2013). Expanding the Geoconservation Toolbox: Integrated Hazard Management at Dynamic Geoheritage Sites. Geoheritage 5(3):173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-013-0082-8
Brilha J (2016). Inventory and Quantitative Assessment of Geosites and Geodiversity Sites: a Review. Geoheritage. 8(2):119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3
Carn SA (1999). Application of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery to volcano mapping in the humid tropics: a case study in East Java, Indonesia. Bulletin of Volcanology. 61(1-2):92–105
Carrión MP, Herrera FG, Briones J, Domínguez-Cuesta M, Berrezueta, E (2018). Geotourism and Local Development Based on Geological and Mining Sites Utilization, Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador. Geosciences. 8(6):205. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060205
Cartoscope (n.d.) Geological sites of NSW. http://www.geomaps.com.au/scripts/centralwest.php. Retrieved 18 Jun, 2018
Casals-Carrasco P, Kubo S, Madhavan BB (2000). Application of spectral mixture analysis for terrain evaluation studies. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 21(16):3039–3055. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160050144947
Cayla N (2014). An Overview of New Technologies Applied to the Management of Geoheritage. Geoheritage. 6(2):91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0113-0
Chen RF, Chang KJ, Angelier J, Chan Y, Deffontaines B, Lee C, Lin , M (2006) Topographical changes revealed by high-resolution airborne LiDAR data: The 1999 Tsaoling landslide induced by the Chi–Chi earthquake. Engineering geology. 88(3-4):160–172
Corsini A, Borgatti L, Cervi F, Dahne A, Ronchetti F, Sterzai P (2009). Estimating mass-wasting processes in active earth slides–earth flows with time-series of High-Resolution DEMs from photogrammetry and airborne LiDAR. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 9(2):433–439
Cracknell MJ, Reading AM (2014). Geological mapping using remote sensing data: A comparison of five machine learning algorithms, their response to variations in the spatial distribution of training data and the use of explicit spatial information. Computers & Geosciences. 63:22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2013.10.008
de Carvalho O, Guimarães R, Montgomery D, Gillespie A, Trancoso Gomes R, de Souza Martins E, Silva N (2013). Karst Depression Detection Using ASTER, ALOS/PRISM and SRTM-Derived Digital Elevation Models in the Bambuí Group, Brazil. Remote Sensing. 6(1):330–351. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6010330
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) (n.d.). Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD). https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/geoconservation/tasmanian-geoconservation-database. Retrieved 27 May, 2020
Dewitte O, Jasselette J-C, Cornet Y, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Collignon A, Poesen J, Demoulin A (2008). Tracking landslide displacements by multi-temporal DTMs: A combined aerial stereophotogrammetric and LIDAR approach in western Belgium. Engineering Geology. 99(1-2):11–22
dos Santos DS, Mansur KL, de Arruda Jr ER, Dantas M, Shinzato E (2018). Geodiversity Mapping and Relationship with Vegetation: A Regional-Scale Application in SE Brazil. Geoheritage. 11(2):399-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0295-y
Eeckhaut MVD, Poesen J, Verstraeten G, Vanacker V, Nyssen J, Moeyersons J, Beek LPH, Vandekerckhove L (2007). Use of LIDAR‐derived images for mapping old landslides under forest. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 32(5):754–769
Fernández-Lozano J, Gutiérrez-Alonso G (2017). The Alejico Carboniferous Forest: a 3D-Terrestrial and UAV-Assisted Photogrammetric Model for Geologic Heritage Preservation. Geoheritage. 9(2):163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0193-0
Fiore GM (2013). Monitoring and valuing the European geological heritage: operational uses of satellite applications. https://www.eurisy.org/data_files/publications-documents/18/publications_document-18.pdf?t=1392914887. Retrieved 29 Jun, 2020
Forte JP, Brilha J, Pereira DI, Nolasco M (2018). Kernel Density Applied to the Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity. Geoheritage. 10(2):205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0282-3
Fuertes-Gutiérrez I, Fernández-Martínez E (2012). Mapping Geosites for Geoheritage Management: A Methodological Proposal for the Regional Park of Picos de Europa (León, Spain). Environmental Management. 50(5):789–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9915-5
Gallerini G, Susini S, Bruciatelli L, Donatis M de (2011). Geomatics and geo-tourism: San Bartolo Natural Park case study (Pesaro, Italy). GeoActa. Special Publication 3:167–178
Geological Survey of Brazil (2006). Geodiversity Map of Brazil. http://rigeo.cprm.gov.br/jspui/handle/doc/16854. Retrieved 27 May, 2020, from
Ghiraldi L, Giordano E, Perotti L, Giardino M (2014). Digital Tools for Collection, Promotion and Visualisation of Geoscientific Data: Case Study of Seguret Valley (Piemonte, NW Italy). Geoheritage. 6(2):103–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0115-y
Gomez C, Hayakawa Y, Obanawa H (2015). A study of Japanese landscapes using structure from motion derived DSMs and DEMs based on historical aerial photographs: New opportunities for vegetation monitoring and diachronic geomorphology. Geomorphology. 242:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.02.021
González-Delgado JA, Martínez-Graña AM, Civis J, Sierro FJ, Goy JL, Dabrio CJ, Ruiz F, González-Regalado ML, Abad M (2015). Virtual 3D tour of the Neogene palaeontological heritage of Huelva (Guadalquivir Basin, Spain). Environmental Earth Sciences. 73(8):4609–4618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3747-y
Gupta R (2018). Remote Sensing Geology (3rd Ed). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Hackney C, Clayton AI (2015). Section 1.7 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and their application in geomorphic mapping. In Geomorphological Techniques. London: British Society of Geomorphology
Harmon B, Viles H (2013). Beyond geomorphosites: trade-offs, optimization, and networking in heritage landscapes. Environment Systems and Decisions. 33(2):272–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-9448-3
Hjort J, Luoto M (2012). Can geodiversity be predicted from space? Geomorphology. 153–154:74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.02.010
Hoblea F, Delannoy J, Jaillet S, Ployon E, Sadier B (2014). Digital Tools for Managing and Promoting Karst Geosites in Southeast France. Geoheritage. 6(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0112-1
Ilić M, Stojković S, Rundić L, Ćalić J, Sandić D (2016). Application of the geodiversity index for the assessment of geodiversity in urban areas: an example of the Belgrade city area, Serbia. Geologia Croatica. 69(3):325–336. https://doi.org/10.4154/gc.2016.27
Kaskela AM, Kotilainen AT (2017). Seabed geodiversity in a glaciated shelf area, the Baltic Sea. Geomorphology 295:419–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.07.014
Kasprzak M, Jancewicz K, Michniewicz A (2018). UAV and SfM in detailed geomorphological mapping of granite tors: an example of Starościńskie Skały (Sudetes, SW Poland). Pure and Applied Geophysics. 175(9):3193-3207
Kiernan K (1995). An atlas of Tasmanian karst: Volumes 1-2. Hobart, Australia: Tasmanian Forest Research Council.
Kozlowski S (2004). Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity. Przeglad Geologiczny. (8)52:5
Kruse S (2013). 3.5 Near-Surface Geophysics in Geomorphology. In Treatise on Geomorphology, pp 103–129. San Diego: Elsevier
Litwin L (2008). Atlas of karst area based on Web GIS technology. Environmental Geology. 54(5):1029–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0892-6
Lombardo V, Piana F, Fioraso G, Irace A, Mimmo D, Mosca P, Tallone S, Barale L, Morelli M, Giardino M (2016). The classification scheme of the piemonte geological map and the ontogeonous initiative. Rend. Online Soc. Geol. It. 39:117-120 https://doi.org/10.3301/ROL.2016.61
Lombardo V, Piana F, Mimmo D (2018). Semantics–informed geological maps: Conceptual modeling and knowledge encoding. Computers & Geosciences. 116:12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2018.04.001
Lugeri FR, Farabollini P, Lugeri N, Amadio V, Baiocco F (2017). “LANDSCApp”: a friendly way to share the Italian geo-heritage. Acta Geoturistica. 8(2):79-86 https://doi.org/10.1515/agta-2017-0008
Luo X (2015). An Integrated WebGIS-Based Management Platform of Geopark. The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal. 9(1):287–291. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801509010287
Martin S (2014). Interactive Visual Media for Geomorphological Heritage Interpretation. Theoretical Approach and Examples. Geoheritage. 6(2):149–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0107-y
Martin S, Reynard E, Pellitero Ondicol R, Ghiraldi L (2014). Multi-scale Web Mapping for Geoheritage Visualisation and Promotion. Geoheritage. 6(2):141–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0102-3
Martinez-Graña AM, Goy JL, Cimarra C (2015). 2D to 3D geologic mapping transformation using virtual globes and flight simulators and their applications in the analysis of geodiversity in natural areas. Environmental Earth Sciences. 73(12):8023–8034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3959-1
Martínez-Graña AM, Legoinha P, González-Delgado JA, Dabrio CJ, Pais J, Goy JL, Zazo C, Civis J, Armenteros I, Alonso-Gavilan G, Dias R, Cunha T (2017). Augmented Reality in a Hiking Tour of the Miocene Geoheritage of the Central Algarve Cliffs (Portugal). Geoheritage. 9(1):121–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0182-3
Masron T, Mohamed B, Marzuki A (2015). GIS base tourism decision-support system for Langkawi Island, Kedah, Malaysia. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management. 10(2):21–35
Melelli L, Vergari F, Liucci L, Del Monte M (2017). Geomorphodiversity index: Quantifying the diversity of landforms and physical landscape. Science of The Total Environment. 584–585:701–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.101
Mwaniki M (2016). Geology mapping and lineament visualization using image enhancement techniques: comparison of Landsat 8 (OLI) and Landsat 7 (ETM+). Dissertation. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
Najwer A, Borysiak J, Gudowicz J, Mazurek M, Zwoliński Z (2016). Geodiversity and Biodiversity of the Postglacial Landscape (Dębnica River Catchment, Poland). Quaestiones Geographicae. 35(1):5–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2016-0001
Najwer A, Reynard E, Zwolinski Z (2014). GIS and Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) for landform geodiversity assessment. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2014 (Volume 16). Austria: Copernicus.
Năpăruş-Aljančič M, Pătru-Stupariu I, Stupariu MS (2017). Multiscale wavelet-based analysis to detect hidden geodiversity. Progress in Physical Geography. 41(5):601–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133317720835
Napieralski J, Barr I, Kamp U, Kervyn M (2013). 3.8 Remote Sensing and GIScience in Geomorphological Mapping. In Treatise on Geomorphology. pp 187–227. San Diego: Elsevier
Nex F, Remondino F (2014). UAV for 3D mapping applications: a review. Applied Geomatics. 6(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12518-013-0120-x
Ng Y (2016). Drones: Their applications in geopark and geoheritage management. http://www.leisuresolutions.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/dronesapplication_ggn2016.pdf. Retrieved 27 May, 2020
Nichols W, Killingbeck K, August P (1998). The Influence of Geomorphological Heterogeneity on Biodiversity: II. A Landscape Perspective. Conservation Biology. 12(2):371–379
Otto J-C, Prasicek G, Blöthe J, Schrott L (2018). 2.05 - GIS Applications in Geomorphology. In Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems. pp 81–111. Elsevier: Oxford https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10029-6
Pál M, Albert G (2019). Digital cartography for geoheritage: turning an analogue geotourist map into digital. In Proceedings of the ICA (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-proc-2-96-2019
Piras M, Taddia G, Forno MG, Gattiglio M, Aicardi I, Dabove P, Russo SL, Lingua A (2017). Detailed geological mapping in mountain areas using an unmanned aerial vehicle: application to the Rodoretto Valley, NW Italian Alps. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk. 8(1):137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1225228
Poiraud A, Chevalier M, Claeyssen B, Biron P-E, Joly B (2016). From geoheritage inventory to territorial planning tool in the Vercors massif (French Alps): Contribution of statistical and expert cross approaches. Applied Geography. 71:69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.04.012
Qiu J-T, Li P-J, Yu Z-F, Li P (2015). Petrology and Spectroscopy Studies on Danxia Geoheritage in Southeast Sichuan Area, China: Implications for Danxia Surveying and Monitoring. Geoheritage. 7(4):307–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0160-1
Regolini-Bissig G, Reynard E (Eds) (2010). Mapping geoheritage. Lausanne: Institut de Géographie, Géovisions.
Rutherford J, Kobryn H, Newsome D (2015). A Case Study in the Evaluation of Geotourism Potential Through Geographic Information Systems: Application in a Geology-Rich Island Tourism Hotspot. Current Issues in Tourism. 18(3):267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.873395
Saadi NM, Aboud E, Saibi H, Watanabe K (2008). Integrating data from remote sensing, geology and gravity for geological investigation in the Tarhunah area, Northwest Libya. International Journal of Digital Earth. 1(4):347–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538940802435844
Santos I, Henriques R, Mariano G, Pereira DI (2018). Methodologies to Represent and Promote the Geoheritage Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Multimedia Technologies, and Augmented Reality. Geoheritage. 10(2):143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0305-0
Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño P, Arroyo P (2009). Geodiversity assessment in a rural landscape: Tiermes-Caracena area (Soria, Spain). Memorie Descrittive Della Carta Geoligica d’Italia. 87:173–180
Simon N, Ali CA, Mohamed KR, Sharir K (2016). Best band ratio combinations for the lithological discrimination of the Dayang Bunting and Tuba Islands, Langkawi, Malaysia. Sains Malaysiana. 45(5):659–667
Slama T, Turki MM (2015). 3D Cartography and Geovisualization based on GIS and Geovrml for an open access landform investigation and analysis within an Open web platform (Owp). In Proceedings of 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference (pp. 619–626). Bulgaria: SGEM
Stepišnik U, Trenchovska A (2018). A New Quantitative Model for Comprehensive Geodiversity Evaluation: the Škocjan Caves Regional Park, Slovenia. Geoheritage. 10(1):39–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0216-5
Suma A, Cosmo PD (2011). Geodiv Interface: An Open Source Tool for Management and Promotion of the Geodiversity of Sierra De Grazalema Natural Park (andalusia, Spain). GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites. 8(2):309-318
Suma A, Gracia F, Cosmo PD (2010). Detection and mapping of karst depressions through remote sensing approach: an example from Sierra de Líbar (Málaga, SW Spain). In A. Mihevc, M. Prelovšek, N-Z. Hajna (Eds.). In Proceedings of the 18th International Karstological School" Classical Karst"- Dinaric Karst (pp. 63-63). Slovenia: Speleological Association of Slovenia.
van der Meer FD, van der Werff HMA, van Ruitenbeek FJA, et al (2012). Multi- and hyperspectral geologic remote sensing: A review. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 14(1):112–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2011.08.002
Waldhoff G, Bubenzer O, Bolten A, Koppe W, Bareth G (2008). Spectral analysis of ASTER, Hyperion, and Quickbird data for geomorphological and geological research in Egypt (Dakhla Oasis, Western Desert). Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci. 37:1201–1206
Westoby MJ, Brasington J, Glasser NF, Hambrey MJ, Reynolds JM (2012). ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179:300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021
Williams MA, McHenry MT (2020). Application of Geographic Information Technologies (GIT) to geosite and geodiversity site assessment in Tasmania, Australia. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Williams, MA, McHenry MT. Boothroyd A (2020). Geoheritage and Geotourism: challenges and unifying themes. Geoheritage. 12(63). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12371-020-00492-1
Yürür MT, Saein AF, Kaygısız N (2018). What a Geologist May Do When the Geological Heritage Is in Danger? Geoheritage. 11(2):301-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0284-1
Zatserkovnyi V, Oberemok N, Berezina P (2017). Geoportal as a means to popularize geological heritage of Ukraine. Pidvodni tehnologii. 7:18–27. https://doi.org/10.26884/1707.1201
Zwolinski Z, Najwer A, Giardino M (2016). Methods of geodiversity assessment and theirs application. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2016. Austria: Copernicus.
Zwolinski Z, Najwer A, Giardino M (2018). Chapter 2 - Methods for Assessing Geodiversity. In Geoheritage, pp 27–52. Amsterdam: Elsevier. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,243 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 606 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Workforce 
Time 
Equipment 
Training 
Finance 
Improved 
Similar to traditional approach
Not yet as accurate as traditional approach 
N/A or cannot yet be determined.
