Assessment of the Geotouristic Values of Devil's Town, Serbia

2021 | 74/2 | 163–176 | 9 Figs. | 3 Tabs. | www.geologia-croatica.hr Journal of the Croatian Geological Survey and the Croatian Geological Society

Assessment of the Geotouristic Values of Devil’s Town, Serbia Danijela Vukoičić1, Danica Srećković- Batoćanin2, Aleksandar Valjarević3, Dušan Ristić1, Milena Nikolić1 and Dragana Valjarević4

1 University of Priština in Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Department of Geography, Lole Ribara 29, 38220 Kosovska Mitrovica 2 University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mining and Geology, Đušina 7, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia 3 University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geography, Department of Geospatial and Environmental Science Studentski trg 3/III, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia 4 University of Pristina in Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, Lole Ribara 29, 38220 Kosovska Mitrovica (*corresponding author: [email protected]) doi: 10.4154/gc.2021.11

Abstract Article history: Serbia is a country rich in geoheritage with eighty geomorphological sites now under protection. Manuscript received May 19, 2020 Although a canyon, the site of Devil’s Town is a unique geomorphological site in Serbia and de- Revised manuscript accepted March 22, 2021 serves special attention. The geotouristic values of Devil’s Town were assessed based on the Available online June 30, 2021 analysis of its present state and comparison with three similar and nearby geosites on the Bal- kan Pennisula (the Sand Pyramids in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Stob and Melnik Earth pyramids in Bulgaria). The assessment was performed using a ‘modified geosite assessment

model’ (M-GAM), which includes estimation of the main indicators and sub-indicators. Devil’s Town has an average level of major and additional values. Indicators show that this geosite has great tourist, scientific and aesthetic value, as well as enough space for improving the ecologi- cal and functional values, as a basis for the development of tourism. Devil’s Town displays a higher touristic value than the Sand pyramids and slightly lower than the Stob pyramids. How- ever, in comparison with the Melnik Earth pyramids in Bulgaria, its touristic value is significantly Keywords: Geotourism, Geosite assessment, M-GAM, Comparative analysis, Devil’s Town, lower. This study could serve as a guide for managing development strategies concerning deci- Sand Pyramids, Stob Pyramids, Melnik Pyramids, sion-making and engagement in tourism of the analysed geosite, addressing the needs of mo­ Serbia dern tourists.

1. INTRODUCTION However, the geotourism potential and geoturist values of this Although Serbia is a small European country, it has a rich geo­ geosite remain partially hidden. heritage. There are numerous geological and geomorphological The promotion of geological and geomorphological heritage sites, which are excellent representatives of geodiversity. The cur­ is growing in importance when it comes to cultural tourism and rent inventory of eighty protected geoheritage sites includes about landscape valorisation as thematic excursions and itineraries 650 geological, hydrogeological, palaeontological, geomorpho­ (REYNARD, 2009). The first official definition of geotourism logical, spelaeological and neotectonic phenomena (DJUROVIĆ was given by Thomas Hose, (1995,1996), and later reformulated & MIJOVIĆ, 2006, VASILJEVIĆ, 2015). There are numerous (HOSE, 2000). Geotourism, as a geoscience-based tourist activi­ty, geosites with unique diversity, which can provide authentic and is a process of recognizing and giving a wider meaning to unforgettable experiences to tourists. Such an environment pos­ ­geoheritage objects in order to preserve them more effectively sesses an outstanding opportunity regarding geotourism deve­ (HOSE, 2005a). A straightforward definition was given by JOYCE (2006), who defines geotourism as a situation where “people go lopment. Devil’s Town is an excellent representative of rich natu­ to certain places to observe one or more aspects of geology and ral heritage and it can potentially represent high geotouristic geomorphology and learn about them.” The definition of geo­ values being as one of the protected geomorphological geoherita­ge tourism given by GRAY (2008), takes a view on the need for geo­ sites (STANKOVIĆ, 2004) and the most important geomor­ conservation; “Tourism is based on geological and geomorpholo­ phological monument of nature in Serbia formed by erosion gical resources of an area that attempts to minimize the (negative) (RISTIĆ et al., 2018). Concerning major geostructures designated impact of this tourism through geoconservation and sustainable to geodiversity, Devil’s Town considers “geomorphological oc­ management”. Under geoconservation, BUREK & PROSSER currences, erosion and depositional proccesses and landscapes’’ (2008) include active site management in order to preserve the (DJUROVIĆ & MIJOVIĆ, 2006). The site is classified into the original state and prevent any changes. Geoconservation measures First category of protected sites, i.e. the category of natural mon­ in combination with the promotion of tourism are the most impor­ uments of outstanding importance, and has been declared a geo­ tant elements of geotourism (HOSE, 2005b). SADRY (2009) states logical monument of nature. Regarding topography, the area is that geotourism is in fact knowledge-based tourism, interdisci­ highly diverse. The occurrence of 202 stony topped Earth pillars plinary integration of the tourism industry with conservation and (French term ‘’demoiselle’’; North American term ‘’hoodoo’’; in­ interpretation of the attributes, abiotic in nature, in order to bring cluding universal terms: ‘’pedestal rocks’’, ‘’rock pinnacles’’; the geosite closer to the general public. NEWSOME & DOWLING ‘’Earth pinnacles’’, Earth pillars’’, ‘’rock pillars’’; Earth pyra­ (2010) have come to the conclusion that geotourism promotes mids) is noteworthy. These are rare natural phenomena resem­ tourism at geosites as well as the conservation of geodiversity bling very attractive denudation relief forms (gullies are the most and understanding of the geosciences by means of respect and dominant forms, including ground-water seepages and scars). understanding (learning). The latest definition of modern geo­ Geologia Croatica Figure 1.Location mapofDevil’s Town CGIAR for Consortium Spatial Information, (Source 2017). ofhypsometry: 2011; TOMIĆ, 2009; HENRIQUES, & REIS 2007; al., et 2018; PEREIRA BRILHA., & 2016;al., et REYNARD NARD REY 2009; REYNARD, 2005; BRILHA, 2005; PRALONG, GRAY,2005; GIUSTI, 2013;& 2003; CORATZA PIACENTE, & 2005; PANIZZA BRUSCHI CENDRERO, & 2002; BRAGA, & SZEPESI, included values additional 1997;(GRANDGIRARD were on focused valuethe scientific ofthe and geosite, only later activities. proved development of tourist im and undisturbed the enabling well as as visitors, all to ments achieve scientific and knowledge geomorphological and logical geo bring will that offer an such create to necessary is it Thus, deg to of geodiversity. the lead vulnerability the in increase an and can radation which 2012) VASILJEVIĆ, & HOSE 2011; al., et systems & (NEWSOME DOWLING, 2006; HOSE, 2008; HOSE Earth on have anegative impact can ofexploitation geography Tourist 2008). REYNARD, 2005; REYNARD, & (PRALONG to hard to lifts and of paths construction the boards, interpretative and informative be can complete, These visit. their to facilitate ­improve and order in tourists to offered services and goods infrastructure, the of consists offer additional The offer. original the provides geoheritage geotourism, of context the In 2006). offer(PRALONG, tourist additional the and original the both to account. Geosites as a basis of development geotourism contribu into taken 2011). be also ING, should perspective economic The (DOWL satisfaction tourist and community the local to benefit geointerpretation, sustainability, geological are: basis, tourism in related with topography, together surrounding the phological and sites geomor atgeosites, services and content interpretative viding developed was by HOSEtourism & VASILJEVIĆ (2012): “Pro 164 [by, and] for, the present and the future generations.” future [by, the and for, and] present the both work scientific and education appreciation, their improve - reach places, or the organization and training of the guides of guides the training and organization the or places, reach Numerous methods which were used for evaluating geosites geosites for evaluating used were which methods Numerous The basic principles of the fundamental importance for geo importance of fundamental the principles basic The - situ and ex and situ - situ artifacts, in order to conserve them, them, conserve to order in artifacts, situ te ­te ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ - ­ ­ ­ – 796 m a.s.l. The Devil’s Town is located 290 km from Belgrade, Serbia).Southern ofIt covers an part area of (central 8.31 ha, Mountain at an altitude of Radan 660 on Djake of village the and Devil’s Town spatially belongs to the of municipality Kuršumlija, 2.1. Studyarea METHODS AND MATERIAL 2. offer aiming to adjust these to attractive tourist destinations. destinations. tourist to attractive these adjust to offeraiming development and of atourist planning the during management of tasks future main the well to as as localities analyzed these in disadvantages and advantages potential the to point should in Bulgaria) by applying the M pyramids Earth Melnik Stob and and Herzegovina and Bosnia in (Sand Pyramids Balkans the in geosites nearby and featured larly simi ofvalues Devil’s three the with Town comparison its and geotouristic the assess to is study of goal this main the Hence, developed tourism. with countries behind obviously lagging 2020). al., et 2019; ANTIĆ al., et 2018; ANTIĆ al., et 2017; VUKOIČIĆ 2017;al.,TOMIĆ, et & 2016;VALJAREVIĆBOŽIĆ, ANTIĆ & 2015;TOMIĆ al., et 2015;BOŠKOVTOMIĆ, & BOŽIĆ 2011;2011;al., al., et et VASILJEVIĆ2011; TOMIĆ, VUJIČIĆ 2009; 2008; 2007; BELIJ, 2006; MIJOVIĆ, & DJUROVIĆ 2005; al., et MIJOVIĆ 2002; MIJOVIĆ, 2002; (LJEŠEVIĆ, geoheritage and geodiversity promoting and of protecting significance and need the on thought modern of foundation the (NOJKOVIĆ to have Serbia contributed alot from of few areas authors years, last natural of the 1999). MILJANOVIĆ,In & protection 1998; MIJOVIĆ,MIJOVIĆ & the planning while ation, proposed andscientific forcriteria educational evalu­ geoheritage and established geodisciplines all from experts eminent when a descriptive method using out mainly until carried was Serbia in geoheritage and versities the last decade of geodi of the 2014). al., Evaluation 2011; et 20th al., et ROCHA VUJIČIĆ century Serbia has the potential for an increase in geotourism but is but is geotourism in increase for an potential the has Serbia - GAM GAM model. The results obtained Geologia Croatica 74/2 ­ ­ Geologia Croatica ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ - ­ ­ ­ ­ 165 hornblende - displays a porphyritic tex

These specific natural formations are the result of an erosive ing which those formations evolved and passed throughpassedanddifferent formationsevolved those which ing rocks are andesitic Town vol Thestages development. Devil’s of canic and volcaniclastic rocks and been have protected since theIn Decree1995, theof 1959. Government theof Republic of Serbia proclaimed National importance“ of a site and placed into the highest category protection.of A total area hectares67 of is protected,although there is a requirement to increase the pro ha. tected area to 1014 2.2. Geological background The the broader geology of area is presented on the Basic ­Geological Map sheets 1:100.000, Kuršumlija and Podujevo old The 1975). al., et VUKANOVIĆ 1974; (MALEŠEVIĆ al., et subordinateCambrianmetagneissesareDevonianand rocks est morphosed limestone. Broad areas cover Cretaceous products, conglomerate and flysch sediments associated with membersof the Jurassic ophiolite mélange (previously known as the “diabase The DIMITRIJEVIĆ formation”chert DIMITRIJEVIĆ, & 1974). most dominant lithological units are products Oligocene vol of canism Ma(KARAMATA with formation a 32–28 of age et al., 1992; KOSTIĆ et al., 2017). Theseand volcanic volcaniclastic rocks including lava flows,pyroclastic products brec are andesites tuffs (DIMITRIJEVIĆDRAKULIĆ, crystallinelapilli cias, & and DRAGIĆ1958; et Andesite al., 2014). they are placed at about 670 m a.s.l., while smaller forms are up are forms up smaller while a.s.l., m 670 about at are placed they to 2 m high and are placed at about it 680 to 700 m a.s.l. Today, Town on the is veryinternet. easy to find of Devil’s videos processthat lasted leastat for two hundred thousand years, dur bic pyroxenes asbic phenocrysts. Accessory constituents are apatite and opaque minerals. Their uniform chemistry suggests uniform 1972). al., et withinvolcanism (JOVANOVIĆ entirethe complex variationsNegligible in chemistry could be a consequence of (Fig.3b), biotite (less frequently) and monoclinic and orthorhommonoclinicandand frequently) (less biotite (Fig.3b), ture, and contains plagioclase amphibole (Fig.3a), ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ slip faultsslip that - Macedonian mass - contest “Devil’s Town” Town” contest “Devil’s - attractive destinations are con - style mountain lodgeswere built, one - built hiking built m 850 is trail. Parking vehicles for - Priština. thisstate Beside road, - there the Niš also is Kosovo Polje railway. The closest airports closest SlatinaTheare railway. Polje Kosovo - - According to the generally accepted explanation, the volca Regarding geology, Devil’s Town is locatedwithinis Lecethe Town Devil’s Regardinggeology, Theunique geomorphological phenomenonin Serbiacon Map processed by authors based on data of GEOLISS, 2020). authors based on data by Map processed Source: area. map of research 2. Geological Figure nental plate, while the latter is considered a remnant the vast of SCHMID Ocean 2008). et al., (e.g. Tethys is traditionally in each held May 1). year (Fig. the largest which is of one complex, volcanic Tertiary volcanic situ­geotectonicsetting),the(observing is, It Serbia. inprovinces ated the along boundary between the Serbo to(SMM) the east and the Eastern zone Vardar to the (Fig. west Propolac–Medvedjaandthe delineated by unitsare twoThese 2). formerTheunitbeenhas 2004). (STAJEVIĆ, dislocation Tupala interpreted as part the deformed of margin the Eurasia of conti Prokuplje Banja, Prolom km). airporttheand km) (92 PrištinaNiš inin (57 the mostwhichisvisited of one spas great of touristic in value km 28 from locatedis nearby, 2020), KOŠIĆ, & Serbia(TOMIĆ These two tourist Town. Devil’s 29 km from Kuršumlija, and 9 km from the state road IB categoryIB roadstate the from km Kuršumlija, from9 kmand 29 Niš 35 no. Vukoičić et al.: Assessment of the Geotouristic Values of Devil’s Serbia Town, away from Devil’s Town, and the hiking Town, fromaway trail Devil’s leads to the top of the fountain erosive with a viewpoint that sightseeingallows and photography the stone of formations. the At beginning the hik of housing a restaurant with food prepared in the traditional Serbian style and an art galery where the photo nected by a well necteda by ingtrail, several ethno Dinaridetheresponseformedin tocol was Lece of complex nic lapse. Magmatism took place dextral along strike resulted in transpressive crustal shortening the and collision of SMM as a part the European of plate within a short time frame, 2012). TOSDAL, 2014; et al., Ma (DRAGIĆ from to 31 about 33 tains about 202 stone formations formed on steep slopes of two deep, parallel gullies. cut The formations differentshapes are of and sizes. The oldest ones are the highest, up m to high,17 and Geologia Croatica tion developedtion along favourable volcanic 2014).altera al., et (DRAGIĆ Hydrothermal rocks mineralized the encompasses which occurs, phyllic alteration intense vation, the “quartzose the markable, several long kilometers zone of known as silicification re the revealing silicification is process hydrothermal intensive most The d). 3c, (Fig. resistance higher their to due zones reef as occurring of interest area the in abundant most are rocks tered Bu and rebro Kameno Vrtače, Rasovača, (e.g.gold the and pyrite sphalerite, galena, with together occur minerals precious zones fracture same the In a few exceed some km. although prevail, systems (STAJEVIĆ, rupture 2004). Fissures about 1km in length comprise horizons from a from few horizons comprise (Gajtan caldera in spite erosion and shortenning reaches approxi reaches shortenning and erosion spite in caldera (Gajtan fissures. existing already along the erosion and weathering further to exposed later si by affected products siliceous Volcanic and/or liceous exist. also rim eastern its on i.e. proluvial and the outwith alluvial), volcanic distributed complex, (eluvial, deposits deluvial, placer mostly explored occurrences, poorly Numerous Romans. exploited Ancient by the been had ate archaeological finds itcertain is knownthat the amethystand ag of basis the on WorldII, War after interest of subject the came be deposits 2010).al., et gemstone Although (MILADINOVIĆ varieties colour heterogeneous very display which opal, relic amethyst roclastic (JOVANOVIĆ 1972). al., et Py alteration subsequent and action ternal diffusion during peaceful phases as well as hydrothermal avolcanic vent in or inside pressure of steam changes minimal formed over pl-plagioclase); amphibole(white d)epidote arrow: vein, thick(white arrow) andthinone(yellow arrow) inhydrothermally altered sample. Figure (red 3.Microphotographs ofhornblende ofzoned arrow); ofporphyriticplagioclase andesite: -andesine;b)phenocryst c)bluishchlorite a)phenocryst 166 č umet deposit). Precious silicate minerals include amethyst, amethyst, include minerals silicate Precious deposit). umet Volcanoes in this area undoubtely exceeded 1000 m in height height in m 1000 exceeded undoubtely area this in Volcanoes

- rocks, including some wellsome including rocks, agate, agate, fibrous chalcedony, granular quartz and and quartz granular chalcedony, fibrous agate, agate, - brecciated zones” (PEŠUT, zones” 1976). brecciated ele At higher mineralized hydrothermal fluids were fluids hydrothermal -mineralized 100 m thick. Hydrothermally - al 100 m Hydrothermally thick. - bonded ignimbritic types, types, ignimbritic bonded - tectonic and tectonic tectonic and tectonic ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 1. (2015) phases: three evolved al. throughout volcanic activity et VALJAREVIĆ and Accord (1972) 1958). al. et JOVANOVIĆ to DRAKULIĆ, & ing (DIMITRIJEVIĆ Oligocene per i.e. Palaeogene, Up the in area this sculpted Volcanism initially 2.3. Reliefshaping south). atMarkov the Vis (in atSokolovica and north) are the (in caldera mately 700 m a.s.l.). Devil’s Town is the largest and most complex large, long large, volcanoes)are gray or (complex,composite Stratovolcanoes building steep building tephra, and flows lava of combination a emit that position down erosion and loss of tephra. The beautiful steep beautiful The of loss and tephra. erosion down slow or resist flows lava as height, in m 1000 exceed might the empty chambers sinks slowly under its own weight. slowly own its under sinks chambers empty the roof of unsupported The chamber. of amagma plete emptying or com partial the develops after by collapse acaldera general, 1 tween be vary of can which diameter the basins, circular roughly – calderas as over time transformed often tovolcanoes are 1000 nearly 30700 Stra than m),km. greater a with diameter basal exceeded undoubtely area m this (as the in Gajtan caldera is now, although eroded and shortened, volcanoes of height The etc.). Serbia East in volcanoes former Washington, in Helen St. Mount and Rainier Mount Japan, in Fuji (e.g. Mount sights Earth’s among picturesque most are ofcones stratovolcanoes 3.  2. 1. viscous lava, building steep conical mounds), conical steep building lava, viscous Development of stratovolcanoes (emitting both and tephra tion of the entire complex. of entire tion the consolida and calderas the inside processes Subsequent Formation of calderas, and of calderas, Formation

with a diameter of about 25 km. The best preserved parts parts of preserved best The about 25a diameter with km. - 25 some km, of as which relics. preserved are In still - lived volcanoes, particularly those of andesitic com of those andesitic lived volcanoes, particularly - sided volcanic cones. A growing lava dome Agrowing sided volcanic cones. Geologia Croatica 74/2 - sided ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Geologia Croatica ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 167 grained material - grained a few blocks (from 30 cm in diameter), and boul and diameter), in cm 30 - - - to epithermal, affected thehost rockswhich were sub Similar forms been have noted in the high mountain ranges outerzone ismarked with sorted well material, accordingto grain size. Tuffaceous sandstone andvolcanic gravel overlie crystalline schists and Cretaceous flysch in thefootwall. Vol canic breccias and agglomerates build the highest The levels. interior is composed coarser of products: volcanic agglomera­ (20 bombs breccias,volcanic tes, ders reaching metres a few rocks in are size. Volcaniclastic rep resented a mixture by coarse of decimetres to a few metres in size) and fine explosively ejected from volcanoes. The pillars roofs are of an of arepillarsThe roofs ejectedfrom volcanoes. explosively desite or dacite lava, which like umbrellas either protects them down furtheror slows erosion and destruction. The presence sinterized of tuffs youngerflowsand in lava the Gajtan caldera, including repeated volcanic activity in the Tu lare caldera, reflects the continuationof volcanic activity within the previously formed calderas. During the finalvol canic phases, after consolidation the magmatic of masses, ba sal uplift inthe form domas of took place enabling the devel radially opmentof distributed fissures through which hydrothermal solutions percolated. Hydrothermal solutions, meso jected to physical and chemicalprocesses finallyshaped weatheringthis area. The stoneformations were and erosion.dissected These into twenty metre thick weathered layers of delluvial theirand growthby the debriswas materialenabled flow) (i.e. more resistent existenceof material roofs” or “caps of (lava 4). (Fig. flows) 3.  3. of the both the Andesof Brenner sides of and Alps pass, (e.g. in ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Devil’s Town caldera. The Tulari Town Devil’s

is the one with oldest only the east Zn deposit, which consists of three - the volcanic volcanic Pb - isthe smallest and the bestpreserved suggesting thatit

caldera is the has fabric youngest It one. a complex with a recognizable northwardmigration of the centre of effusion. The youngest ef fusioncentre stillis preserved in thethe (Braina)neck form of from where a radial stretches dyke towards the north. Devil’s largestthekmand is 25 aboutdiametercaldera with a of Town most consisting complex, three of smaller calderas: Devil’s Kula Ivan and Kravari.Town, activity Tectonic and faulting during the northward migration its eastern of part additionally destroyed and The it. reworked best preserved parts are at Their south). the (in Vis Markov at and north) the (in Sokolovica marginal parts are composed pyroclastic of rocks, while the in ternalparts higher (morphologically and to closer the inner cal dera) are of alternating pyroclastic rocks and lava flows. The ern partpreserved gora. Petrova at The southernpart was eroded, whereas the western and northern parts were destroyed during of development large calderas: Gajtan, and Town Devil’s atTulari. However, present, a significantly largernumber of smaller calderas and volcanic vents are being observed (SERAFIMOVSKI, 1990; AsDRAGIĆ et a al., 2014). result of pronounced erosion ac companied by the effectsof movements endogenic(volcanic) within the calderas. Their can height be not precisely deter mined.The Gajtan caldera Caldera dimensions exceeded the dimensions of the former vol formerthe dimensionsof the dimensionsexceededCaldera relics the in flows lava as Pyroclastic well cones.canic asrocks formerof stratovolcanoes generally dip towards the volcano Devil’s events. tectonic subsequent by affected not if periphery, is, as within mentioned above, of Town the complex volcanic Lece, a sub A - Devil’s Town; B - The reef between Devil’s Town and Hell’s Gully; C - Hell’s Gully; D - Earth pillars in Devil’s Town; E - Earth pillars in Hell’s Gully. E - Earth pillars in Hell’s Town; Gully; D - Earth Gully; pillars in Devil’s C - Hell’s and Hell’s Town Devil’s between reef The B - Town; 4. A - Devil’s Figure 2. Vukoičić et al.: Assessment of the Geotouristic Values of Devil’s Serbia Town, Geologia Croatica Figure 7.A-Devil’s Water; Spring. Red B- Figure 6. Investigated inDevil’s miningshaft Тown. (Fig. 5). occurrences rare hydrothermal and differences lithological by supported water of tion erosive ac of example diverse the a representative providing ant, resist more and dimensions in larger abundant, more are mations However, sandstone. Devil’s in Ordovician the Town, for stone within created was formation Memuniat the desert, Sahara the In mense building forces & mountain (SKINNER PORTER, 2000). by im faulted and vertically tilted havezontally, been but later hori deposited were old)that 320 Ma about age, Carboniferous of conglomerates and limestone sandstone, (red white ments and sedi within formed USA) were (Illinois, Gods the of Garden the in forms Spectacular (moraine)material. glacial of leaching through etc.),formed were France they and Italy where Austria, Figure 5.The bird’s-eye viewphotograph oftheDevil’s Town. 168 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ the Devil’s Gully. This spring is known as the “Devil’sWater”. the as known is and Fe spring Devil’sThis Gully. the Al, Si, of most l, / g (15 S) with a hardness of mineralized about 21,050d highly springs in the upper part of 1.5), (pH water cold acidic and Extremely of vulcanism. phases last the to related m(http://www.djavoljavaros.com/). 800 about is length its and expanded is entrance Its explored. been has shafts mine preserved of three One the mines. of castle the characteristic importance. cultural great of amonument be to considered and protection state under also is site This (Prokuplje). hill Hisar at discovered were century), of the former Roman ofsettlement (secondHammeum half of 1st basement the on constructed fortification medieval of the mains re the Additionally, 2004). al., (ĆUZOVIĆ et discovered were smelting from of excavation ore resulting tions nor slag residues loca immediate of neither Toplica as vicinity Kosanica, the and site in the from deposit malachite and azurite an from obtained was ore the that thought It also is understood. previously than lier 5500 to back dating Europe in of metallurgy acentre site was this that metal prehistoric of number significant a preserved Prokuplje, near nearby Neolithic site (5500 to 4700 B.C.) in the village of Pločnik, The ages. Prehistoric the and Ancient the from known sites and the ore mines 6). restored the Saxonfact, In miners (Fig. miners Saxon German of arrival the and century 13th the to back dating mines demonstrates silver), and gold and minum, There are two rare hydrological phenomena in Devil’s in hydrological phenomena Town, rare two are There is narrow, which very are shafts mine the to entrances The The wider area of Devil’s area wider The Town alu (iron, ore in rich is - - 4800 B.C., i.e. that the Copper Age started in Europe ear Europe in started Age Copper the B.C., i.e.that 4800 made weapons and copper tools. These artifacts suggest suggest artifacts These tools. copper and weapons made Geologia Croatica 74/2 - forming forming ­ ­ ­ ­ Geologia Croatica ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 169 Quaternaryconglom sandstonesand - Sculptured sand columns rise from broad a base and narrow The pyramids, Stob known as hoodoos, are located between the existence moreresistant of Pliocene conglomerates layers of inthe hanging wall (LEPIRICA, Continual 2013). erosion facili tates theirpersistent growth. towards the top revealing amazing geomorphological phenomena withinthe area. These sand pyramids were protected declaa by ration of the Commission to Preserve the National Monuments Bosniaof andAt present Herzegovina the Institutionin 1959. is revising theinventory localities of thatbeen have protected upto outstandingimportance,its to mea protection Duespecific 1992. suresare suggested this needs for It locality. to be evaluated in the sense tourism, of bearing in mind that is commonly it com in Serbia (LEPIRICA, 2010). Town pared to the Devil’s the western foothills Rila of Mountain and the eastern localities Kulskiof rid and Tsarkvishteto near the village about 5 Stob, of Bul in Province) (Kyustendil Kocherinovo of city the from km garia. This is site verypopular, in many like ways the Melnik PirinDevil’s Mountain,and (Bulgaria) of slopes thepyramids on in Town Serbia. The site is insufficiently exploredand informa tion concerning remains it far behind similar localities elewhere the Wheeler area geological in andin (e.g. the the USA world CappadociaThese inerosive landmarks, Turkey). up to m 12 in areaan occupydiameter, in cm 120 to up top, stony a with height pyramidsThe a.s.l. composedarem 750 to600 at ha 7.4 about of Neogene bondedweakly of erates deposited within the last 1–2 Ma on the slope in a lacus trine environment. ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ) in 2 ) and the Melnik Earth rich (198.8 richmg / (198.8 l). The 3 - , 9 km from Foča in Bosnia BATOĆANIN, BATOĆANIN, D. et al., 2010) - Šljivovice ) in Bulgaria 8). (Fig. 4 nis.org.rs/; nis.org.rs/; SREĆKOVIĆ ) in the Balkan area include: the Sand Pyramids (GS Small peaks called “pyramids” appear in the southeastern 1 - Bosnia and Herzegovina and Stob (GS Position of geosites on the Balkan of geosites Peninsula. 8. Position Figure 2.4. Examples of similar localities in the Balkans 2.4. Examples of similar Geolocalities in structure and origin similar to Devil’s Town (GS oxidized iron with along substances which came from the sur rounding rocksled to changes in thewater properties in the wa The Stream)”. (Yellow Potok “Žuti name streamitsrevealing tersboth of springs healing no have properties, they but are a natural poison to the living http://www. world 1995; (PROTIĆ, izjz 7). (Fig. One litre of water contains over 1.5 g of metal (Al, Fe, K, Cu, Ni) Ni) Cu,K, Fe, (Al, metal of g 1.5 contains waterover litre of One a also is water this pH, low very its to Due sulfur. of g 2.63 and suggestinggood solvent, that some amounts and Al, K were of Fe extractedprobably from the surrounding in rocks. the Water spring called “Crveno Red (the Vrelo Spring)” the(to right side mentioned previously thefrom m 400Stream, about Yellow the of spring) is less acidic (ph and4.0) iron Vukoičić et al.: Assessment of the Geotouristic Values of Devil’s Serbia Town, pyramids (GS most part of the macro region Bosansko Sredogorje near the vil lage of Daničići (location and Herzegovina). Similar landmarks are noted in the vicinity, Thesetoo. forms consist alternating of Pliocene clastites – con glomerate, gravel and sand derived in from eluvial relief the for mer Miocene basin under the triggered action proluvial and of gravitational processes during the Quaternary. The sand pyra mids represent denudation selective example of a classic due to Geologia Croatica Table etal., 2011). 1.The oftheGeosite Assessment structure (GAM) Model (VUJIČIĆ 170 15. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 0.00 Grades (0.00-1.00) 27. Restaurant service service 26. Hostelry 25. Tour guideservice 24. Tourism infrastructure 23. Numberofvisitors 22. Interpretative panels 21. Vicinity ofvisitors centers 20. Organized visits 19. Promotion Touristic values (VTr) values 18. Additional functional 17. road network Vicinity ofimportant 16. Vicinity ofemissive centers 15. Additional anthropogenic values 14. Additional natural values 13. Accessibility Functional values (VFn) Additional values (AV) 12. Suitablenumberofvisitors 11. Vulnerability 10. Protection level 9. Current condition Protection (VPr) 8. Environmental fittingofsites 7. Surrounding landscapeandnature 6. Surface 5. Viewpoints Scenic/Aesthetic (VSA) 4. Level ofinterpretation ongeoscientific3. Knowledge issues 2. Representativeness 1. Rarity (VSE) Scientific/Educational value values (MV) Main Indicators/Sub-indicators None None None Inaccessible 0 of total loss) Irreversible (withpossibility None of humanactivities) Totally damaged(asaresult Unfitting - Small None None None None Common 0.25 1 1 guide tours) equipment andexpert Low (onfoot with special 0 to 10 damaged) (could beeasily High Local result ofnatural processes) damaged(asa Highly - Low - 1 explain to non-experts processes buthard to Moderate level of Local publications Low Regional 0.50 2 to 3 2 to 3 2 to 3 ered transport) other meansofman-pow and (byMedium bicycle 10 to 20 human activities) by natural processes or (couldMedium bedamaged Regional features preserved) essential geomorphologic damaged(with Medium Neutral Medium Medium 2 to 3 non-experts but hard to explainto exampleofprocessesGood Regional publications Moderate National Restaurant service closeto geosite Restaurant service closeto geosite service Hostelry level, offoreign exists, knowledge If expertise language(s),interpretative etc. skills, cans,garbage toilets etc.) Level ofadditionalinfrastructure for pathways, tourist (pedestrian resting places, Annual numberofvisitors surroundings, etc. Interpretative andgraphics, oftext characteristics material quality, size, fitting to Closeness ofvisitor center to thegeosite Annual numberoforganized visitsto thegeosite Level andnumberofpromotional resources Parking lots, gasstations, mechanics, etc. road intheradius networks of20km Closeness ofimportant Closeness ofemissive centers Number ofadditionalanthropogenic values intheradius of5km Number ofadditionalnatural (geosites alsoincluded) values intheradius of5km Possibilities for approaching thesite andcurrentvulnerability state ofgeosite Supposed numberoftourists onthesite at thesametime, according area, to surface Level ofthegeosite ofvulnerability tions, etc. Protection by localorregional groups, national government, international organiza - Current state ofgeosite Level ofcontrast to thenature, contrast ofcolours, appearance ofshapes, etc. area,deterioration, ofurban etc. vicinity Panoramic viewquality, presence ofwater andvegetation, absence ofhuman-induced ofthesite. EachsiteWhole surface isconsidered inquantitative relation to othersites from thesite. Number ofviewpoints accessible for pedestrians. Eachmustbesituated lessthan1km knowledge phenomena andshapeslevel ofscientific Level ofinterpretive possibilitiesongeological andgeomorphologic processes, Number ofpublishedpapersinjournals, thesis, presentations andotherpublications configuration ofthesite characteristics dueto andgeneral itsown andexemplary quality Didactic Number ofnearby identical sites Description - 0.75 4 to 6 4 to 6 4 to 6 (by car) High 20 to 50 by humanactivities) Low (could bedamagedonly National Slightly damaged - High - 4 to 6 common visitor but easyto explainto Moderate level ofprocesses National publications High International 1.00 More than 6 More than 6 More than 6 (byUtmost bus) More than50 None International No damage Fitting Utmost Large More than6 visitors and easyto explainto most exampleofprocessesGood International publications Highest The onlyoccurence Geologia Croatica 74/2 Geologia Croatica ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 171 indi - GAM - KING, 2014). - Less than 5 kmLess International Utmost International per than 48 year More 1 km than Less Utmost quality than 100 000)Utmost (more Utmost Utmost 5km than Less 1 km than Less 25 to 5 km25 to National High National 48 per year 24 to 1 km5 to High quality High 100 000) (10 001 to High High 5–10 km 1–5 km TRUEBA, 2005; HOSE, 2007; PEREIRA et al., - This study includes the values of experts for all 27 sub 2.5.1. M-GAM2.5.1. model Previous geosite assessment geosite assessment models involved criteria adjusted for tourists (PRALONG, 2005; SERRANO & GONZÁLEZ 2007; ZOUROS, 2007; REYNARD, 2008; REYNARD, 2009; REYNARD REYNARD and ex et2016; al., & BRILHA, 2018) model, and based on both it the opinions experts of and visitors. perts (BRUSCHI & CENDRERO, 2005; CORATZA & GIUSTI, 2005; HOSE, 2007; WHITE ge of the evaluation for model a proposed & WAKELIN (2011) al. et VUJIČIĆ olocalities (GAM) based on & themodified BOŽIĆ (2014) the experts’GAM model into the opinion, M whereas TOMIĆ cators in GAM (Table 1) along with the tourist values (Im) (Table (Table (Im) tourist the with values along 1) in (Table GAM cators 2), which have already beenIn presented the original by BOŽIĆ GAM & and TOMIĆ model into 12 then and divided Values, Additional and Main Values (2015). two important indicators15 indicators are respectively, included: each scored between 0 and This 1. is model made of according to two general kindkinds main values: of natural– mostly generated the by characteristics; geosite’s and ad visitors.by use its modificationsfor generated by mostly – ditional Theare Main conducted Values three by groups indicators: of sci pro and scenic/aesthetical(VSA) values entific/educational (VSE), tection (VPr) while the Additional Values are (VTr). divided values touristic into and two (VFn) functional indicators, of groups The Main are and 1. presented Additional Values in Table other attractive group pyramids of is in the village Karlanovo. of Although thereare only four pyramids, they impressive look ex ceeding m in height, 100 having slopes barren vegetation of and role protective same the have caps flattened stony withpeaks. The against erosion, as in the previously mentioned localities. The small city Melnik, of additionally contributes to the attractive ness tourists. for Renowned its authentic for architecture from the renaissance era is declared it an architectural reserve. Addi tional anthropogenic tourist the values include: Kordopulov House – a large house from the Bulgarian national revival period, Wine Museum, Rozhen monastery – the biggest Orthodox Church in the Pirin Mountain area. 2.5. Methodology Andesite samples were opticallyanalyzed using a petrographic polarized microscope for transmitted light (Leica DMLSP), HDthecameraproconnected is which over DFC290 Leica a to gram LAS V4. ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 50 to 25 km50 to Regional Medium Regional 24 per year 12 to 5 km20 to Medium quality Medium 10 000) (5001 to Medium Medium 10–25 km 10–5 km andreev.com/en/ - white Pliocene sand, - 600 alluvial m of deposits 100 to 50 km100 to Local Low Local 12 per year than Less 20 km50 to quality Low (less than 5000) Low Low Low 25–50 km 10–25 km - -bulgaria/). More than 100 kmMore None None None None than 50 kmMore None None None None than 50 kmMore than 25 kmMore - 850 m a.s.l. Their variable colours and heights offer The Earth Stob Pyramids were declared a natural landmark The Melnik pyramids are considered to be the most interest The Melnik region consists grayish of The Melnik pyramids are noteworthy of shapes vari and of -pyramids 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 16. in 1964. Their formation, evolution and destruction are taking place in repeated stages driven groundwater, by temperature in version andversion wind. the At immediate two site, evolutionary stages could be recognized. The is site easily accessible to visitors via designated pathways and viewpoints, which offer a panoramic geosite and the nearbyview whole over settlements Poromi­ (Stob, novo, Barakovo, Kocherinovo, Rila). In the immediate vicinity village, Stob of there are also ancient ruins that should be evalu atedin terms tourism of (https://www.andrey Vukoičić et al.: Assessment of the Geotouristic Values of Devil’s Serbia Town, stob ing natural in wonder Bulgaria, as as well on the Balkan Penin sula. These pyramids are similar to those are but at Stob, much greater insize andspatial distribution.The Melnik pyramidsare located on the southwesternkm south Sofia, slope of in Blagoevgradthe Province and municithe of Pirin Mountain atpality aboutof Sandanski. 180 The exact sites are Melnik, Gorna Sushitsa, Karlanovo, Rozhen and This Sugarevo. geosite has been pro tected since (enlarged 1960 and redeclared over an in area 1978) ha. Rock formations of 1165.6 resembling pyramids are located from 350 an amazing, very attractive image. The increasing number of visitors from required the all world over a number buildings of and recreation centres to be built in Melnik. mixed was with layers. deposited It clay at the bottom a shal of continen of collision the by caused Folding ago. Ma 3–5 lake low tal plates led to the formation mountain of ranges, such as Pirin, Ograzden and Belasica. The lake water flowed to the south and discharged into theAegean Sea. In ter formed the newly valley, rigenous material was brought mountain by rivers and streams leading to the formation about 500 of of weaklyof cemented and reddish sedimentary rocks. Over the next thousands of years, sediments accumulated up to 120 m thick, nourished from the Pirin range mountain by rivers and streams. In the variously shaped valleys the pyramid formation was addi tionally supported wind by action and temperature inversion. ous sizesthat are subjected tochanges due to the decomposition and plants, decay of such as deciduous trees, bushes and grasses that thrive there. The most visited pyramids are those located near the Rozhen Monastery. They are easily accessible constructed by pathways from the city Melnik of to the Rozhen monastery. The Geologia Croatica tors, ditional Values which are graded from 0 to 1: 0to from Values graded ditional are which 15sub Values,and Main the of indicators Im – importance factor. – importance Im GS Table 2.Values andvisitors given for intheGAM by model. eachsub-indicators experts MV of sub groups ortwo ValuesAdditional of three consist and Main because Values.tional equations, We two these derive where 172 lows: several sub 27. Restaurant service service 26. Hostelry 25. Tour guideservice 24. Tourisminfrastructure 23. Numberofvisitors 22. Interpretative panels 21. Vicinity ofvisitors centers 20. Organized visits 19. Promotion V Touristic values (VTr) values18. Additional functional 17. road network Vicinity ofimportant 16. Vicinity ofemissive centers 15. Additional anthropogenic values 14. Additional natural values 13. Accessibility IV Functional values (VFn) 12. Suitablenumberofvisitors 11. Vulnerability 10. Protection level 9. Current condition III Protection (VPr) 8. Environmental fittingofsites 7. Surrounding landscapeandnature 6. Surface 5. Viewpoints II Scenic/Aesthetic (VSA) 4. Level ofinterpretation ongeoscientific3. Knowledge issues 2. Representativeness 1. Rarity (VSE) I Scientific/Educational values Indicators /Sub-indicators Main 1 – Devil’s– Town

= The GAM is defined as a simple equation, a sum of sum a sub 12 as a equation, simple defined is GAM The Now that we know that each group of indicators consists of consists of indicators group each that weNow know that

VSE MV AV AV and

+ - indicators, equations (2)equations indicators, and (3) can as be folwritten

VSA

(Serbia), GS (Serbia),

+ represent the symbols for the Main and Addi and Main for the symbols the represent MV =VSE+VSA +VPr

VPr = GAM =MV + AV 2 –Sandpyramids andHerzegovina), (Bosnia AV +VTr =VFn ∑ i 12 = 1 SIMV i

, where 0≤ - indicators of the Ad the of indicators 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.75 GS (GAM) Expert’s estimation (0-1) 1

SIMV i

≤ 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.50 GS -

indica 1 GS 2 3 –Stob pyramids GS (Bulgaria), (1) (2) (4) (3) ­ - ­ ­ ­ 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.25 GS fit into the Z into fit will geosite the 4, are additional and 7 are Values Main geosite’s a if example, field.For certain a into fit will geosite each score, final the on (i,j=1,2,3).Z(i,j), Depending by represented fields nine into divided is matrix The results. the to according created is tional Values. Here, Here,

value for each sub forvalue each BOŽIĆ & TOMIĆ (2015). factor (Im) The importance is the mean VUKOVIĆ by presented (Im) factor been has 2019; that importance the introduce al., et ANTIĆ 2018; to reasons main 2019;the 2020)al., were ANTIĆ, et & TOMIĆ JONIĆ, 2015; al., et (TOMIĆ concerning the use of M of use the concerning Values ( Values 3 A matrix of Main (X axes) and Additional Values (Y axes) Values (Y Additional axes)and (X Main of matrix A High precision and applicability at several geolocalities geolocalities atseveral applicability and precision High SIMV AV =VFn+VTr = 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 1.00 0.25 i GS = 1…,12) and 15 subindicators ( 1…,12)= 15 subindicators and 4 i and SIAV and 21 21 field (Figure field(Figure 9). 4 – Melnik pyramids– Melnik (Bulgaria) - 0.78 0.73 0.87 0.73 0.43 0.81 0.87 0.56 0.85 0.59 0.62 0.48 0.70 0.71 0.75 0.42 0.58 0.76 0.83 0.68 0.95 0.54 0.79 0.85 0.45 0.79 0.89 Im indicator given by tourists. A few more papers Afew papers more by given tourists. indicator j represents 12 sub - GAM (PĂL & ALBERT, 2018; ANTIĆ ANTIĆ 2018; ALBERT, & (PĂL GAM ∑ j 15 0.59 0.37 0.44 0.55 0.32 0.22 0.56 0.85 0.15 0.47 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.56 0.32 0.29 0.57 0.62 0.51 0.71 0.41 0.59 0.43 0.23 0.79 0.67 1.66 2.22 2.12 GS = 3.9 1.8 0 1 1 SIAV (M-GAM) Total(M-GAM) estimation i

, where 0≤ 0.20 1.66 1.31 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.11 0.22 0.14 0.21 0.30 0.47 0.24 0.35 0.36 0.56 0.21 0.29 0.19 0.62 0.34 0.71 0.27 0.40 0.43 0.11 0.59 0.45 2.28 1.72 1.58 GS 2 - j indicators of the Main = 1,...,15) of the Addi 1,...,15) the = of Geologia Croatica 74/2

0.61 4.67 1.90 0.59 0.55 0.65 0.55 0.22 0.44 0.42 0.64 0.44 0.47 0.36 0.53 0.53 0.56 0.42 0.29 0.57 0.62 0.51 0.95 0.54 0.79 0.43 0.23 0.59 0.22 2.89 2.79 1.47 SIAV GS 3 i

≤ 1 0.78 0.73 0.65 0.73 0.43 0.61 0.65 0.56 0.64 5.78 0.44 0.47 0.36 0.70 0.71 0.56 3.24 0.42 0.29 0.76 0.62 2.09 0.68 0.95 0.54 0.79 2.96 0.64 0.23 0.79 0.22 1,88 GS 4 (5) ­ Geologia Croatica ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ), ­es 3 173 ) geo 3 ) and Stob (GS 4 historical heritage, - ) due to a smaller area 2 ) are also surrounded by 3 -known for its natural values indicators were recorded for the - ) are less worthy due to their dis their to due worthy less are ) 2 and GS ). ). Being well 1 ) covers the smallest area and thus displays 4 2 ) is of exceptional scenic/aesthetic value re 1 ) also record low values for rarities, as both ge 4 ). ). The lowest aesthetic value within the analyzed 3 ) displays the highest additional, natural and anthro 4 ) exhibit the highest values due to the amazing landscape and GS and Considering the additional values, particularly the natural Concerning scenic/aesthetic values, the Melnik pyramids Considering protection, which is a very important indicator 4 4 the lowest value. and anthropogenic ones, the best results were indicated the by geosite Melnik (GS and beautiful natural scenery in the vicinity: a number desig of nated viewpoints, contrasting colours and shapes, as as well the overall appearance of the geosite.The Stob pyramids (GS hence their values are the highest. In contrast, the geolocality Sand pyramids (GS plenty of naturalplenty of and anthropogenic values, whereas the remain ing two geosites (GS osites are in Bulgariain the circledkm. area 100 of (GS Position of evaluated geosites in M-GAM geosites matrix. of evaluated 9. Position Figure pyramids (GS pogenic values. Stob pyramids (GS and surrounding settlements rich cultural of (GS Melnik tance from other attractive tourist destinations. The vicinity of emissivecenters is among the functional the values lowest of invalue the all some higher analyzed of valu geosites. However, and a lesser number landscape of areas. of the main values, only small differenceswere noted between these protection of four geosites. goes level The to the lowest Dev exhibitedat were values higher Some pyramidsSand(1.31). and the (1.80) Town Stob il’s pyramidsThe geolocality (1.90). Melnik is reasonably the highest ranked (2.09) as it has beender protection un than longer much the other three geosites. The big gest differences among the sub protection of andlevel accommodation capacities. The largest areas are occupiedby the geosites Melnik (GS geosites relates to the Sand pyramids (GS site has a lower aesthetic hassite a lower value in the spite breathtaking of pano easy plentyramic of accessible pathways andviewpoints view, and contrasting colour with the surrounding nature. The geosite (GS Town Devil’s garding nature and its vicinity. value is The ascribed lowest to its spatial distribution in comparison with the area other of geosites (GS ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ) ­ ­ ­ ­ - ­ 4 in in pa (7) (6) (8) (9) ) ) in - - -in 2 22 21 22 22 ) dis Z Z Z Z 1 Field – Stob sub 3 GS

) and Melnik 3 Σ 5.56 3.94 7.56 9,02 values (Table 2). values (Table ) and Melnik pyra 3 ) and Stob pyramids

2

Additional k AV MV Iv * * VFn+VTr 1 equation, thethe im valueof 1.66+3.90 2.28+1.66 2.89+4.67 3,24+5,78 ii jj = K k k Im Im 1 1 n ∑ = n = i GAM). Values for theMainindica for GAM).Values i ∑ indicator). This is done for each sub each for done isThis indicator). ∑ - ∑ - = 6.14 4.61 6.16 6,93 = M-GAM = ), ), while articles for the rest of geosites indicators of scientific value of all of the Im 2 - – Sand pyramids (Bosnia and Herzegovina), – Sand pyramids AV 2 MV AV * M – GAM = MV ), ), which is rated by visitorseach sub(for – Melnik pyramids (Bulgaria) – Melnik pyramids 4 Im Main is the total number visitors. of that Note the Im (Serbia), GS

indicators are given in Table 2, whereas the final re - ), was being considered with respect to three to respect with similar considered being was ), 1 ) in Bulgaria. Geosites were evaluated using the above above evaluatedtheBulgaria.usingin were Geosites ) is the assessment/score one visitor each for sub of 2.12+2.22+1.80 1.58+1.72+1.31 1.47+2.79+1.90 1,88+2,96+2,09 4 k Iv VSE+VSA+VPr ) ) geosites are of significantlylower scientific value. The According to the results obtained, (GS Town Devil’s The importance factor is (Im) defined, as: 3 1 2 3 4 – Devil’s Town – Devil’s 1 GS GS GS GS Values knowledge on their geoscientific issues has thelowest value within the analyzed sub localities on the Balkan Peninsula, the Sand pyramids (GS were commonly published in local publications, less commonly in regional and national journals. The Stob (GS Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Stob (GS sults these of values are 3 and presented Figure 9. in Table tors and sub mentionedmethodology(M plays plays the highest scientific/educativevalue of the analyzedge osites, being particularly emphasized its representativeness. by This could be explained the by high didactic and educational characteristics the of locality itself. The Melnik pyramids (GS (GS GS Overall ranking of the analyzed geosites using M-GAM. ranking 3. Overall geosites of the analyzed Table portance factor ( The unique geomorphological phenomenon in Serbia, the Devil’s Town, (GS 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION3. RESULTS As can it be seen fromthe

Where

et al., 2020; BRATIĆ et al., 2020; TOMIĆ et al., 2021) have been have 2021) al., et TOMIĆ 2020; al., et BRATIĆ 2020; al., et published in the most recent months. few Vukoičić et al.: Assessment of the Geotouristic Values of Devil’s Serbia Town, are also known their by representativeness due to features the of geosite. the However, Sand pyramids (GS pyramids (Bulgaria), GS pyramids analyzedgeosites. number The publications lowest relatesof to the Sand pyramids (GS mids (GS dicator and K rameter canhave any value inthe modifiedGAM theequation is definedfollowing form: in the range from 0.00 to 1.00. Finally, dicators are less or equal always to the GAM indicator in the Therefore, model. the M-GAM values of dicator separately) is multiplied with the value given by experts experts by given value the with multiplied is separately) dicator sub each separatelyfor (also Geologia Croatica ing the lowest additional values. This suggests the high potential potential high the suggests This values. lowest the additional ing maindisplayhaving significant values, butmatrix, unfortunately value displays Stob (GS Stob displays value and at a insufficient low level. Slightlyremaining lower touristic activities, promotional with accordance not is in ofber visitors However, num the pyramids. the to next placed services taurant res and hostelry viewpoints), at places resting pathways, trian sub the among infrastructure for touristic its noteworthy particularly being geosites, alyzed (GS pyramids Sand by the exhibited values lowest The touristic ties. activi promotional level of significant the is localities analyzed of Devil’s other advantage the to The Townvices. comparison in ser hostelry and centers visitor from distance the panels, tative interpre insufficient to due Stob and Melnik behind far remains Town. Devil’s to nearest the are distant, km 90 about being Kruševac, additional values for a better position in the matrix is necessary. is matrix the in position for values abetter additional of However, upgrading apparent. is inevitable geosites the lyzed centre in Melnik (GS Melnik in centre emissive important Devil’s The Town pyramids. Sand the and with comparison Stob in and Melnik by displayed geosites were 174 and 3, the absolute domination of Melnik (GS ofMelnik domination absolute 3,the and 2 in Tables presented results final the with along matrix, GEM development. tourism in investment and activi by human improved and changed easily be could services, restaurant and accommodation guidelines, infrastructure, ism tour panels, interpretative visits, organized promotion, as such of Sub geosites. valorization tourist on and located is geosite the where country the development in ana the within rely tourism on that values touristic display geolocalities lyzed differences highest the that concluded be could It CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY 4. centre to the Sand pyramids (GS about 15 km. Sarajevo, some 60 km away, is the nearest emissive emissive centre to the Stob pyramids (GS pyramids Stob the to centre emissive nearest The Bulgaria. in spas of one famous and the city gest 20 This city km distant. in Blagoevgrad is Province the bigthird given in table 3, are the determined positions in M given in table 3, the are determined sites to natural and human interferences. human and natural to sites of level geo­ ahigh is of sensitivity there elements, these to tion addi In values. functional additional and boards interpretative services, accommodation lacked geosite the and centres, visitor valu ment in competitive surroundings (S surroundings competitive in ment achieve successful and of improvement activities the continue to learn and procedures innovate solutions, of resulting the quality improve the must company This environment. the on load the for assessing criteria the tightening time same atthe while area, wider the in development for the of ready competition be must Kuršumlija from “Planinka” AD of manager the il’s Townhas, values at geosites GS geosites at values additional the to paid be should attention future the in cluded that (Fig. 9). 2 es due to the distance from broadcasting centres as well as well as as centres broadcasting from distance the to due ­es Melnik (GS Melnik The Sand pyramids (GS According to the position of the evaluated geosites in the the in geosites of evaluated position the the to According According to the final results for all the analyzed geosites, geosites, analyzed the all for results final the to According In spite of all the geo of the spite all In On the basis of the final results (Table 3) it could be con be could (Table it 3) results final the of basis the On ) having low values of all the sub low of the values all ) having 4 ), has the highest touristic value among the an the among value touristic highest the ), has 4 1 ) is the city of Sandanski, approximately approximately Sandanski, of city the is ) 3 and GS and ), whereas the geosite Devil’s Town (GS - tourist values that the site of Dev the the that values tourist 2 ) occupy the lowest position in the the in lowest position the occupy ) - indicators (designed long pedes indicators 2 2 . Sub ). Finally, the cities of Niš and and Nišof cities Finally, ).the - Ü indicators from this group, group, this from indicators - - TŐOVÁ al., et 2018). indicators. indicators obtained low obtained indicators 3 ) is Blagoevgrad, at Blagoevgrad, is ) 4 ) among the ana - GAM matrix GAM matrix ty ­ty 1 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ) ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ (GS touristic ones. ones. touristic particularly values, of improvement additional the with ment develop geotourism in progress direct and pyramids of Sand the BRUSCHI, V.M. & CENDRERO, A. (2005): Geosite evaluation. Can we measure in­ measure we Can evaluation. Geosite V.M.(2005): BRUSCHI, CENDRERO, A. & BRILHA, J. (2005): Património geológico e geoconservação.– A conservação da natureza PAVLOVIĆ,& RADIVOJEVIĆ, A.R. M., (2020): BRATIĆ,MARJANOVIĆ, M. M., BRAGA, J.C. (Coord.) (2002): Propuesta de estrategia andaluza para la conservación de & S. BOŽIĆ, TOMIĆ,gorgesand destina­ Canyons geotourism (2015): potential N. as BOŠKOV, J., KOTRLA, S., JOVANOVIĆ, M., TOMIĆ, N., LUKIĆ, T. & RVOVIĆ, I. BELIJ, S.(2009):StanjeizaštitageodiverzitetaobjekatageonasleđauSrbiji.–Zaštita BELIJ, S. (2008): Geodiverzitet i geonasleđe u razvoju geomorfologije i zaštiti prirode.– BELIJ, S. (2007): Geodiverzitet i geonasleđe – savremeni trend razvoja geomorfologije ANTIĆ, A., TOMIĆ, N. & MARKOVIĆ, S. (2020): Karst-Based Geotourism in Eastern geotourism and geoheritage Karst ANTIĆ, (2019): S. MARKOVIĆ, & A., TOMIĆ,N. ANTIĆ, A. & TOMIĆ, N. (2017): Geoheritage and geotourism potential of the Homolje REFERENCES (tourists). of visitors surveys conduct to made have they Kuršumlija efforts the for and in records official providing for ‘’Planinka’’ enterprise the to grateful very We are ACKNOWLEDGMENT visits. tourist by mass triggered be can which of tourism, impact negative the reducing of and geosites of protection the care taking form, asustainable development in tourism we keep should future, the in balance between the offer forand tourists puregeneral geotourists right the strike to order In preferences. and needs their to cording development the of ac base a geosite thus and geotourists pure as such segments tourism specific smaller attract to or tourism for mass adestination become to it intends whether on depending strate develop should of geosite each atourism management the this, said Having planning. for tourism a framework as used be for portant the differentsegments whenvisiting a geositeso it can im is what indicates research this Therefore, segments. tourism of preferences and needs specific the towards site the of ment thedevelop directing and shaping segment market on a specific matrix. in position abetter to would values contribute touristic and tional of func increase appropriate the Thus, values. additional higher to due matrix the in position ahigher occupy Stob pyramids the valu 2 es, both geosites belong to the moderate level. Nevertheless, level. Nevertheless, moderate belong the to geosites both ­es, Devil’s Town Furthermore, the management of each geosite should focus focus should of geosite each management the Furthermore, tangible values?–IlQuaternario, 18/1,293–306. na suavertentegeológica. Viseu: Palimage. doi: 10.1515/geo-20200116 Sokobanja basinineasternSerbia.–Open Geosciences, 12,1468–1485.doi: the of study Case assessment: potential tourism of function in method M-GAM sity –inSpanish].–Juntade Andalucía, Consejeríade Medio Ambiente, 105p. geodiver of conservation the for proposal strategy la geodiversidad [Andalucia 0040 10.1515/geo-2015 doi: 531–546. 7/1, Geoscence., Open geotourists’.– pure and tions inSerbia:comparativeanalysisfromtwoperspectives–generalgeotourists’ Pannonica,19/3, 146–152. Geographica (Vojvodina,Serbia).– Municipality North Crkva Bela the of Case (2015): prirode, 60/1–2,349–358. Zaštita prirode,58/1–2,5–14. 10.2298/IJGI0757065B doi: 65–70. 57, Cvijić, Jovan intituta Geografskog Zbornik nas.– kod i svetu u conservation Research,3/2,62–80.doi:10.30486/gcr.2020.1903486.1023 Geo­ Bridges.– Stone Natural of Evaluation and Exploration Serbia: Carphatian 23/1, 32–46.doi:10.5937/gp23-20463 potential in the Pek River lower basin (eastern Serbia).– Geographica Pannonica, area (eastern Serbia).– Acta Geoturistica, 8/2, 67–78. doi: 10.1515/agta-20170007 ) regarding the main values. Concerning the additional additional the Concerning values. main the regarding ) of the Preliminary Geosite Assessment Model (GAM): The The (GAM): Model Geosite Assessment Preliminary the of Аpplication

(GS 1 ) is most similar to the Stob pyramids pyramids Stob the to similar most is ) Geologia Croatica 74/2 gy ­gy ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ - Geologia Croatica ­ ­ ­ 175 put ka geoturizmu.–ka put -

Dinaridic orogenic system: correlation and evolution of tectonic units.– units.– tectonic of evolution and correlation system: orogenic Dinaridic dova PMF, 50, 17–32. dova PMF, R., DIMITRIJEVIĆ, M. & UROŠEVIĆ, KARAJIČIĆ, LJ., STANISAVLJEVIĆ, M. (1974): Basic Geological Map 1:100.000, Kuršumliја K 34-31, Savezni geološki zavod, Belgrade. As­ Geological Carpathian-Balkan of Congress XIX In: Serbia).– (South complex sociation, Thessaloniki, Greece, 23-26th Akademichno September, Izdatelstvo Academy of Sciences Sofia. Geologica Balcanica, Bulgarian Prof. Marin Drinov, 39/1–2, 253–254. prirodnih predela.– Zaštita prirode 51/2, 133–139. geonasleđa uplaniranju zaštite Zaštita prirode, 53/2, 135–142. book, Sarajevo Publishing, 208 p. book, Sarajevo biji i pravci razvoja.– In: Zbornik radova Drugog naučnog skupa o geonasleđu Srbije, Beograd, 17–21. Srbije. Zavod za zaštitu prirode 3–25. Oxford, Elsevier, Geotourism, (eds.): D. NEWSOME, & R.K. DOWLING, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-6215-4.50009-9 10.23912/978-1-906884-09-3-21 doi: Oxford. Publishers, Goodfellow landscape.– prirode, 50, 439–442. Geotur Acta Hungary.– Geopark, Global UNSECO Bakony–Balaton in periment istica, 9, 1–13. Bologna, 350 p. sessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal).– Geographica Helvetica, 62/3, 159–168. doi: 10.5194/gh-62-159-2007 summa­ English Serbian, (in 1–59. 14, istraživanja, geofizička i geološka za voda ry). phological sites.– Géomorphologie. Relief, processus, environnement, 11/3, ­189–196. doi: 10.4000/geomorphologie.350 speciale), (volume 18/1 Quaternario, Il value.– tourist their on depending sification 313–319. suisses) Alpes (Valais, Sierre Crans-Montana- de régions Les Terre. la de sciences Recherch­ et Travaux françaises).– Alpes (Haute-Savoie, Chamonix-Mont-Blanc et es n 32, Lausanne, Institutde Géographie, 224 p. tions, 17, Belgrade, 77. (in Serbian) 10.1007/ doi: 1–10. 1/1, Geoheritage, heritage.– geological for system evaluation s12371-009-0002-0 Heritage.– Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria, 31/2, 225–230. & REGOLINI-BISSIG, P. G. ­CORATZA, (eds): Geomorphosites. Pfeil Verlag, München, 63–72. Integrated Approach for the Inventory and Management of Geomorphological 10.1007/s12371-015- doi: 43–60. 8, Geoheritage, Scale.– Regional the at Heritage 0153-0 Amsterdam, 482 p. nagement.– Elsevier, opštine području na turizma zelenog razvoja funkciji u resursi Prirodni (2018): N. Kuršumlija.– Ecologica, 25/92, 787–793. of Proceedings Portugal).– (Central monument natural Mondego Cape of heritage doi: 10.1016/j.pgeola.2013.04.005 Association, 125/1, 107–113. the Geologists’ 220 p. Tehran, Samt publisher, Alpine- The (2008): K. USTASZEWSKI, & M. TISCHLER, R., SCHUSTER, S., - Carpathian Swiss Journal of Geosciences, 101/1, 139–183. doi: 10.1007/s00015-008-1247-3 LJEŠEVIĆ, M.A. (2002): Geodiverzitet kao uslov i iskaz životne sredine.– Zbornik ra­ Zbornik sredine.– životne iskaz i uslov kao Geodiverzitet (2002): M.A. LJEŠEVIĆ, MALAŠEVIĆ, M., VUKANOVIĆ, M., BRKOVIĆ, T., ОBRADINOVIĆ, Z., volcanic Lece of deposits Gemstone (2010): V. SIMIĆ, & M. ILIĆ, Z., MILADINOVIĆ, MIJOVIĆ, D. & MILJANOVIĆ, D. (1999): Naučni i obrazovni kriterijumi evaluacije Srbiji u -nasleđa geo objekata Menadžment (2002): D. MIJOVIĆ, MIJOVIĆ, D., D. RUNDIĆ, (2005): LJ. Zaštita & geonasleđa MILOVANOVIĆ, u Sr LEPIRICA, A. LEPIRICA, (2013): Geomorfologija Bosne i Hercegovine.– Biblioteka University NEWSOME, D. & DOWLING, R.K. (2006): The Scope and Nature of Geotourism.– In: Geotourism.– of Nature and Scope The (2006): R.K. DOWLING, & D. NEWSOME, NEWSOME, D. & DOWLING, R.K. (2010): Geotourism: the tourism of geology and Zaštita sad.– i nekad Srbiji u geo-nasleđa Zaštita (1998): D. MIJOVIĆ, & S. NOJKOVIĆ, PĂL, G. M. (2018): ALBERT, & Comparison geotourism assessment An models: ex­ Editrice, Piatogora culturale.– Geomorfologia (2003): S. PIACENTE, & M. PANIZZA, PEREIRA, M.I. PEREIRA, D. ALVES, (2007): P., & Geomorphosite CAETANO ­ as tectonics and metallogeny of D. Lece (1976): massif.– Geology, Rasprave Za­ PEŠUT, geomor of use and potential tourist the assessing for method A (2005): J.P. PRALONG, clas­ sites geomorphological a for proposal A (2005): E. REYNARD, & J.P. PRALONG, (2006): PRALONG, Géotourisme J.P. et utilisation de sites naturels d’intérêt pour les PROTIĆ, D. (1995): Mineral and thermal waters of Serbia.– Geoinstitute, special edi­ andqualification integrated an Approaching (2009): M.H. HENRIQUES, & R.P. REIS, Geomorphological of Promotion Tourist and Research Scientific (2008): E. REYNARD, REYNARD, E. (2009): The assessment of geomorphosites.– In: REYNARD, E., S. (2016): A., BUSSARD, J., GRANGIER, L. & MARTIN, REYNARD, E., PERRET, REYNARD, E. & BRILHA, J. (2018): Assessment, Geoheritage: Protection, and Ma­ MILENTIJEVIĆ,& J. DRAGOJLOVIĆ, M., NIKOLIĆ, D., VUKOIČIĆ, D., RISTIĆ, ROCHA, J., BRILHA, J. Assessment & of HENRIQUES, the M.H. geological(2014): B.N. (2009): Fundamentals SADRY, of Geotourism: with special emphasis on Iran.– SCHEFER, L., MATENCO, B., FÜGENSCHUH, D., BERNOULLI, S.M., SCHMIDT, ­ ­ ­ Appreciating the deep side of landscapes.– In: NO­ In: landscapes.– of side deep the Appreciating - SOME, D. Oxford, (eds.): 221–241. Geotourism. doi: Elsevier, 10.1016/B978-0- 7506-6215-4.50020-8 259–276. 4th Abstracts International Volume, Conference, GEOTOUR 2008, Geotourism and Mining Heritage, Krakow. short Acta introduction.– geographica Slovenica, 51/2, 339–342. doi: 10.3986/ AGS51301 Eu­ South-East and Kingdom United the to Reference Particular with Geotourism -0050-0 rope.– Geoheritage 4/1–2, 25–43. doi: 10.1007/s12371-011 December 2010) Reviews Researches (M-GAM).– model assessment geosite modified the applying 113–125. 47/2, Management, Hotel and Tourism Geography, of Department the of Novi pogledi na razvoj vulkanizma u području leckog andezitskog kompleksa.– Geol. anali balk. pol., 37/2, 165–177. Australia. Melbourne. (http://web.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/ Geological Society of Joyce/heritage/GeotourismReviewebj.htm) reinterpretation of BOSIĆ, A the D. geological (2017): map of northwestern part of Complex.–- Lece In: Volcanic Alpine 13th on Workshop Geological Studies, Zlatibor Mts., Belgrade, University of Belgrade-Faculty of Mining and Geology. Geo­ Massif.– Serbo-Macedonian the and zone Vardar the of Dinarides the in tism logica Macedonica, 6/1, 127–186. 7, 57–79. nje Podrinje.– Zbornik radova PMF, VELLI, M. (ed.): Niche Tourism: Contemporary issues, trends and cases. Elsevier cases. and trends issues, Contemporary Tourism: Niche (ed.): M. VELLI, Science, Oxford, 27–37. vation Promotion for In: & Tourists.– BARRETINO, D., WIMBLEDON, W.P. GALLEGO, E. (eds.): Geological Heritage: Its Conservation and Management. Geominero de Espana, 127–146. Tecnologico Madrid: Instituto tion.– In: BUREK, C.V. & PROSSER, The C.D. History (eds.): of Geoconserva­ tion.– In: BUREK, C.V. doi: 10.1144/SP300.1 London, 1–5. Society, tion. Geological February 2017). (accessed: 22 http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/ Retrieved from: Quaternario, 18/1, 307–313. of geomorphosites.– Il scientific quality PEU, Resavica, 315 p. Gold.– JP Rudarsko-geološkog fakulteta, 6, 1–32. 7, 333–345. formacije“.– Geološki glasnik, Zbornik tal Radova geodiversity.– Geografskog Fakulteta u Beogradu, 54, 5–18. (in Serbian). 10.1007/s12371-010-0024-7 style mineraliza­ Spatial and temporal relations between epithermal and porphyry tion in the Lece Magmatic Complex, Serbia.– Poster in SEG Conference 2014, Keystone, CO, USA. geological Basic (2020): Belgrade) of University Geology, and Mining of Faculty Development and Environmental Protection map. Belgrade: Ministry of Energy, ­ (accessed: 05 Sep of Republic of Serbia. Retrieved from http://geoliss.mre.gov.rs tember 2020). tural heritage (the protection of the geotopes, a new task in geomorphology).– Noosfera, 3, 59–65. -7878(08)80307-0 -4, 287–298. doi: 10.1016/S0016 119/3 Association, gists’ U.K. well. Chichester, HOSE, T.A. HOSE, (2007): T.A. Geotourism Almeria in province, southeast Spain.– 55, Tourism, In: Implications.– Management its and Geotourism of Genesis The (2008): T.A. HOSE, HOSE, MARKOVIĆ, T.A., S.B., KOMAC, B. & ZORN, M. (2011): Geotourism – a Modern of Purpose and Nature the Defining (2012): Đ.A. VASILJEVIĆ, & T.A. HOSE, 4(accessed: -nis.org.rs/) (http://www.izjz NIS: OF HEALTH PUBLIC OF INSTITUTE bygeosites canyon Bryce and town s Devil of analysis Comparative (2018): V. JONIĆ, M., S. KARAJIČIĆ, & JOVANOVIĆ, VUKANOVIĆ, Lj., M. KARAMATA, (1972): JOYCE, E.B. (2006): Geomorphological Sites and the New Geotourism Australia.– in KOSTIĆ, B., ŠARIĆ, K., KRSTEKANIĆ, CVETKOVIĆ, N., N. V., PANTELIĆ, & magma Tertiary (1992): al. et T. SERAFIMOVSKI, R., STOJANOV, S., KARAMATA, Gor­ mezoregiji u turizma razvoj za mogućnosti i uslovi Prirodni (2010): A. LEPIRICA, HOSE, T.A. HOSE, (2005b): T.A. Geotourism and Interpretation.– In: DOWLING, R.K. & NEW Tourism Geo-Tourism (2005a): T.A. HOSE, Vukoičić et al.: Assessment of the Geotouristic Values of Devil’s Serbia Town, introduc­ an geoconservation: of history The (2008): C.D. PROSSER, & C.V. BUREK, 90m Digital Elevation Data. CGIAR 2017. Consortium for Spatial Information. SRTM the of assessment the for proposal Methodological (2005): C. GIUSTI, & P. CORATZA, ĆUZOVIĆ, M., STAJIĆ, D. & OSTOJIĆ, M. (2004): From Unhealthy Rock to Black Zbornik Jablanice.– škriljci Kristalasti (1958): N. DRAKULIĆ, & M. DIMITRIJEVIĆ, DIMITRIJEVIĆ, M.D. & DIMITRIJEVIĆ, M.N. (1974): O genezi ”Dijabaz-rožnačke (accessed: 28 February 2017). http://www.djavoljavaros.com/ VAROŠ: DJAVOLJA to ­ its of -Representative Serbia of Geoheritage (2006): D. MIJOVIĆ, & P. DJUROVIĆ, DOWLING, R.K. Global (2011): Geotourism’s Growth.– Geoheritage, 3/1, 1–13. doi: (2014): S. GLISIC, & Ph. FOX, R., TOSDAL, C., HART, A., MISKOVIC, D., DRAGIĆ, team GeolISS by publishing Web Serbia; of System Information (Geological GEOLISS na­ of management and Geomorphology (1997): A. SZEPESI, & V. GRANDGIRARD, M. (2008): Geodiversity: developing the paradigm.– Proceedings of the Geolo­ GRAY, -Black­ Wiley Nature.– Abiotic Conserving and Valuing Geodiversity: (2013): M. GRAY, (2000): European Geotourism – Geological Interpretation T.A. HOSE, and Geoconser Geologia Croatica TOMIĆ, N. & KOŠIĆ, K. (2020): Developing the Spa Assessment Model (SAM) and and (SAM) Model Spa Assessment the Developing (2020): K. KOŠIĆ, & N. TOMIĆ, TOMIĆ, N., MARKOVIĆ, S., ANTIĆ, A. & TEŠIĆ, D. (2020): Exploring the potential TOMIĆ, N., MARKOVIĆ, B.S., KORAĆ, M., MRĐIĆ, N., HOSE, A.T., VASILJEVIĆ, TOMIĆ, N. & BOŽIĆ, S. (2014): A modified Geosite Assessment Model (M-GAM) and TOMIĆ, N. (2011): The potential of Lazar Canyon (Serbia) as a geotourism destination: & B.S. MARKOVIĆ, M., ZORN, VALJEVAC, B.M., N., TOMIĆ, J., TIČAR, STANKOVIĆ, S.M. (2004): Turistička valorizacija geomorfoloških objekata geo-nasleđa Ser STAJEVIĆ, (southern field ore Lece the in gold of haloes Geochemical (2004): B. MILOVANOVIĆ,PAPOVIĆ,O., D., SREĆKOVIĆ-BATOĆANIN, VUKOIČIĆ, D., SÜTÖOVÁ, A., ZGODAVOVÁ, K. & LAJCZYKOVÁ, M. (2018): Quality and Effec­ SKINNER, B.J. & PORTER, S.C. (2000): The Dynamic Earth: An Introduction to Physi­ geomorphosites (2005): of J.J. Assessment GONZÁLEZ-TRUEBA, & E. SERRANO, SERAFIMOVSKI, T. (1990): Metallogeny of the Lece-Chalkidiki Zone.– Unpub. Ph.D. 176 ment Perspectives,36,100753.doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100753 Tourism­ Manage (Serbia).– zone spa Kopaonik-Jastrebac the on application its of GeoheritageandParks,8/2,123–139. for geotourismdevelopmentintheDanuberegionofSerbia.–InternationalJournal nal, 372/22,142–150.doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.12.026 Internatio­ Quaternary park.– palaeontological public to discovery research loess GAVRILOV, From & mammoths: M. Exposing JOVIČIĆ, (2015): A.Đ., B.M. ronmental Research,8/4,1041–1052. its Application on the Lazar Canyon area (Serbia).– International Journal of Envi­ inventory andevaluation.–GeographicaPannonica,15/3,103–112. 10.1515/geo-20180027 doi: 344–357. 10/1, Geoscience, Open protection.– geoheritage and tourism mass between balancing GAVRILOV, Slovenia: in Speleotourism (2018): B.M. Srbije.– GlasnikSrpskoggeografskogdruštva,84/1,79–88. doi: 10.2298/GABP0301093S bia).– 93–99. (2002–2003), 65 Balkanique, Péninsule la de Géologiques Annales Serbian, withEnglishabstract). OGY touristic potentials.– In: Proceedings of the International Symposium GEOECOL­ ĐEKIĆ, & D. KIĆOVIĆ, T.D., Devil’s(2010): and development of City-history Montanistica Slovaca,23/1,18–25. Acta Method.– CEDAC Using Services Geological the of Evaluation tiveness Wiley &Sons,575p. cal Geology, 4th Edition.– American Museum of Natural History, New York; John morphologie.364 10.4000/geo­ doi: 197–208. 11/3, environnement, processus, Formes, phologie. Géomor (Spain).– Park National Europa de Picos the areas: protected natural in Thesis. UniversityofŠtip,Macedonia,380p.(inMacedonian) -XXI CENTURY, GEOECO, Žabljak -Nikšić, 21-24 September, 257–268. (in ­ ­ TOMIĆ, N., SEPEHRIANNASAB, B., MARKOVIĆ, S.B., HAO, Q. & LOBO, H.A.S. ZOUROS, N.C. (2007): Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas a matrix: comparative sciences Earth WAKELIN(2014): & G.A. S. -KING, WHITE, VUKOVIĆ, S. & ANTIĆ, A. (2019): Speleological Approach for Geotourism Develop­ & M. NIKOLIĆ, A., VALJAREVIĆ, S., MILOSAVLJEVIĆ, D., VUKOIČIĆ, LJ., KARAJIČIĆ, M., DIMITRIJEVIĆ, M., DIMITRIJEVIĆ, M., VUKANOVIĆ, T.,T.A.,LUKIĆ, HOSE, S.B., VASILJEVIĆ, MARKOVIĆ, M.D., D.A., VUJIČIĆ, i zaštite Vojvodinefunkciji geonasleđe u i Geodiverzitet VASILJEVIĆ,(2015): DJ.A. O’HARA- SMALLEY,I., T.A., HOSE, S.B., MARKOVIĆ, VASILJEVIĆ,DJ.A., VALJAREVIĆ, A., VUKOIČIĆ, D. & VALJAREVIĆ, D. (2017): Evaluation of the tou­ D. PERIĆ, & VALJAREVIĆ,D. SREĆKOVIĆ-BATOĆANIN,ŽIVKOVIĆ, A., D., TOSDAL, R.M. (2012): U-Pb SHRIMP-RG ages and trace element geochemistry of the Canyon andofJinns.–Sustainability, 13/2, 798. (2021): Exploring the Preferences of Iranian Geotourists: Case Study of Shadows Helvetica, 62/3,169–180.doi:10.5194/gh-621692007 Geographica geomorphosites.– coastal island Lesvos the of case The Greece. of 168–181. doi:10.1111/1745-5871.12062 52/2, research, Geographical assessment.– geoheritage for method comparative zam23-21325 ment in Zlatibor County (West Serbia).– Turizam, 23/1, 53–68. doi: 10.5937/turi ­ 10.1515/geo-20180049 tory of National Park „Kopaonik“ (Serbia).– Open Geoscience, 10, 618–633. doi: terri­ the in geosites of evaluation SREĆKOVIĆ-BATOĆANIN,The (2018): D. 1:100.000, sheetPodujevoK34-43,Saveznigeološkizavod,Belgrade. Map M., Geological Basic (1975): ATIN, MALEŠEVIĆ, B. & R. SERDAR, S., M., TRIFUNOVIĆ, UROŠEVIĆ, M., NAVALA, D., RAJČEVIĆ, AGS51303 10.3986/ doi: 361–377. 51/2, Slovenica, Geographica Acta Serbia.– of nation (GAM) and its application on Fruška Gora Mountain, potential geotourism desti­ model assessment geosite Preliminary (2011): S. JANIĆEVIĆ, & O. HADŽIĆ, Prirodno-matematički fakultet,UniverzitetuNovomSadu. turizma. Doktorska disertacija.– Departman za geografiju, turizam i hotelijerstvo, Acta geographicaSlovenica,51/3,391–406. (geo) tourism – proposed application onloess in Vojvodina region (north Serbia).– DHAND, K., BASARIN, B., LUKIĆ, T. & VUJIČIĆ, M.D. (2011): Loess towards Perspectives, 22,7–16.doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2016.12.004 rist potential and natural attractivity of the Lukovska Spa.– Tourism Management Acta MontanisticaSlovaca,20/2,148–155. (2015): GIS analysis of dissipation time of landscape in the Devil’s city (Serbia).– Resources doointernalreport,21p. and Dunav Kiseljak Serbia.– YellowSouthern prospects, Cu-Au porphyry Creek su13020798 Geologia Croatica 74/2

o: 10.3390/ doi: