Canyons and Gorges As Potential Geotourism Destinations in Serbia: Comparative Analysis from Two Perspectives – General Geotourists’ and Pure Geotourists’

Open Geosci. 2015; 7:531–546

Research Article Open Access

Sanja Božić and Nemanja Tomić* Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia: comparative analysis from two perspectives – general geotourists’ and pure geotourists’

DOI 10.1515/geo-2015-0040 1 Introduction Received July 03, 2014; accepted December 06, 2014

Abstract: Serbia represents one of those countries which Since the late 18th century, canyons and gorges have have not yet dierentiated themselves on the world become popular tourist destinations. This trend contin- tourism map. However, it has an immense but still unre- ues to the modern day, when a large number of people vealed potential for geotourism development. In this pa- visit these popular sites every year. Places like the Grand per we analyzed several remarkable canyons and gorges Canyon (USA), Antelope Canyon (USA), Verdon Gorge of great scientic importance and geotourism potential. (France), Samaria Gorge (Crete), Three Gorges (China), These sites include the Djerdap Gorge and Lazar River Vintgar Gorge (Slovenia) and Tara Canyon (Montenegro) Canyon, located in Eastern Serbia and the Ovčar-Kablar are certainly among the most popular geotourism attrac- Gorge and Uvac Canyon located in Western Serbia. One of tions today. the main goals of this paper was to analyze and compare In recent years, there has been a rapid expansion of the current state and tourism potential of these geosites by tourism interest in such geological formations and land- using the M-GAM model for geosite assessment. However, scapes [1]. Due to this fact, geoheritage has become an im- the principal aim of the paper is to analyze how important portant part of the tourist oer of many countries. This is is each subindicator in the assessment process for dier- especially the case in some countries that are still outside ent market segments. In this paper, we also analyzed how of major tourism ows and are competing for their posi- giving dierent importance to subindicators can inuence tion on the global tourism market. The potential tourist at- the position of the geosites in the matrix indicating dif- tractions of these countries are still unrevealed and new to ferent assessment done by two chosen market segments. most of the world. The research showed that general geotourists appreciate Moreover, new trends on the world tourism market put considerably dierent values when assessing a geosite in these countries in a favorable position. The fact is that comparison to pure geotourists. The paper can be used as tourists are becoming more sophisticated than they used framework for developing the tourism management strat- to be in the past [2], so they want more than just a clas- egy of geosites taking into consideration the needs and sic vacation at popular destinations of mass tourism. They preferences of the target market segments. want to discover and explore new places and visit destinations ‘o the beaten track’ which do not have an im- Keywords: geotourism; market segments; geosites; age of developed tourism destinations [3]. Thus, the coun- canyons; M-GAM (Modied Geosite Assessment Model); tries that possess undiscovered places with pristine envi- Serbia ronment and which do not focus on mass tourism have a great advantage on the global tourism market. Serbia represents one of those countries which have not yet dierentiated themselves on the world tourism map. Its rich geodiversity lies in the fact that it possesses approximately 650 distinctive geosites [4]. Among these sites there are several remarkable canyons and gorges of Sanja Božić: University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Depart- great scientic importance and geotourism potential. Nev- ment of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Trg Dositeja ertheless, geotourists in Serbia still represent a small mar- Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia, ket niche, as it is also the case in the rest of the world [5, 6], *Corresponding Author: Nemanja Tomić: University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel while the country’s immense potential is not adequately Management, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia, used for geotourism development [7]. E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 S. Božić and N. Tomić, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. The article is published with open access at www.degruyter.com. Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM 532 Ë S. Božić and N. Tomić

According to a denition by Newsome and Dowling [8] stand these geosites in a good stead for providing visitors geotourism specically focuses on geology, geomorphol- with enhanced experience in future. ogy and landscape. It promotes tourism to geosites and Since geotourism is focused on geology and geomor- the conservation of geo-diversity and an understanding phology, most tourists visiting geosites in Serbia belong of Earth sciences through appreciation and learning. This to a small market segment which already possesses some is achieved through independent visits to geological fea- knowledge in geology and other related elds. Apart from tures, use of geo-trails and view points, guided tours, geo- them, geosites in Serbia are increasingly visited by tourists activities and patronage of geosite visitor centers. How- who have very little or no interest and knowledge in geol- ever, geotourism has been redened by Hose who pro- ogy. They are mainly interested in other aspects of geosites vided a comprehensive denition of geotourism: “The pro- such as aesthetic and other additional values which are vision of interpretative and service facilities for geosites their primary motives for visit. This raises the question of and geomorphosites and their encompassing topography, how well is one geosite adjusted to dierent market seg- together with their associated in-situ and ex-situ artefacts, ments. to constituency-build for their conservation by generating For the purpose of this paper, we selected two canyons appreciation, learning and research by and for current and and two gorges as good representatives of the geomorpho- future generations” [9]. logical heritage of Serbia. Very few of the mentioned activities and facilities According to Goudie’s [13] encyclopedia of geomor- are currently present at geosites in Serbia, especially at phology, gorges may be hundreds of meters deep and are canyons and gorges. Geotourism at these places is still caused either by incision of a river against an uplifting largely based on self-guided tours which usually do not of- landmass, the superimposition of a channel across resis- fer the same quality experience as tours with professional tant rock, the outburst of oodwaters across a landscape, guides. The problem lies in the fact that majority of those or by the head-ward retreat of a knickpoint or waterfall. places does not have brochures and maps of geosite attrac- The same author also states that canyons are similar to tions to underpin those self-guided tours. One of the main gorges, but the side-walls are usually not as steep, and reasons for this current situation is closely related to the canyons are typically larger than gorges (e.g. the Grand management of these sites which has done very little in Canyon contains an ‘Inner Gorge’ through which the Col- order to enhance the visitors’ experience and attract more orado River runs). Canyons are formed by running water tourists to visit these places. and they present a long, deep, relatively narrow, steep- For instance, there are no websites and virtual tours sided valley, often cut through bedrock which forms pre- as important interactive tools whose main purpose is to in- cipitous clis along the valley walls. The term is typically form potential visitors and entice them to visit these sites. used for such features in arid and semi-arid regions, such In addition, the absence of interpretive panels, trekking as the western United States (e.g. the Grand Canyon in routes and visitor centers also contributes to a low qual- Arizona, USA). They are typical of mountainous regions, ity visitors’ experience [10]. In order to avoid the possible but are also found cutting high-elevation plateaus (e.g. the problem where the increase in number of tourists could re- Black Canyon of the Gunnison on the Colorado Plateau duce the visitors’ experience, the management should fo- in Colorado, USA). They occur where stream erosion sig- cus on more frequent but smaller groups of tourists which nicantly outpaces weathering. Streams in canyons fre- would enable an increase in visitor numbers but at the quently ow through bedrock channels. same time contribute to a higher quality of individual ex- However, in our case, it is dicult to distinguish what perience. is a canyon and what is a gorge according to these deni- There is a need for the visitor to be involved in the ex- tions which tend to be imprecise when it comes to the four perience. The more knowledgeable the visitors are about geosites that are analyzed in this paper. Marković, Pavlović the site, the more involved and interested they become and Čupković [14] give a more suitable and concrete deni- – they engage and develop empathy towards the visited tion which distinguishes gorges and canyons according to site [11]. The scholarly market wishes to engage and there- the shape of the cross-section and its depth (H) and width fore considers the place as special with a need to interact (D). This denition states that a gorge has a depth which in both a tangible and intangible manner. However, the is approximately equal to one half of its width (H ∼ D/2) general market segment needs to be entertained. As geo- and the incline of the valley sides is around 45°. A canyon tourism requires the provision of interpretive and service has a depth which is greater than one half of its width facilities to enable tourists to acquire knowledge about (H > D/2) and an incline of the valley sides of at least geosites [9, 12] introducing these types of facilities could 60° with completely vertical sides in some parts of the val-

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia Ë 533 ley. The canyon sides begin directly from the river bed and There should be a ne balance between providing an there is no alluvial plain. For the purpose of this paper, the experience that will cater for the specialized groups (pure authors used these denitions in order to determine what geotourists), but yet is attractive enough to the more casual is a canyon and what is a gorge. tourist (general geotourists) resulting in a positive experi- The selected and analyzed geosites include the Djer- ence for them and economic benet for the site and pos- dap Gorge and the Lazar River Canyon, located in Eastern sibly the local community [16]. Focusing the marketing of Serbia and the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge and Uvac Canyon lo- geosites towards identifying the special requirements and cated in Western Serbia. Geotourism at these sites is still needs of market segments will help to create ‘market t’ poorly developed even though each of them possesses ir- [11]. In order to shape the tourism product according to the refutable scientic and aesthetic qualities. In this paper needs and preferences of dierent market segments and we analyzed and compared the current state and tourism to create the market t, the authors of this paper intro- potential of these geosites by using the M-GAM (Modied duced the Importance factor (Im) in the geosite assessment Geosite Assessment Model) model for geosite assessment which indicates how important each subindicator is in the [15]. assessment for each market segment and if there is a major However, the main goal of the paper is to analyze how dierence between them. important is each subindicator in the assessment process As geotourism is a relatively newly dened subsector for dierent market segments. This is based on the fact that of natural area tourism [17, 18], it does not have a long not all criteria in the assessment can be equally impor- history of investigation into the specic types of tourists tant for dierent market segments. By using the M-GAM who are attracted to the geotourism product. The emer- model on the four selected geosites, our intention is to gence of a specic geotourist typology model, which pro- show which subindicators most inuence tourists’ opinion vides a better understanding of the segments within this when giving preference to one geosite over another. This niche tourism market, will contribute to a more tailored kind of information could be crucial for tourism planning geotourism product development and marketing [19]. at geosites as it can be useful in adjusting and shaping the In order to determine geotourism market segments geotourism oer towards a specic market segment. After- several studies have been conducted in the past. A ma- wards, we will analyze and compare the results of the as- jor geotourism study and audit in the mid-1990s’ [20, 21] sessment for both segments in order to see how the dier- investigated the prole of geotourists and identied two ence in importance for each subindicator aects the nal main groups of geotourists: families with children and result of the assessment. mature couples. Mao, Robinson and Dowling [22] also explored the motivations of geoscientists as geotourists. They found that this group likes to travel alone and their main motivation was to increase knowledge. An investigation of geotourism in Hawaii conducted by King [23] cate- 2 Theoretical overview gorized visitors participating in some geotourism-related activities according to life cycle stages including newly- Geotourism can either be primarily focused on the geolog- weds/honeymooners, families, young, middle-aged and ical product or it can be focused on the markets that poten- seniors. Kim, Kim, Park and Guo [19] developed geotourist tially may nd this type of product attractive [11]. Better un- clusters on the basis of the survey of visitors to Hwanseon derstanding of needs and preferences of dierent market Cave in South Korea. These four groups were labeled segments visiting geosites is important in terms of iden- as follows: escape-seeking, knowledge novelty-seeking, tication of a specic product. Thus, the geosite manage- novelty-seeking and socialisation. Research by Hose [17] ment should direct their focus towards the requirements identied two main typologies within geotourism: the of the targeted market segment. It is important to mention ‘dedicated geotourist’ who places great importance on per- that, in terms of geoheritage sites, attracting the limited sonal education/intellectual gain and enjoyment, and the market segment (in this context the niche segment of geo- ‘casual geotourist’ who prioritises pleasure. This approach tourists) by a specially tailored product, could contribute of categorizing is similar to the model constructed later in to the sustainable geosite, both economically and environ- the study of Hurtado, Dowling and Sanders [24] which ap- mentally. Those specically tailored products should also plied the McKercher’s cultural tourism typology on geo- focus further on both targeting the potential and current tourism. However, this study indicated many layers in be- visitors and seek to position themselves within the tourism tween the two which were given by Hose [17]. Hose [25] also sector. developed a detailed typology of dedicated geotourists

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM 534 Ë S. Božić and N. Tomić based on observational studies, identifying up to 13 sub- categories. Hurtado et al. [24] indentied ve types of geotourists: The purposeful geotourist, the intentional geotourist, the serendipitous geotourist, the accidental geotourist and the incidental geotourist. When determining the market segments for this study we focused on Hose’s [17] typology and derived two market segments – general (accidental) geotourists which can be related to Hose’s casual geotourist (individuals who visit geosites and exhibits primarily for the purpose of pleasure and some limited intellectual stimulation) and pure geotourists (individuals who purposefully select to visit geosites and exhibits for the purpose of personal educational or intellectual improvement and enjoyment) which can be related to Hose’s dedicated geotourists. The reason for choosing this typology lies in the fact that geotourism in Serbia is still not developed on a larger scale so we cannot derive such a detailed typology with many distinctive layers as the one presented by Hurtado et al. [24]. In order to ascertain the attractiveness of the geotourism product to dierent markets, we introduced the evaluation of importance of each subindicator in the M- GAM model by two major market segments that visit geosites in Serbia – general geotourists and pure geotourists. Figure 1: Position of the analyzed geosites.

the valley began. The incision of the Lazar River Canyon 3 Study area was not continuous which is evident from several river ter- races. The rst one is approximately at 750 meters above Serbia is a country located in Southeastern Europe. The sea level, the second one at 430 meters at the same level numerous canyons and gorges are widespread throughout as the Vernjikica Cave, the third one at 340 meters and the the country representing valuable geoheritage sites with nal one at 291 meters at the same level as Lazar Cave. The great potential for future geotourism development. For the canyon is also unique for its variety of surface and under- purpose of this paper, we selected four most representa- ground karst relief forms such as karst valleys, sinkholes, tive canyons and gorges in Serbia (Figure 1) which are de- caves and caverns, the most signicant being Lazar Cave scribed below. and Vernjikica Cave. The greatest depth of the canyon is The Lazar River Canyon is located in the region of at the Kovej site (375 m). The canyon bottom narrows in Eastern Serbia, within 10 km from the town of Bor. It is re- some places between three and four meters and through- puted to be one of the deepest, most inhospitable and im- out the canyon there is a great number of boulders (Figure passable canyons in Serbia with a length of 4400 m. The 3), rocky towers and cascades that occasionally turn into canyon was mostly formed by uvial erosion of the Lazar waterfalls. The most prominent rock tower (150 m high) is River and it is carved into the Jurassic banked and reef located at the juncture of Mikulj River Canyon and Lazar limestones of the Dubasnica karst plateau (Figure 2). These Canyon (Figure 4). The canyon is sheltered by rocky moun- limestones have a high percentage of calcium-carbonate tain reefs from all sides: to the south and southwest there (90-95%) and contain numerous fossil remains of corals, is Malinik (1087 m), to the north Strnjak (720 m) and Ko- snails, shells and sponges. The overall depth of these sed- rnjet (696 m) and to the west there are Pogara (883 m) and iments is from 250 m to 400 m in some parts. The canyon Mikulja (1022 m) [26]. is joined by the smaller canyons of Mikulj, Demizlok and The Uvac River Canyon is a part of the ‘Uvac Special Vej rivers. It is notable for its vertical limestone clis with Nature Reserve’ located in the region of Western Serbia, on a attened limestone plateau from which the carving of the north side of the Pešter plateau. The canyon begins at

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia Ë 535

Figure 2: Jurassic banked and reef limestone clis of the Lazar River Figure 4: The rock tower located at the junction of Mikulj and Lazar Canyon. Canyon.

the point where the Uvac River merges with the Vapa River. The Uvac River waters deeply carved its bed eroding limestone rocks to form narrow canyon valleys with high, steep limestone clis. The canyon is formed in lower and middle Triassic banked and reef limestones downstream from the Zlatar Lake, and from middle and upper Jurassic marly limestones with cherts located upstream from Zlatar Lake [27]. The depth of the canyon on the left side is about 200 m, and around 250 - 300 m at the right side. The sides of the canyon are steep, almost vertical in some places, but the right side is higher by almost 100 m, which suggests the existence of anomalies in the cross section [28]. The entrenched meanders represent one of the most alluring and distinctive features of the canyon (Figure 5). Certain meanders have a meander angle greater than 270°. The mor- phology of meanders within the partially submerged valley (due to an articial lake used for hydroelectric power stations) of the Uvac River with the mentioned large meander angle represents a special aesthetic value of this area. By the number of entrenched meanders (around 10) the Uvac River Canyon represents a very rare example of its kind in the world. This area is also characterized by karst landforms with numerous karst formations: karst plains, karst depressions, karst sinkholes, caves and pits. Caves are numerous and vary in size, ranging from rock shelters to the Usac Cave System, one of the largest cave systems in Serbia, consisting of two caves and one pit with inter- connected canals that are a total of 6185 meters in length. These caves are very rich in speleothem deposited by the action of dripping water to form stalactites, stalagmites, columns and other similar cave features [29]. Ovčarsko-Kablarska Gorge Figure 3: Rocks and boulders at the Lazar Canyon entrance. is a part of the composite valley of the Zapadna Morava River, and it represents the deepest and the most prominent part of its valley which is about 20 km long. The gorge begins near the Tuckovo village and ends upstream from the conuence of the Ka-

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM 536 Ë S. Božić and N. Tomić

Figure 5: The entrenched meanders of the Uvac River Canyon.

Figure 6: The incised meanders of The Zapadna Morava River. menica River. It is carved in Triassic limestones and Cre- taceous serpentinites and peridotites [30]. The maximum depth of the Ovčarsko-Kablarska Gorge is in its central part (710 m). The main morphological characteristic of the Ovčarsko-Kablarska Gorge is presented by pronounced bends of the Zapadna Morava River with remarkable aesthetic value of its incised meanders (Figure 6). These spec- tacular uvial landforms can be regarded as a main tourist attraction. On the sides of the gorge there are numerous viewpoints. The most attractive one is at the Kablar Moun- tain top (885 m), oering a fanciful view of the curving meanders of the Zapadna Morava River (Figure 6). There are also some geological forms interesting for tourists who are engaged in the collection of rocks and fossils. On the left side of the Zapadna Morava River, opposite the Kadenica Figure 7: The Boljetinska River Canyon. Cave, is the bend that has been built from pure calcite - a crystalline form. Slightly upstream, in a small limestone quarry, interesting fossils of marine organisms can a special place belongs to the area of Veliki Štrbac, and the be found. There are also several remains of debris cones, gorges of Mali and Veliki Kazan (Figure 8) – the ‘Gate of Eu- slumps and rockslides throughout the gorge. In the Rapa- rope’ – where the Danube is the narrowest (140 m) and the jlovača village, on the left bank, in the area of the curving deepest (90 m). meanders, there is an open prole which should be an es- Djerdap’s morphological features indicate that the sential point for all professional tours. gorge was created by the river successively gnawing away The Djerdap National Park is the largest national park at the clis of the Carpathian Mountains, leaving behind in Serbia, situated in the northeastern part of the country steep and occasionally vertical cli face towering above on the right bank of the Danube River and Djerdap Lake. the river up to 800 meters in height. The Djerdap area According to international criteria it is considered to be is characterized by an immense diversity of geological a nature reserve while according to national criteria it is forms which include sedimentary rocks, granitoid intru- proclaimed as a natural wealth of high importance [31]. sions and metamorphic rocks, formed from the Paleozoic The most prominent part of the Djerdap National Park is to the present day. There are around ten dierent theories the Djerdap Gorge also known as the Iron Gates, which related to its origin however this dilemma still remains to is composite and consists of four narrowed parts – gorges be denitively resolved as scientists are still tackling this (Golubac Gorge, Gospodjin Vir with the Boljetinska River issue. Canyon (Figure 7), Kazan and the Sip Gorge), and three The oldest rocks are present in the Homolje crys- widening parts – valleys, which alternate within a length talline which is composed of two Proterozoic complexes. of 100 km making this gorge the longest and largest break- The lower one consists of plagioclase gneiss, overlain by through gorge in Europe. Among geomorphological forms, various types of slate. The Miroč unit also has chlorite-

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia Ë 537

equations. The authors consider that the nal results are now more objective and accurate due to the addition of the importance factor (Im). This parameter is determined by visitors who rate it in the same way as experts rate the subindicators for Main (MV) and Additional Values (AV) by giving them one of the following numerical values: 0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00, marked as points. The importance factor (Im) is dened, as: PK Iν Im k=1 k = K , (1)

where Iνk is the assessment/score of one visitor for each Figure 8: The ‘Gate of Europe’ – gorges of Veliki and Mali Kazan. subindicator and K is the total number of visitors. Note that the Im parameter can have any value in the range sericite and actinolite slate, with Precambrian to Ordovi- from 0.00 to 1.00. cian gabbro rocks, overlain by a transgressive succession of Silurian-Devonian sandstone, slate and limestone, over Finally, the modied GAM equation is dened and pre- 250 meters thick, followed by Lower Carboniferous lime- sented in the following form: stone and tu-conglomerate, Middle Carboniferous coal- M˘GAM = Im(GAM) = (MV + AV). (2) bearing clastic rocks, with intrusions of porphyry and rhy- odacite, and most of all with Permian red sandstone. They As it can be seen from the M − GAM equation, the are overlain by a transgessive succession of Liassic clas- value of the importance factor (Im) is multiplied with the tic rocks, limestone, sandstone, schist and ferrous lime- value that was given by experts (GAM). This was done stone. Moving further up, there is a gradual sequence of for each subindicator SIMVi (presents 12 subindicators limestone slabs with int stone and marly limestone with (i = 1,...., 12) for the Main Values) and SIAVj (presents abundant ammonite fauna [32]. 15 subindicators (j = 1,...., 15) for Additional Values). Therefore, the values of M − GAM sub-indicators are al- ways equal or less than GAM values [15]. 4 Methodology 4.1 Sample prole The methodology of this study is based upon the ‘modied geosite assessment model’ (M-GAM), developed by the au- A total of 293 visitors were included in the survey. The thors of this paper. The M-GAM represents a modication research was based on two dierent tourism market seg- of the GAM model created by Vujičić et al. [33]. While in ments – general geotourists and pure geotourists. The GAM all grades for each subindicator are given by experts, respondents were divided into two categories, depend- M-GAM focuses not only on the expert’s opinion but also ing on their main motive of visit, but also the existence on the opinion of visitors and tourists regarding the impor- of previous knowledge about geology and geomorphol- tance of each indicator in the assessment process. ogy. The sample included a total of 90 (30.7%) pure geo- For the purpose of this paper, we conducted a survey tourists - people whose main motive of visit is primarly where each respondent was asked to rate the importance related to geology and geomorphology. The rest of the (Im) of all 27 subindicators (from 0.00 to 1.00) in GAM (Ta- respondents (69.3%) fall within the category of general ble 3). The importance factor (Im) gives visitors the oppor- geotourists. Table 1 presents the number of general geo- tunity to express their opinion about each subindicator in tourists and pure geotourists included in the survey at the model and how important it is for them when choos- each analyzed geosite, while distribution of their socio- ing and deciding between several geosites that they wish demographic characteristics is further described in Ta- to visit. Afterwards, the subindicator values given by ex- ble 2. perts (also from 0.00 to 1.00) were multiplied with the im- From Table 2 we can see that the average age of the portance factor (Im). This was done for each subindicator entire sample is 35.8 years. When comparing the proles in the model after which we got the new total values (Ta- of general and pure geotourists we can notice that there ble 3) which were then added up according to the M-GAM are more visitors with higher education (faculty, master

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM 538 Ë S. Božić and N. Tomić

Table 1: Number of General geotourists and Pure geotourists surveyed at each geosite.

Geosite Label General geotourists Pure geotourists Σ

Lazar Canyon – GS1 83 21 104 Djerdap Gorge – GS2 26 31 57 Ovčar-Kablar Gorge – GS3 76 13 89 Uvac Canyon – GS4 18 25 43 Σ 203 90 293

Table 2: The socio-demographic prole of the respondents.

General geotourists Pure geotourists Whole sample Gender Male 69.45% 75.55% 71.33% Female 30.55% 24.45% 28.67% Average age 33.4 38.2 35.8 Education level Secondary school 36.94% 16.66% 30.71% Higher school 6.89% 7.79% 7.16% Faculty/Master degree 52.21% 51.11% 51.87% PhD 3.94% 24.44% 10.23% degree and PhD) among pure geotourists. This can be ex- By pure (dedicated) geotourists in this paper we con- plained by the fact that the majority of pure geotourists sider geologists, geomorphologists and people with a great are researchers and highly educated people whose job is pre-existing interest and knowledge in geology. Unlike related to this eld. On the other hand, people with sec- general geotourists, their principal motive for visiting ondary education are more driven by motives other than these sites is pure interest in geological and geomorpho- geology and geomorphology. The general impression is logical processes which inuenced the creation of these that men are more frequent visitors of these geosites than geosites. The category of pure geotourists encompasses women in both categories of visitors. both professionals (visitors whose job is related to ge- The major distinction between two categories of geo- ology and geomorphology) and non-professionals (visi- tourists analyzed in this paper (general geotourist and tors mainly motivated by geo-values, with some previous pure geotourists) is in their main motivation for visit of knowledge about it, but whose profession is not related to geosites as well as the existence or absence of previous this eld). It is important to mention that pure geotourists, knowledge about geology and geomorphology. who fall in the group of professionals, do not only visit By general geotourists we consider those visitors who geosites in order to do research and work, but their visit are mainly motivated by additional natural values and ac- of these sites can also be a leisure activity in their free tivities which one geosite can oer to tourists including time. They still represent quite a small market segment, tours which are based on other natural and antrophogenic but there are intentions focused on increasing the interest features of the geosites. It is important to note that general in geology among people, which could make this market tourists are mainly driven by aesthetic value or curiosity segment signicantly larger in the future. of the geosites rather than their geological signicance. However, they can be also willing to undertake tours related to geological features of the geosites, as additional 4.2 Questionnaire design activities. Thus, they also can be called accidental or casual geotourists. They usually do not have previous knowl- The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The rst part in- edge about geology and geomorphology, but they have ex- cluded questions related to socio-demographic prole of isting curiosity about geo-values. This is a dominant mar- respondents (gender, age, education). In the second part ket segment when analyzing visits of both European and of the questionnaire each visitor was asked to rate how im- US geosites [34]. portant each of 27 subindicators of the model is for them,

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia Ë 539 when giving preference to one geosite over another. The the territory of Serbia) we can nd approximately 20% of rating was done using a ve-point Likert scale - 0.00, 0.25, the country’s ora, with many relict and endemic species 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00, with 0 - meaning not important at all [35]. On the other hand, the Uvac Canyon (GS4) gained and 1 - meaning very important, in the same way as it was the lowest score of Scientic values. Although it is unique done by experts. in the world by the number of curving meanders (around 10) which makes it a very rare geosite with great natural values, [29] the curving meanders characterize also some 4.3 Procedure other sites in Western Serbia such as the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge (GS3) etc. However, the Uvac area is known for the In order to assess the current state and geotourism poten- largest population of grion vultures (Gyps fulvus), the tial of our study area more objectively, by using the pre- biggest representative of indigenous ornitofaune in Serbia, viously explained model, a survey was conducted among a bird of Mediterranean origin. This canyon represents the visitors of the Lazar Canyon area in July and August of place of its largest colony in the country and the Balkans 2013, when there were organised tours at this geosite. In with aproximately about 100 pairs [36]. addition, the survey also included visitors of the Uvac When analyzing the importance of subindicators Canyon during 2013 and the beginning of 2014, as well as within Scientic values, we can notice that the major dif- visitors of the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge and Djerdap Gorge in the ference between the opinion of two market segments lies period from April to October when there are major tourist in the fact that general geotourists give more importance visits. Moreover, the survey included people who visited to interpretation of the site (0.85) compared to only 0.46 these canyons and gorges in previous years. The survey given by pure geotourists. On the other hand, pure geo- was conducted after the visit of each site in situ, at geosites tourists are more interested in the fact how many publica- themselves or their info and visitor centres, and the partic- tions there are about that geosite and how well it is inves- ipation in the survey was voluntary. tigated (0.70) while this is less (0.45) important to general geotourists. Pure geotourists are driven mostly by research work as they usually visit geosites in order to explore their geological and geomorphological features, while in order 5 Results and discussion to entice general geotourists the geosite values need to be well presented and interpreted. For the purpose of this study, four representative geomor- When considering the Aesthetic/Scenic values the phological sites in Serbia were assessed by using the M- Djerdap Gorge (GS2) followed by the Uvac Canyon (GS4) GAM method. Our principal aim, besides comparing the have the highest values which is mainly because of their current state and tourist potential of these geosites, was numerous viewpoints from which a stunning view is also to examine the dierences between the importance of spread on these quite large and attractive geosites. While subindicators for general geotourists (Im1) and pure geo- the surface of the geosites is much more important to pure tourists (Im2) including people whose job is related to ge- geotourists (0.88) compared to 0.56 rated by general geo- ology and geomorphology (Table 3). tourists, general geotourists appreciate the surrounding Furthermore, we analyzed how dierent opinion re- landscape and nature much more (0.95) than pure geo- garding the importance of subindicators of two market tourists (0.71). General geotourists consider this subindica- segments can aect the position of geosites in the M-GAM tor to be the most important within Aesthetic Values when matrix (Figure 9). assessing the tourist potential of a geosite. Table 3 shows the results of the assesment for both In terms of protection, it can be noted that the cur- market segments. The results show that the Djerdap Gorge rent state of Lazar Canyon (GS1) and Uvac Canyon (GS4) (GS2) has the highest Scientic / Educational value among is much better in comparison with the two other geosites. the analyzed geosites and it especially stands out with its This indicates that their natural values were better pre- rarity and representativeness. This can be explained by served up to this moment, and one of the reasons can the fact that the Djerdap Gorge is one of the longest and be the fact that these geosites are not the places of ma- deepest gorges in Europe [32] which due to its numerous jor tourist visits and are under the state protection. Lazar natural and cultural values has been protected as a Na- Canyon is protected as a Natural Monument, and the fact tional Park, one of the ve which exist in Serbia. The Lazar that the entire area around this site is surrounded by Canyon (GS1) is also well known for its rarity as the only highly degraded zones of the Bor mining basin, gives this place in Serbia where on a relatively small area (0.02% of protected area even greater signicance. The Uvac Canyon

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM 540 Ë S. Božić and N. Tomić 4 GS 3 GS 2 ) for each subindicator in the Total 2 2 GS Im 1 0.7 0.7 0.53 0.35 GS 0.71 0.950.69 0.48 0.93 0.48 0.46 0.23 0.63 0.63 0.630.56 0.63 0.560.77 0.56 0.770.08 0.56 0.57 0.34 0.77 0.34 0 0.34 0.46 0.460.54 0.34 0.73 0.36 0.73 0.79 0.390.65 0.39 0.650.41 0.79 0.65 0.41 0.65 0.41 0.41 0.44 0.88 0.660.71 0.66 0.71 0.710.54 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54 2 0.7 0.71 0.77 0.73 0.55 0.95 0.93 0.63 0.79 0.87 0.56 0.54 0.34 0.46 0.88 4 ) and pure geotourists ( 1 GS Im 3 GS 2 Total 1 Im GS 1 III Protection (VPr) GS 0.59 0.79 0.39 0.2 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.45 0.45 0.34 0.23 0.71 0.710.17 0.53 0.7 0.71 0.7 0 0.66 0.89 0.44 0.44 0.63 0.85 0.850.59 0.63 0.79 0.39 0.79 0.57 0.57 0.570.42 0.57 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.27 0.54 0.40.95 0.95 0.4 0.950.68 0.71 0.68 0.680.83 0.68 0.41 0.41 0.83 I Functional values (VFn) II Scenic/Aesthetic values (VSA) 1 I Scientic/Educational values (VSE) 0.7 0.71 0.75 0.76 0.95 0.79 0.79 0.45 0.83 0.85 0.42 0.58 0.54 0.68 0.89 4 GS 3 GS 2 GS 1 1 1 0.75 0.5 1 1 1 0.75 0.5 1 0.75 0.75 GS 0.25 1 1 0 0.75 1 0.5 1 2. Representativeness3. Knowledge on geo-scientic is- sues 0.75 1 0.5 0.25 1. Accessibility2. Additional natural values3. Additional anthropogenicues val- 1 1 1 0.75 1 1 1 1 Main Indicators / Subindicators Values given by experts (0-1) Im 1. Rarity4. Level of interpretation1. Viewpoints (each must present a particular angle of view and beuated sit- less than 1 0.75 km from the2. site) 0.75 Surface 1 (eachquantitative relation to considered other) 1 in 1 0.5 0.75 0.5 2. Protection level3. Vulnerability4. Suitable number of visitors 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 3. Surrounding landscape and nature 4. Environmental tting of sites1. Current condition 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 Subindicator values given by experts for each analyzed geosite and the Importance value given by general geotourists ( Table 3: GAM model.

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia Ë 541 4 GS 3 GS 2 Total 2 GS 1 0 0.66 0 0 0 0.55 0.41 0.28 0 0.11 0.07 0.04 0 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.1 0.2 0.41 0.1 GS 0.08 0.32 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.56 0.42 0.28 0.33 0.33 0.330.09 0.33 0.38 0.19 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.24 0.12 0.24 0.36 2 0.71 0.15 0.41 0.55 0.32 0.32 0.56 0.66 0.66 0.38 0.28 0.48 4 GS 3 GS 2 Total 1 Im GS 1 0 0.87 0 0 0 0.85 0.63 0.42 0 0.43 0.21 0.21 0 0.36 0.24 0.12 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.43 0.32 0.21 GS II Touristic values (VTr) 0.14 0.56 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.36 0.73 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.310.14 0.31 0.59 0.29 0.14 0.36 0.180.19 0.36 0.19 0.54 0.19 0.19 I Functional values (VFn) 1 0.73 0.73 0.81 0.62 0.78 0.87 0.87 0.43 0.59 0.85 0.56 0.48 4 GS 3 GS 2 GS 1 0 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 GS 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 1 0.25 4. Interpretative panels (characteristics of text and graphics, material quality, size, ttingings, to etc.) surround- 3. Vicinity of visitors centre 05. Annual number of visitors6. 1 Tourism infrastructuretrian (pedes- pathways,garbage resting 0 cans, toilets, 0.25 places, wellsprings etc.) 1 0 0.75 0.5 2. Annual number of organised visits 6. Additional functional values1. Promotion 0.25 1 0.5 0.25 0 1 0.757. 0.5 Tour guidelevel, service knowledge (expertise ofguage(s), interpretative foreign skills, etc) lan- 5. Vicinity of importantwork road net- 8. Hostelry service9. Restaurant service 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.75 Main Indicators / Subindicators Values given by experts (0-1)4. Vicinity of emissive centres Im 0 0.75 0.5 0.25 Cont. Table 3:

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM 542 Ë S. Božić and N. Tomić

(GS4) is a part of the Uvac Special Nature Reserve, while The results also show that the Djerdap Gorge (GS2) the Ovčar - Kablar Gorge (GS3) is protected as a Landscape followed by the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge (GS3) have the high- of exceptional features. On the other hand, Djerdap is de- est score in terms of tourist values, indicating that tourism clared as a National Park but it is a place with signicant is much more developed at these geosites in comparison tourist ow, which partly contributed to its devastation in to Lazar (GS1) and Uvac Canyon (GS4). This can also be some segments. It is also important to note that a road explained by the fact that both the Djerdap and Ovčar - of regional signicance passes through the National Park Kablar Gorge represent complex tourist motives including representing a great source of polution and noise with neg- both natural and anthropogenic values, while in the case ative eect on the environment. of Lazar Canyon and especially Uvac Canyon natural val- It is interesting to notice that both general geotourists ues are dominant. Moreover, from Table 3 we can see that (0.83) and pure geotourists (0.79) share the opinion that the Djerdap Gorge is the only geosite which has a visitor the current state is very signicant, as they consider most centre providing information about the site. The fact that important the state of geosite in the moment when they other three geosites do not have visitor centres is a big dis- visit it. However, pure geotourists think little further in ad- advantage aecting the quality of tourist service. In terms vance than general geotourists giving more importance to of promotion, the Lazar Canyon obtained the lowest score protection as well as preserving geosites in the adequate as the least promoted geosite, while the Djerdap Gorge is state for the future generations. promoted on a national and international level. Promotion When considering Additional Values, geosites with of other geosites is still only present at the local or regional the highest score are the Djerdap (GS2) and Ovčar-Kablar level. The level of tour guide service is generally very low Gorge (GS3) (Tables 4 and 5). In Table 3 we can see that for all geosites, however, the Djerdap Gorge is slightly in within Functional values, Additional antrophogenic val- advance. Moreover, major organized visits exist only at the ues are the highest at the Djerdap Gorge followed by Ovčar- Djerdap Gorge, while they are very rare at other geosites, Kablar Gorge. Djerdap is well known for numerous Ro- meaning they are organized only several times per year. man archeological remains such as Pontes, Traian’s table This signicantly aects the annual number of visitors, and bridge and Diana, medieval fortresses Ram and Gol- which can also be seen from Table 3. Furthermore, the ubac, as well as Lepenski vir, archeological site from the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge (GS3) has the most developed tourism neolithic period [28]. In addition, the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge infrastructure, while the Uvac Canyon (GS4) prevails in is famous for numerous monasteries (10 monasteries and 2 terms of hostelry service. These are interesting ndings sacred sites) [37] located in the vicinity, representing valu- as they indicate that the Djerdap Gorge, although it rep- able anthropological heritage. All of the analyzed sites resents the geosite with the greatest potential has a lot of are also surrounded by signicant natural values, while room for improvement especially in terms of tourism in- in the case of the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge anthropogenic val- frastructure and tourist services. ues are predominant. The Djerdap Gorge also stands out When analyzing the importance of all subindicators because it is closer to emissive centres such as Belgrade, within Tourist values we can see that general geotourists Novi Sad, Požarevac and Kostolac, while other geosites give much more importance to all subindicators, except are quite isolated and far from emissive areas. Moreover, annual number of visitors which is more appreciated by the Djerdap Gorge gained a signicantly higher score for pure geotourists (0.56) compared to general geotourists additional functional values, indicating that it is better (0.43). This is probably because pure geotourists consider equipped for tourist visits. Moreover, all analyzed geosites that a smaller number of tourists is more convenient for are connected with emissive centres via roads of regional geosites as it reduces the negative tourism eect on the cur- signicance which signicantly contribute to their acces- rent state of these sites. It is interesting to notice that visitor sibility. centres are not so important to pure geotourists (0.56) as The major dierences in the importance of subindica- they have previous knowledge and information related to tors for the two market groups lay in the fact that general that geosite so they don’t depend on their services. On con- geotourists consider that additional anthropogenic values trary, usually this is not the case with general geotourists in the vicinity are quite important (0.70) when assesing who consider this subindicator very important (0.87). geosites, while pure geotourists give less emphasis (0.34) to this subindicator. Moreover, general geotourists con- Furthermore, this is also connected with the fact that sider additional functional values more important (0.59) in pure geotourists gave less importance to a tour guide ser- comparison to pure geoturists (0.38) who are more ready to vice (0.32) as they usually do not require one, which is not accept lack of facilities. the case with general geotourists (0.87).

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia Ë 543

important to both of the segments so they did not inuence major dierences in the position of the geosites. A change in the position can be noticed in the case of the Djerdap Gorge (GS2) and Ovčar-Kablar Gorge (GS3). In Figure 9 we can see that the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge has a much lower position and that it moved from the eld Z22 representing moderate Additional and Main Values to the eld Z21, representing low Additional and moderate Main values. Moreover, the Djerdap Gorge moved from the mid-position in the eld Z22 to the much lower position in the same eld. The position of the Uvac Canyon (GS4) and Lazar Canyon (GS1) did not change signicantly, although we can notice that in the assessment done by pure geotourists they have lower Additional Values. The expla- Figure 9: Position of the analyzed geosites in the M-GAM matrix nation why their position did not change as drastically as based on the assessment done by general geotourists (1) and pure in the case of the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge (GS3) and Djerdap geotourists (2). Gorge (GS2) lies in the fact that their Additional Values were much lower to begin with, so when multiplied with the Importance factor they did not change signicantly. The nal results of the assesment are shown in Ta- bles 4 and 5. By summing the nal results for all analyzed geosites we can see their position in the M-GAM matrix (Figure 9). 6 Conclusion The symbols marked with ‘1’ show the position of the geosites based on the assessment done by general geo- From all above-mentioned we can draw a conclusion that tourists (according to their Importance) while the symbols general geotourists appreciate considerably dierent val- marked with ‘2’ indicate the position in the matrix based ues when assessing a geosite in comparison to pure geo- on the assessment done by pure geotourists. The matrix tourists. While general geotourists give much more impor- consists of main and additional values, where these val- tance to the human-induced values (such as tourist in- ues are presented via X and Y axes respectively. The ma- frastructure) which can be easily changed and improved trix is divided into nine elds (zones) that are indicated by by human eort and investments all for the purpose of Z(i, j)(i, j = 1, 2, 3) based on the grade they received in the tourism development, pure geotourists consider them less evaluation process. Major grid lines that create elds, for important. By analyzing the most important subindicators X axe have value of 4 and for Y axe of 5 units. This means for pure geotourists we can conclude that they appreciate that, for example, if the sum of main values is 7 and of ad- natural values of a geosite which can hardly be changed ditional values is 4, the geosite would be in the Z21 eld of in the future. They prefer geosites without major tourism the GAM matrix which indicates a moderate level of main infrastructure and pay a lot of attention to the protection values and a low level of additional values [33]. of geosites. Having said this, we can conclude that they re- When comparing the position of the analyzed geosites quire basic tourism infrastructure on the site while general in the M-GAM matrix (Figure 9) we can clearly see the dif- geotourists prefer more comfort. ference in the position indicating dierent results of the From the position of the geosites in the M-GAM matrix assessment done by two market segments (general geo- and nal results presented in Tables 4 and 5, we can see tourists and pure geotourists). Figure 9 shows that the re- that the Djerdap Gorge is absolutely dominant in terms of sults of the assessment done by general geotourists (sym- both Main and Additional Values. However, there is still bols marked with ‘1’) are higher for all analyzed geosites much room for improvement especially regarding tourist compared to the assessment results done by pure geo- values. This refers to the improvement of infrastructure, tourists (symbols marked with ‘2’). This dierence can be increasing the quality of tour guide service and better in- explained by the fact that Additional Values are generally terpretation of important sites including informative pan- less important to pure geotourists which inuenced the els and visitor centers. By introducing these changes the lower position of the geosites in their assessment. In terms Djerdap Gorge (GS2) could signicantly improve its posi- of the Main values we can see that they are almost equally tion in the matrix.

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM 544 Ë S. Božić and N. Tomić

Table 4: Overall ranking of the analzyed geosites by M-GAM (assessment done by general geotourists).

Geosite Label Main Values Additional Values Field VSE+VSA+VPr Σ VFn+VTr Σ

Lazar Canyon – GS1 2.33 + 2.49 + 2.25 7.07 2.08 + 1.17 3.25 Z21 Djerdap Gorge – GS2 2.98 + 2.96 + 1.83 7.77 3.42 + 4.07 7.49 Z22 Ovčar-Kablar Gorge – GS3 2.02 + 2.42 + 1.83 6.27 2.82 + 2.78 5.6 Z21 Uvac Canyon – GS4 1.50 + 2.58 + 2.25 6.33 2.03 + 2.09 4.12 Z21 Mean - 6.86 - 5.11 -

Table 5: Overall ranking of the analyzed geosites by M-GAM (assessment done by pure geotourists).

Geosite Label Main Values Additional Values Field VSE+VSA+VPr Σ VFn+VTr Σ

Lazar Canyon – GS1 2.44 + 2.23 + 2.48 7.15 1.83 + 0.80 2.63 Z21 Djerdap Gorge – GS2 3.04 + 2.86 + 2.08 7.98 2.49 + 2.81 5.3 Z22 Ovčar-Kablar Gorge – GS3 1.93 + 2.27 + 2.08 6.28 2.06 + 1.88 3.94 Z21 Uvac Canyon – GS4 1.40 + 2.46 + 2.48 6.34 1.79 + 1.42 3.21 Z21 Mean - 6.93 - 3.77 -

While the Ovčar-Kablar Gorge (GS3) has the lowest score between satisfying the visit and satisfying the site – sus- for the Main Values compared to other analyzed sites its tainability [11]. Additional Values are considerably higher. On contrary, Although this research provides useful information the Lazar Canyon (GS1) has pretty high Main values, but about the importance of subindicators in the assessment it has the lowest score for Additional Values. This shows of geosites for dierent tourism market segments, it has that the Lazar Canyon is a geosite with major potential, certain limitations. The research results are limited only to since it could increase its additional, especially tourist val- visitors of geosites in Serbia. By examining a larger sample ues by human eort and better management of a geosite including visitors of geosites in other countries through- for tourism development. out the world we could develop Global Importance of all Furthermore, the management of each geosite should subindicators for any market segment (in this case gen- focus on a specic market segment shaping and direct- eral geotourists and pure geotourists) so the results would ing the development of the site towards the specic needs be more reliable and more representative. Moreover, by and preferences of tourism segments. Thus, this research counting the average value of Importance of all dierent indicates what is important for dierent segments when market segments visiting one geosite (Im1, Im2,..., Imn) visiting a geosite so it can be used as framework for we could derive Global Importance of all subindicators Im1+Im2 ...+Imn tourism planning. Having said this, the management of (GIm = n ) which could later be used in general each geosite should develop a tourism strategy depending geosite assessment. on whether it pretends to become a destination of massive tourism or it wants to attract smaller specic tourism segments such as pure geotourists and thus base the development of a geosite according to their needs and preferences. In order to strike the right balance between the of- Acknowledgement: This research was supported by the fer for general geotourists and pure geotourists in the fu- Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological ture we should keep tourism development in a sustainable Development under Grant 176020. The authors highly ap- form, taking care of the protection of geosites and reduc- preciate the comments and suggestions of the anonymous tion of negative tourism impact which can be triggered by reviewers and would like to thank them for their thorough massive tourist visits. In other words the value of the visit review which signicantly contributed to improving the to the site needs to contribute towards nding a balance quality of this publication.

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia Ë 545

[19] Kim S.S., Kim M., Park J., Guo Y., Cave tourism: tourists’ char- References acteristics, motivations to visit, and the segmentation of their behaviour. Asia Pacic Journal of Tourism Research, 2008, 13, [1] Newsome D., Dowling R., Leung Y-F., The nature and manage- 299–318. ment of geotourism: A case study of two established iconic [20] Page K.N., Keene P., Edmonds R.P.N., Hose T.A., Earth Heritage geotourism destinations. Tourism management perspectives, Site Interpretation in England: A review of principle techniques 2012, 2–3, 19–27. with Case Studies (Research Report no 176). English Nature, Pe- [2] Var T., Gunn C., Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. terborough, 1996. Routledge, New York, 2002. [21] Hose T.A., Geotourism in England: a two-region case study anal- [3] Maitland R., Newman P.(Eds.), World Tourism Cities: developing ysis. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, tourism o the beaten track. Routledge, London, 2009. 2003. [4] Djurović P., Mijović D., Geoheritage of Serbia-Representative of [22] Mao I., Robinson A.M., Dowling R., Potential geotourists: an its total geodiversity. Collection of papers – Faculty of Geogra- Australian case study. Journal of Tourism, 2009, 10, 71–80. phy at the University of Belgrade, 2006, 54, 5–18. [23] King L.M., Geotourism in the Hawaiian Islands. In: Newsome D., [5] Hose T.A., Geo-tourism - appreciating the deep time of land- Dowling R.K. (Eds.), Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and scapes. In: Novelli M. (Ed.), Niche Tourism: contemporary is- Landscape. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford, 2010, 114–125. sues, trends and cases. Elsevier Science, Oxford, 2005, 27–37. [24] Hurtado H., Dowling R., Sanders D., An Exploratory Study to [6] Novelli M., Benson A., Niche tourism: A way forward to sustain- Develop a Geotourism Typology Model. International Journal of ability? In: Novelli M. (Ed.), Niche Tourism: contemporary is- Tourism Research, 2013. sues, trends and cases. Elsevier Science, Oxford, 2005, 247– [25] Hose, T.A., European Geotourism – geological interpretation 251. and geoconservation promotion for tourists. In: Barettino [7] Vasiljević Dj.A., Marković S.B., Hose T.A., Smalley I., Basarin B., D., Wimbledon W.A.P., Gallego E. (Eds.), Geological geritage: Lazić L., Jović G., The introduction to geoconservation of loess- its conservation and management. Technological Institute of palaeosol sequences in the Vojvodina region: Signicant geo- Spain, Madrid, 2000, 127–146. heritage of Serbia. Quaternary International, 2011, 240, 108– [26] Lazarević R., Karst Dubašnice, Gornjana i Majdanpeka (Karst of 116. Dubašnica, Gornjan and Majdanpek). Serbian Geographical So- [8] Newsome D., Dowling R. (Eds.), Geotourism: the tourism of ge- ciety, Belgrade, 1998. (in Serbian) ology and landscape. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford, 2010. [27] Ćirić A., Obradinović Z., Novković D., Popević A., Karajičić, Lj., [9] Hose T.A., 3G’s for modern geotourism. Geoheritage, 2012, 4, Jović B., Serdar, R., Basic geological map of SFRJ (1:100 000). 7–24. List Prijepolje, Federal Geological Institute, Belgrade, Serbia, [10] Vasiljević Dj.A., Marković S.B., Hose T.A., Basarin B., Lazić L., 1980. Stojanović V., Lukić T., Vidić N., Jović G., Janićević S., Samardžija [28] Lješević M., Ušački pećinski sistem sa krasom bliže okoline D., The use of web-based dynamic maps in the promotion of the (Uvac cave system with karst of near surrounding). Serbian Ge- Titel loess plateau (Vojvodina, Serbia), a potential geotourism ographical Society, Belgrade, 1982. (in Serbian) destination. Geographica Pannonica, 2009, 13, 78–84. [29] Grubač B., Kličković M., Nešić D., Milovanović B., Pavićević D., [11] Gorman C.E., Landscape and Geotourism: market typologies Lazarević P. et al., Specijalni rezervat prirode Uvac (Special Na- and visitor needs. Conference: Promotion and Protection, ture Reserve Uvac). Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia, Achieving the Balance. School of Hospitality Management and Belgrade, 2004. (in Serbian) Tourism, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, 2007, 1–12. [30] Brković T., Malešević M., Klisić M., Urošević M., Trifunović S., [12] Hose T.A., Selling the story of Britain’s stone. Environmental In- Radovanović Z., Božanić M., Basic geological map of SFRJ (1:100 terpretation, 1995, 10, 16–17. 000). List Čačak, Federal Geological Institute, Belgrade, Serbia, [13] Goudie A.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, Volume 1, 1968. A-I. Routledge Ltd., London, 2004. [31] Stanisavljević B., Ćosić N., Jelić I., Vodič kroz biološku i kulturnu [14] Marković M., Pavlović R., Čupković T., Geomorfologija (Geomor- raznovrsnost NP Djerdap (Guide to the biological and cultural phology). Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, diversity of NP Djerdap). Ecological Society Endemit, Belgrade, 2003. (in Serbian) 2012. (in Serbian) [15] Tomić N., Božić S., A modied geosite assessment model (M- [32] Stanković S., The Djerdap National Park - The Polyfunctional GAM) and its application on the Lazar Canyon area (Serbia). Center of the Danube Basin. Geographica Pannonica, 2002, 6, International Journal of Environmental Research, 2014, 1041– 38–44. 1052. [33] Vujičić M.D., Vasiljević Dj.A., Marković S.B., Hose T.A., Lukić T., [16] Moufti M.R., Nemeth K., El-Masry N., Qaddah A., Geoheritage Hadžić O., Janićević S., Preliminary geosite assessment model values of one of the largest maar craters in the Arabian Penin- (GAM) and its application on Fruška Gora Mountain, potential sula: the Al Wahbah Crater and other volcanoes (Harrat Kishb, geotourism destination of Serbia. Acta Geographica Slovenica, Saudi Arabia). Central European Journal of Geosciences, 2013, 2011, 51, 361–377. 5, 254–271. [34] Newsome D., Dowling R. (Ed.), Geotourism. Elsevier Ltd., Ox- [17] Hose T.A., Geotourism in Almeria province, southeast Spain. ford, 2006. Tourism, 2007, 55, 259–276. [35] Tomić N., The potential of Lazar Canyon (Serbia) as a geotourism [18] Dowling R., Newsome D. (Eds.), Global Geotourism Perspec- destination: inventory and evaluation. Geographica Pannonica, tives. Goodfellow Publisher Ltd., Oxford, 2010. 2011, 15, 103–112.

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM 546 Ë S. Božić and N. Tomić

[36] Matijević J., Kraljevstvo beloglavog supa (The Kingdom of the [37] Rajić D., Timotijević M., Manastiri Ovčarsko-Kablarske klisure grion vulture). Fond za zaštitu ptica grabljivica Beloglavi sup, (Monasteries of Ovčar-Kablarska Gorge). National Museum, Nova Varoš, 2008. (in Serbian) Čačak, 2004. (in Serbian)

Brought to you by | Gazi Universitesi Authenticated Download Date | 1/19/16 8:30 PM