See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/269978756
Glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites in the upper basin of Ialomiţa river
(Bucegi Massif, Romania)
Article · April 2012
DOI: 10.4316/GEOREVIEW.2012.21.1.62
CITATION READS
1 62
3 authors:
George Muratoreanu Frinculeasa Madalina
Valahia University of Târgoviste Valahia University of Târgoviste
44 PUBLICATIONS 79 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ovidiu Murărescu
Valahia University of Târgoviste
96 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Annals of Valahia University of Targoviste. Geographical Series View project
Health risk assessment associated with abandoned copper and uranium mine tailings from Banat Region, Romania View project
All content following this page was uploaded by George Muratoreanu on 25 January 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites in the upper basin of Ialomiţa
river (Bucegi Massif, Romania)
George MURĂTOREANU1*, Mădălina FRÎNCULEASA1 and Ovidiu MURĂRESCU1
1
Valahia University of Târgovişte
* Correspondence to: George Murătoreanu, Valahia University of Târgovişte, Romania. E-mail: [email protected]
©2012 University of Suceava and GeoConcept. All rights reserved
doi: 10.4316/GEOREVIEW.2012.21.1.62
ABSTRACT: The analysis of geo-morphosites as a method used to
appreciate the value of geomorphological sites is one of the most
accurate methods one can use, as it relies on their comparison and on
their integration into a series of patterns that largely eliminate
subjectivism and errors. There are several approaches in the evaluation
of geo-morphosites, known by the name of those who initiated them (E.
Reynard, J. P. Pralong etc.) and they can be applied as such or can be
adapted according to the specific features of the region that the geo-
Article history morphosites belong to, as well as according to the purpose of their
Received: August 2012 analysis (scientific, touristic, economic etc.). In the present study, we
Received in revised form: have tried to identify the sites with a glacial and periglacial genesis of a
November 2012 scientific, economic and tourist interest from the upper basin of Ialomiţa
Accepted: December 2012 River, using the Pralong method. The application of the evaluation
Available online: January criteria (scenic, scientific, cultural and economic) have allowed us to
2013
obtain global values for the geo-morphosites in the area under analysis,
which later on could be used in the framework of the Bucegi Massif and
then could be compared to others from the Romanian Carpathians
(Ciucaş, Ceahlău etc.).
KEY WORDS: geo-morphosites, glacial, periglacial, Ialomiţa, identification assessment, potential
1. Introduction
Geo-morphosites represent forms of relief or geomorphological processes that have acquired an
esthetic, scientific, cultural, historical or economic value in time, due to human perception
(Panizza, 2001, Piacente, 1993, as quoted by Pralong, 2005). Forming the actual geomorphologic
patrimony, “geo-morphosites are relevant to the study of Earth’s history, the climate’s evolution,
the evolution of life on the planet, as well as also being important from an ecological, economic
and cultural perspective”. (Grandgirard, 1997, quoted by Reynard et al., 2007).
In specialized literature, a series of terms have been so far used to designate the components of
the geomorphological patrimony (Reynard, 2007): geomorphological values (Panizza, Piacente,
1993); geomorphological estate (Carton et al., 1994); geomorphological sites (Hooke, 1994);
Glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites in the upper basin of Ialomiţa river (Bucegi Massif, Romania) 135
geomorphological geotops (Grandgirard, 1997, 1999); sites of geomorphological interest (Rivas et
al., 1997); geo-morphosites (Panizza, 2001).
In Romania, so far, the issue of geo-morphosites has been rarely tackled. A representative
approach of the geomorphological patrimony in Romania was realized by A. Szepesi (2007) for
the geomorphological geotops of the Iezer Mountains, which he also calls “obiective
geomorfologice” (“geomorphological sites”). Their evaluation was carried out relying on two
types of criteria: factors (integrity, specificity, exemplarity – representativeness, rarity, paleo-
geographic value, sites of special interest) and indicators (dimension, geometric configuration of
the forms of relief, constitution, age, geo-diversity, number of forms, their associations, their
distribution, context, environment, morphogenetic activity, their function etc.).
Since 2000. important contributions to the study and knowledge of the geo-morphosites have
also come from N. Josan, Dorina Camelia Ilieş (2009), Laura Comănescu, A. Nedelea and R. Dobre
(2009), the latter with reference to the geomorphosites from the Bucegi and Ceahlău Mountains.
2. Area under analysis
The upper basin of the Ialomiţa Valley, developed in the Bucegi Natural Park, offers a special
general framework whose morphological particularities, by their diversity and harmony, is
appealing to tourism. The ordinary lithology is dominated by Jurassic and Cretaceous
sedimentary rocks, among which one can note complex conglomerates of Bucegi - wide variety of
fascies, from solid layered ones to the type of breccias and conglomerates of Raciu, to the layers
of rock specific to Sinaia - predominantly limestone in rhythmic alternations with sandy
limestone, sandstone, marl, calcareous sandstones, shale and clays, calcareous sandstones
framed canvas Teleajen-type suites with flysch sandstone and sandstone-conglomerates.
The lithology can highlight the possibility of development of multiple geo-morphosites. In this
study we approached some of the most representative geo-morphosites of a glacial and
periglacial genesis (Omu Peak, Babele, Sfinx, the erratic block of Ialomiţa Valley, the glacial cirque
of Ialomiţa, Mecetul Turcesc, Bucura-Dumbravă Peak, Strunga) as components of this landscape.
Taking as a basis the classical methodology, the selected geo-morphosites were evaluated in a
synergistic relationship with the tourist impact they generate, emphasizing their morphological
and scientific attributes.
Highlighting the two attributes was necessary because, for the area under analysis, the
geomorphological and scientific value, although well quantified, are often ignored in the
perception of tourists, who are predominantly attracted by the aesthetic and cultural
component, strongly boosted by tourist and exploitation potential indicators such as
infrastructure facilities, the socio-economic conditions of the region, advertising etc.
3. Methods
In the specialized literature, when evaluating geo-morphosites, one can distinguish between two
main assessment methods:
A first method is to evaluate the global value of the geo-morphosites (The IGUL method –
initiated by the Geographic Institute of the University of Lausanne - Switzerland), which involves
GEOREVIEW, Vol. 21 (2012)
136 GEORGE MURĂTOREANU et al.
the knowledge and measurement of the scientific value (with the 4 components put forward by
Grandgirard: rarity, representativeness, integrity and paleo-geographic value) along with other
additional values. This method was used in many studies by E. Reynard and his collaborators, the
evaluation being based on an inventory sheet (Reynard, et. al., 2007), with 6 chapters (criteria),
each containing a number of subchapters.
The second method meant to evaluate the touristic potential of the geo-morphosites was
developed by J.P. Pralong. This method allows one to know the tourist potential and the degree
of exploitation of the geo-morphosites through the use of certain values (scenic, scientific,
cultural-historical and economic) which are given marks ranging between 0 and 1 (Pralong, 2005).
After establishing the marks for each value in turn, the touristic potential or the global value of
the geo-morphosite (its tourist value) is determined by calculating the mean of the values
obtained, using the formula:
Vtour = (Vsce + Vsci + Vcult + Veco)/4
where:
Vtour = tourist value
Vsce = scenic value
Vsci = scientific value
Vcult = cultural value
Veco = ecological value.
For each of these values, separate evaluation tables are drawn, in which every criterion has a
predetermined score (table 1).
Table 1. The scenic criterion according to the Pralong observation sheet
Criterion / score 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Sce. 1 Number of observation
- Only one 2 or 3 4,5 or 6 >6
points
This criterion refers to the number of observation points accessible for pedestrians. Each needs to
present a specific observation angle and has to be situated at less than 1 km away from the site
Sce 2 Average distance to the
- under 50 50-200 200-500 >500
observation points (m)
This criterion has in view the sum of the shortest distances between each observation point and the
site, separately for the different observation points
Sce 3 Area - small average large very large
Here, the whole area of the site is taken into account. For each type of site (glacier, cave, etc.) there is
a quantitative scale of the area (ha) in harmony to the other identical sites from the area under
analysis
Sce 4 Height zero low average high very high
This criterion has in view the whole height of the site. For each type of site (glacier, cave, etc.) there is
a quantitative scale of the area (m) in harmony to the other identical sites from the area under
analysis
Sce 5 Chromatic contrast with identical different opposite
- -
the surroundings colors colors colors
This scenic criterion refers to the coloristic contrast between the site and its surroundings.
GEOREVIEW, Vol. 21 (2012)
Glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites in the upper basin of Ialomiţa river (Bucegi Massif, Romania) 137
Table 2. Glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites from the upper basin of Ialomiţa
No. Name Code type
1 Vf. Omu BUCstr001 PCT
2 Babele BUCed002 PCT
3 Sfinxul BUCed003 PCT
The so-called erratic block from Ialomiţa
4 BUCgla004 PCT
Valley
5 The glacial circle of Ialomiţa BUCgla005 ARE
6 Mecetul Turcesc BUCkar006 PCT
7 Bucura-Dumbravă Peak BUCstr007 PCT
8 Şaua Strunga BUCstr008 PCT
For the analysis of the geo-morphosites in the upper basin of the Ialomiţa Valley, we have used
the assessment method proposed by J.P. Pralong, considering that – although it has no consistent
geographic component and is rather an economic evaluation, it can be regarded as much more
accurate and the results obtained can be compared to those from similar alpine massifs.
The glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites under analysis are: Vârful Omu, Babele, Sfinxul, The
so-called erratic block from Ialomiţa Valley, the glacial cirque of Ialomiţa, Mecetul Turcesc,
Bucura Dumbravă Peak, Şaua Strunga. (table 2, fig. 1, photos 1-4).
Figure 1. The glacial and periglacial geomorphosites from the upper basin of Ialomiţa river. This figure
is available in colour online at www.georeview.ro.
GEOREVIEW, Vol. 21 (2012)
138 GEORGE MURĂTOREANU et al.
4. Results
After using the Pralong assessment methodology for geo-morphosites, we went on to analyze the
sites from the upper valley of Ialomiţa, from the viewpoint of their scenic, scientific, cultural and
economic value (table 3, fig. 3, fig. 4).
The scenic value refers to: number of observation points (Sc 1), average distance to the
observation points (Sc 2), area (Sc 3), height (Sc 4) and chromatic contrast (Sc 5). The maximum
score (table 3) was obtained with an equal number of points by two sites: the glacial cirque of
Ialomiţa and Mecetul Turcesc (0.75), while the minimum score was granted to Şaua Strunga and
the so-called erratic block from Ialomiţa Valley (0.50).
a b
c d
Figure 2. Geo-morphosites from the study area: 2a. The so-called erratic block from Ialomiţa Valley;
2b. Mecetul Turcesc; 2c. The Bucura-Dumbravă Peak; 2d. Strunga Saddle. This figure is available in
colour online at www.georeview.ro.
The scientific criterion relies on the evaluation of the interest from a paleo-geographic
perspective (St 1), representativeness (St 2), area (St 3), rarity (St 4), integrity (St 5) and ecological
importance (St 6). The maximum score was obtained by the glacial cirque of Ialomiţa (1.0), and
the lowest value was allotted to Babele, the so called erratic block from Ialomiţa Valley Mecetul
Turcesc and Bucura-Dumbravă Peak (0,50).
GEOREVIEW, Vol. 21 (2012)
Glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites in the upper basin of Ialomiţa river (Bucegi Massif, Romania) 139
Table 3. The values obtained by the geo-morphosites analyzed using the Pralong method
Scenic Science Cultural Economic Global
Name
value value value value value
Vf. Omu 0.65 0.625 0.3 0.45 0.5062
Babele 0.55 0.5 0.451 0.5 0.5002
Sfinxul 0.55 0.541 0.451 0.5 0.5105
The so-called erratic block
0.5 0.5 0.1 0.45 0.3875
from Ialomiţa Valley
The glacial cirque of
0.75 1 0.1 0.45 0.5750
Ialomiţa
Mecetul Turcesc 0.75 0.5 0.2 0.45 0.4750
Bucura-Dumbravă Peak 0.65 0.5 0.3 0.45 0.4750
Şaua Strunga 0.5 0.666 0.2 0.5 0.4665
Figure 3. The values obtained by the geo-morphosites analyzed using the Pralong method. This figure
is available in colour online at www.georeview.ro.
GEOREVIEW, Vol. 21 (2012)
140 GEORGE MURĂTOREANU et al.
The cultural criterion provided the lowest values for this area as, being closely related to the
connections between man and the respective geo-morphosite in history, we have not been able
to identify important aspects related to these connections: cultural and historical traditions (C 1),
iconographic representations (C 2), important historical and archeological aspects (C 3), religious
and metaphysical importance (C 4), cultural and artistic events (C 5). Vcult= (Cult 1 + 2 x Cult 2 +
Cult 3 + Cult 4 + Cult 5) / 6, where Cult 1, Cult 2, Cult 3, Cult 4 and Cult 5 correspond to the criteria
scores mentioned above. Weighting is introduced because Cult 2 could also assess the number of
literary correlations, which are seen as proportional to any iconographic material (Pralong, 2005).
However, the largest score was obtained by Babele and Sfinxul (0.451) and the lowest scores
(0.1) went to the so-called erratic block from Ialomiţa Valley, and the glacial cirque.
The economic value is calculated starting with accessibility (E 1), the degree of exposure to
natural hazards (E 2), the annual number of visitors from the region in which the site is situated
(E 3), the official site protection level (E 4), the level to which it appeals (E 5). The maximum score
(0.50) was obtained by Babele, Sfinx and Şaua Strunga, the others having the constant value of
0.45.
Figure 4. The values obtained by the geomorphosites analyzed using the Pralong method
The global value represents the arithmetic average of the scenic, scientific, cultural and economic
value. The highest value is recorded by the glacial cirque of Ialomiţa (0.575), first of all because of
the fact that the most important access paths to Vârful Omu and to the important touristic sites
from Bucegi Mountains pass through it, and also because of the large area it covers. Last in line
comes Şaua Strunga (0.4665) and the so-called erratic block from Ialomiţa Valley (0.3875).
5. Conclusions
Following the application of the assessment criteria (scenic, scientific, cultural and economic), we
obtained global values for the glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites from the upper valley of
Ialomiţa River ranging from 0.3875 to 0.575.
These values are large enough to allow us to consider that better future advertising would be
able to turn the less known touristic sites into important and appealing touristic and scientific
spots, while already famous sites such as Babele and Sfinxul no longer need any promotion, being
well-known among tourists.
GEOREVIEW, Vol. 21 (2012)
Glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites in the upper basin of Ialomiţa river (Bucegi Massif, Romania) 141
Given their characteristics, geo-morphosites have contributed to the development of the
touristic potential of the area under analysis. By evaluating them, we mean to display their
degree o complexity, since they are not only forms of relief, but must also be seen as a whole,
taking into consideration all their values in order to render highlight their importance. At the
same time, they must also be valued with a view to developing geo-tourism.
References
Comănescu Laura, Dobre R. 2009 Inventorying, evaluating and tourism valuating the
geomorphosites from the central sector of the Ceahlău National Park, GeoJournal of Tourism
and Geosites Year II, no. 1, vol. 3, pag. 86 – 96
Comănescu Laura, Nedelea A., Dobre R. 2009. Inventoring and Evaluation of geomorphosites in
the Bucegi Mountains, Forum Geografic. Studii şi cercetări de geografie şi protecţia mediului,
Year 8, No. 8/ 2009, pp. 38 – 43
Grandgirard V. 1999. L’évaluation des géotopes, Geologia Insubrica, 4, pp. 59-66
Ilieş Dorina Camelia, Josan N. 2009. Geosites – geomorphosites and relief, GeoJournal of Tourism
and Geosites, Year II, no. 1, vol. 3, pag. 78 – 85
Pralong J. P. 2005. A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites,
Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, 3, 189 – 196
Reynard E., Fontana G., Kozlik L., Scapozza C. 2007. A method for assessing «scientific» and
«additional values» of geomorphosites, Geographica Helvetica, Jg. 62, Heft 3, 148 – 158
Szepesi A. 2007. Masivul Iezer. Elemente de geografie fizică, Edit. Universitară, Bucureşti, 208 p.
GEOREVIEW, Vol. 21 (2012)
View publication stats
