Geoparks and Geo-Tourism in Iran

The contributions by Neda Nouri-Fritsche and Andreas Dittmann (University of Giessen, Germany) compare the challenges of Geoparks outside of Iran and show that the motives of the protection of Geo-Heritage and the job-creation in rural areas are common to comparable international scenarios.

Combining Geoparks with other protection areas seems to be a characteristic of Iranian Geoparks, as many parts of the country are under some type of protection (see Map 1). This web of protected areas can be of help to identify and establish new Geoparks. Yet, the Iranian Geoparks require some standard of nature protection. In other regions, such as Europe, the protection is only formally required when being part of another type of protected area or when intensive sustainable touristic use can be guaranteed (as the case in China).

Currently, Iran offers five different categories for nature protection and the protection of natural and cultural landscapes: Protected Areas, National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, National Nature Monuments and Geoparks. Within these, Geoparks form a relatively small and recent group of protected areas. They have only been established within the last years and often affiliated to other protected zones, therefore Geoparks can both form part of a National Park or include one or more National Nature Monuments. The same holds true for regulations from other countries such as the youngest German Geoparks. Nonetheless the German Geoparks do not have any protective function by themselves so that the Iranian Geoparks seem to be more advanced in this respect. In adjacent countries in the MENA-region, such as Turkey or Yemen, the development of Geoparks is still in a conceptual phase.

The core parts of nature protection in Iran are formed by the so-called Protected Areas. The existing ninety areas are mainly concentrated in the West and the Northwest of the country (see Map 1) with an emphasis on the mountainous areas of the Southeast. As opposed to that, there are relatively few areas of nature protection in the East of the country, where only three Protected Areas (Hamoun, Shila, Geno and Kuh-e-Birk) and two Nature Monuments (Taftan and Cheshmeh- e Gelfeshan-e Pirgel) are found close to the border to Pakistan and Afghanistan. This distribution of areas of nature protection not only represents the eco- and geo-diversity hotspots of the country, but also serves as an indicator for population emphasis and therefore for the necessity to protect geo heritage from its potential users.

Map 1: Protected Areas and Geoparks in Iran

By size the most important Protected Area is the Kavir, the area of Touran and the Northern descent of the Alborz mountain range. These three areas also represent the characteristic combination of different categories of nature protection in Iran: Only the Northwest of the Kavir desert is declared “Protected Area” while main parts of the South are acknowledged as National Park. The area of Touran is in a similar position: the main area include Protected Areas as National Parks and a Wildlife Refuge.

Yet, the Protected Area of the Alborz mountain range illustrates in a drastic manner the disparity between the theoretical status of nature protection and the actual use. The Northern and Central part of the Alborz mountain range as well as the neighboring coast of the Caspian Sea are a highly frequented touristic area for tourists from Teheran and are heavily affected by massive tourism. The tourism development of this area can be divided in different stages, as Ghadami and Mirzaei have shown (chapt. 7, 9 and 15); first settlements where built close to the Caspian Sea, regardless of existing regulation. Today, the central coast zone of Kaspi is almost completely overbuilt so that the coast can hardly be accessed. Meanwhile this trend has extended towards the west in the direction of Gilan and to the east, in the direction of Gorgan. The third phase of construction is marked by the sprawl towards the Northern decent of the Aloborz mountain rage where mainly vacational housing and weekend houses were built within the mountainous area, even within the Protected Area. This nature and landscape destroying phenomenon cannot be deduced to extending form of Beach Tourism but to a specific form of Escape Tourism. Especially the young Tehranean population sees the mountains as an escape from the perceived narrowness of the Iranian capital. This includes the escape from physical factors, such as poor air quality and urban heat as well as social control mechanisms. Many hope to find liberation from the urban stress by escaping to the rural environment (Map 2).

Map 2: Geoparks and Geosites in Iran.

The example of the “National Park Urumieh Lake” shows likewise that the declaration of nature protection zones does not necessarily lead to the implementation of nature or landscape protection. The area of the Urumieh Lake is marked by an ecological catastrophe: Extreme water shortages within the lake are the results of a global climatic change as well as agricultural mismanagement. In this volume, the contribution by Esmail Kahroum from the Ministry of Ecology follows up with the environmental catastrophe that has taken place and has almost resulted in the drying-up of the lake (chapt. 13). This dramatic catastrophe is comparable with the environmental damage from Lake Aral in Uzbekistan (Opp 2004).

Finally, the sustainability of jobs for students in tourism management is discussed by Sadegh Salehi and Mokhtar Naeiji in their case study about Mazandaran, while Sedigeh Loftt, Ayoub Manouchehri and Hassan Ahaar focus on the ability of small and medium scale cities to offer urban services. The latter took the region of Marageh as an example. Quite a sensitive and at the same time very important issue is touched by the article of Ahmad Reza Sheikhi on the role of archeological museums in guiding cultural tourism conceptions. In this regard Iranian Geopark ideas seem to be much more developed than those in other regions such as Europe, especially in Germany, for example, where still a certain concentration on mainly geological aspects can be observed. Thus scientific comparisons of different concepts and developments of Geoparks in Iran and Europe offer the chance of realizing the high potential of combining geological and cultural heritage features in order to provide their preservation for coming generations.

References

Amrikazemi, A. (2010): Atlas of Geopark and Geotourism Resources of Iran. Geoheritage of Iran. Geological Survey of Iran.

Dittmann, A. (2011): Der „Kizilcahamam Camlidere Jeopark” – ein Kooperationsprojekt der Universitaten Giefien und Ankara. In: Rundbrief Geographie, Vol. 232, S. 12-14.

Errami, E., Brocx, M., und V. Semeniuk (eds.) (2015): From Geoheritage to Geoparks. Case Studies from Africa and Beyond. Springer. Heidelberg, New York, London.

Ghadami, M. (2007). Modeling sustainable urban and tourism development, Kelardasht as case study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tehran: Tehran.