کارکرد رنگ در میراث زمین‌شناختی مقصدهای زمین‌گردشگری

نوع مقاله : مقاله مروری

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه مدیریت و اقتصاد گردشگری، دانشکده گردشگری، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران، صندوق‌پستی: 1417964743.

2 کارشناسی ارشد، گروه مدیریت و اقتصاد گردشگری، دانشکده گردشگری، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران، صندوق‌پستی: 1417964743.

10.30509/jscw.2025.167416.1212

چکیده

این تحقیق با تمرکز بر عملکردهای چندوجهی رنگ در مقاصد زمین‌گردشگری، به بررسی چهار کارکرد اصلی رنگ در میراث زمین‌شناختی شامل زیبایی‌شناسی، حفاظت، حس مکان و آموزش و تفسیر می‌پردازد. با توجه به هدف تحقیق و پاسخ‌‌گویی به سوال تحقیق مبنی بر چیستی کارکارهای رنگ در میراث زمین‌‌شناختی، رویکرد حاکم بر تحقیق توصیفی- تحلیلی است. داده‌ها و اطلاعات مورد نیاز از طریق منابع و با مراجعه به مجلات و کتب مرتبط گردآوری شده است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهند در بعد زیبایی‌شناسی، تنوع و تباین رنگ‌ها به‌طور چشمگیری بر ادراک زیبایی مناظر زمین‌شناختی و جذابیت آن‌ها تأثیرگذار است و می‌تواند میزان استقبال و توجه گردشگران را افزایش دهد. از سوی دیگر، رنگ به عنوان یک ابزار حیاتی برای حفاظت میراث زمین‌شناختی، در ارزیابی وضعیت حفاظت و شناسایی تخریب‌های ناشی از تغییرات محیطی به کار می‌رود و به متخصصان کمک می‌کند که با پایش تغییرات رنگ، راهبردهای حفاظتی مؤثرتری را برای این میراث تدوین کنند. افزون بر این، رنگ‌ها با تأثیر بر احساسات و ایجاد حس تعلق، نقشی کلیدی در شکل‌گیری حس مکان ایفا می‌کنند. این امر می‌تواند موجب تقویت ارتباط عاطفی بازدیدکنندگان با مناظر و تشویق آن‌ها به حمایت از حفاظت این مناطق شود. در نهایت، رنگ به عنوان یک ابزار آموزشی و تفسیری عمل کرده و درک بازدیدکنندگان از فرآیندها و تاریخ زمین‌شناختی را تسهیل می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Function of Color in the Geoheritage of Geotourism Destinations

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sajad Ferdowsi 1
  • Helia Hosseinzadeh 2
  • Mahdiyeh Tavana 1
1 Department of Tourism Management and Economics, Faculty of Tourism, University of Tehran, P. O. Box: 1417964743, Tehran, Iran.
2 Department of Tourism Management and Economics, Faculty of Tourism, University of Tehran, P. O. Box: 1417964743, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

This research, focusing on the multifaceted functions of color in geotourism destinations, examines the four main roles of color in geoheritage, including aesthetics, conservation, sense of place, and education and interpretation. Considering the purpose of the research and answering the research question of what color works are in geoheritage, the dominant approach adopted is descriptive-analytical. The required data and information were collected through archival sources and referring to relevant journals and books. Findings show that in terms of aesthetics, the variety and contrast of colors significantly affect the perception of the beauty of geological landscapes and their attractiveness and can increase the level of interest and attention of tourists. Additionally, color is used as a vital tool for the conservation of geoheritage by evaluating the state of preservation and identifying damage caused by environmental changes, helping experts to develop more effective protection strategies by monitoring color changes. Furthermore, colors play a key role in forming a sense of place by influencing emotions and creating a sense of belonging. This can strengthen visitors' emotional connection to the landscape and encourage them to support protecting these areas. Finally, color serves as an educational and interpretive tool, facilitating visitors' understanding of geological processes and history.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Earth
  • Geology
  • Geotourism
  • Heritage
  • Color

مراجع

1.    Ferdowsi S, Davoodi Ilkhechi S. Gamification and marketing of geotourism destinations: Aras UNESCO Global Geopark in Iran. Geo Res. 2025.
2.   Mikhailenko AV, Ruban DA. Geo-heritage specific visibility as an important parameter in geo-tourism resource evaluation. Geosc. 2019;9(4):146. https://doi.org/10.3390 / geosciences9040146.
3.   Ruban DA. Aesthetic properties of geological heritage landscapes: Evidence from the Lagonaki Highland (Western Caucasus, Russia). J Geo Inst. 2018;68(2):289-96. https:// doi.org/10.2298/IJGI1802289R.
4.   Brzezińska-Wójcik T, Skowronek E. Tangible heritage of the historical stonework centre in Brusno Stare in the Roztocze Area (SE Poland) as an opportunity for the development of geotourism. Geohe. 2020;12(1):10. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00442-x.
5.   Gordon JE. Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosc. 2018;8(4):136. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/geosciences8040136.
6.   AbdelMaksoud KM, Abdulsamad EO, Muftah AM, Aly MF. Geomorphosite inventory of Apollonia and Cyrene in Northeast Libya: Involvement in geotourism promotion. Geohe. 2022;14(4):114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022- 00747-z.
7.   Mandal T. Geotourism potentiality of the rarh region of West Bengal: A geographical outlook. Res Rev Inter J Multi. 2021;6(12):90-7. https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm.2021.v06. i12.013.
8.   Herrera-Franco G, Carrión-Mero P, Alvarado N, Morante-Carballo F, Maldonado A, Caldevilla P, et al. Geosites and georesources to foster geotourism in communities: Case study of the Santa Elena peninsula geopark project in Ecuador. Sustain. 2020;12(11):4484. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114484.
9.   Pourfaraj A, Ghaderi E, Jomehpour M, Ferdowsi S. Conservation management of geotourism attractions in tourism destinations. Geohe. 2020;12(4):80. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12371-020-00500-4.
10.  Martín J, Gallego J, Delgado L. Characterization of the tourist demand of the villuercas–ibores–jara geopark: a destination with the capacity to attract tourists and visitors. Geosc. 2019;9(8):335. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences 9080335.
11.  Bentivenga M, Cavalcante F, Mastronuzzi G, Palladino G, Prosser G. Geoheritage: the foundation for sustainable geotourism. Geohe 2019;11(4):1367-1369. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12371-019-00422-w
12.   Ruban D, Ermolaev V, Loon A. Better understanding of geoheritage challenges within the scope of economic geology: toward a new research agenda. Herit. 2022;6(1):365-373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ heritage6010019.
13.  Zorina S, Ermolaev V, Ruban D. Earth science frontier at urban periphery: geoheritage from the vicinity of kazan city, russia. Herit. 2023;6(2):1103-1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/ heritage6020061.
14.  Ferdowsi S. Management of geoheritage conservation and vulnerability in tourism destinations. Tour Rev. 2024a. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2024-0189.
15.  Ferdowsi S. Site selection of ecotourism ecocamps for sustainable development of rural areas. J Ecot. 2024b;1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2024.2366928.
16.  Coratza P, Bollati I, Panizza V, Brandolini P, Castaldini D, Cucchi F. et al. Advances in geoheritage mapping: application to iconic geomorphological examples from the italian landscape. Sustain. 2021;13(20):11538. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011538.
17.  Navarrete E, Morante-Carballo F, Dueñas-Tovar J, Carrión-Mero P, Jaya-Montalvo M, Berrezueta E. Assessment of geosites within a natural protected area: a case study of cajas national park. Sustain. 2022;14(5):3120. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su14053120.
18.  Dias A, Ramírez R, Sánchez M. Territorial planning and sustainable development—case study: protected areas in the territory of the aspiring west geopark, portugal. Fron Envir Scie. 2023;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1132162
19.  Bonachea J. Suitability of valleys of cantabria area for a uggp proposal. Land. 2023;12(12):2177. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/land12122177.
20.  Nabila T. Geotourism marketing development in pawon cave, west bandung regency. J Tour Edu. 2022;2(2):99-104. https://doi.org/10.17509/jote.v2i2.52484.
21.  Planagumà L. Martı́ J. Geotourism at the natural park of la garrotxa volcanic zone (catalonia, spain): impact, viability, and sustainability. Geosc. 2018;8(8):295. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/geosciences8080295.
22.  Ferdowsi, S. Key Actors of Geoheritage Conservation in Tourism Destinations. Geohe, 2025;17(1), 8. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12371-024-01047-4.
23.  Costa-Casais M, Alves M, Blanco-Chao R. Assessment and management of the geomorphological heritage of monte pindo (nw spain): a landscape as a symbol of identity. Sustain. 2015;7(6):7049-7085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su70 67049.
24.  Karoubi M, Ferdowsi S. Impact of perceived social apathy on tourists’ behavioral intentions. Leis Stud. 2021;40(5):628-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2021. 1888308.
25.  Sánchez-Cortez J. Characterization of geoheritage and geotourism potential of the fluvial-glacial landscapes in the culebrillas lagoon (ecuador). Tour Hosp. 2023;4(3):419-434. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp4030026.
26.   Ziaee M, Ferdowsi S. A systematic review of Iranian research in the field of geotourism studies. Geohe. 2020;12(4):94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00519-7.
27.  Ferdowsi S, Shokri Firozjah P. The importance of color in urban space. J Stud Color World. 2014;4(3):61-72. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22517278.1393.4.3.6.9 [In Persian].
28.  Ruban DA, Mikhailenko AV, Yashalova NN. The power of colour in geoheritage studies and marketing: some tentative reflections. Geolo. 2021;27(1):57-65. https://doi.org/ 10.2478/logos-2021-0005
29.  Pralong JP. A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie: relief, processus, Environ. 2005;11(3):189-96. https://doi.org/ 10.4000/geomorphologie.350
30.  Reynard E, Baillifard F, Berger JP, Felber M, Heitzmann P, Hipp R, et al. Les géoparcs en Suisse: un rapport stratégique. Groupe de travail pourles géotopes en Suisse; 2007.
31.  Mahneshan of Zanjan, the land of colorful mountains in Iran [Internet]. Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA); 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www. irna.ir.
32.  The Grand prismatic spring [Internet]. iflscience; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www. iflscience.com.
33.  The Rainbow Cave of Hormuz, a rare global phenomenon that you must see [Internet]. mihmansho; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.mihmansho.com.
34.  Kubalíková L. Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech J Tour. 2013;2(2):80-104. https://doi.org/ 10.2478/cjot-2013-0005.
35.  Tomić N, Božić S. A modified geosite assessment model (M-GAM) and its application on the Lazar Canyon area (Serbia). Inter J envir res. 2014;8(4):1041-52. https:// doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2014.798.
36.  Meerwein G, Rodeck B, Mahnke FH. Color-communication in architectural space. De Gruyter; 2007.
37.  Khalili R. The role of color in sense of place (Tajrish and Hassan Abad Squares, Tehran). Master Thesis in Urban Planning And Policy Design, Politecnico Di Milano: Faculty Of architecture and urban planning, 2017.
38.  Bahamón A, Alvarez AM. Light color sound: Sensory effects in contemporary architecture. Norton & Company, New York, London, 2010.
39.  Bastenegar, M. The Color of Persian Landscape The Position of Color in Iran’s Tourism Brand. Manzar, 2015;6(29):58-65. [In Persian]. 
40.  Hilliard B. Colour psychology. Erişim adresi: http://www. Seahorses. consulting. com/DownloadableFiles/Colour Psychology. pdf. 2013.
41.  Salar De Uyuni Salt Flat [Internet]. worldatlas; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.worldatlas.com
42.  Dallol Hot Springs [Internet]. explorersweb; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.explorersweb. Com.
43.  Red Valley [Internet]. tierrasvivas; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.tierrasvivas.com.
44.   Coletti C. Climate Change Threats to Stone Cultural Heritage: State of the Art of Quantitative Damage Functions and New Challenges for a Sustainable Future. Herit. 2024;7(6):3276-90. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage70 60154.
45.   Bonazza A, Sardella A. Climate change and cultural heritage: Methods and approaches for damage and risk assessment addressed to a practical application. Herit. 2023;6(4):3578-89. https://doi.org/10.3390/ heritage60 40190.
46.  Patil SM, Kasthurba AK, Patil MV. Characterization and assessment of stone deterioration on heritage buildings. Case Stud Cons Mater. 2021;15:e00696. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00696
47.   Pereira D. The value of natural stones to gain in the cultural and geological diversity of our global heritage. Herit. 2023;6(6):4542-56. https://doi.org/10.3390/ heritage6060241.
48.  Fassina, V. Basic chemical mechanism outdoors. in basic environmental mechanisms affecting cultural heritage, understanding deterioration mechanisms for conservation purposes, cost action d42, chemical interaction between cultural artefacts and indoor environment (EnviArt); Nardini Editore: Firenze, Italy, 2010; pp. 75–105.
49.  Sesana E, Gagnon AS, Ciantelli C, Cassar J, Hughes JJ. Climate change impacts on cultural heritage: A literature review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Clim Chan. 2021;12(4):e710. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.710
50.  A Discolored Ledger, Bridges and Other Connections [Internet]. mountolivethistory; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.mountolivethistory.com.
51.  Salvini S, Coletti C, Maritan L, Massironi M, Spiess R,Mazzoli C. Petrographic characterization and durability of carbonate stones used in unesco world heritage sites in northeastern italy. Environ Earth Sci. 2023;82:49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-022-10732-y
52.   Saba M, Quiñones-Bolaños EE, López AL. A review of the mathematical models used for simulation of calcareous stone deterioration in historical buildings. Atmos Environ. 2018;180:156-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018. 02.043.
53.  Coletti C, Cesareo L.P, Nava J, Germinario L, Maritan L, Massironi M, et al. Deterioration Effects on Bricks Masonry in the Venice Lagoon Cultural Heritage: Study of the Main Facade of the Santa Maria dei Servi Church (14th Century). Herit. 2023;6:1277–1292. https://doi.org/10.3390 /heritage 6020070. 
54.  Casti M, Meloni P, Pia G, Palomba M. Differential damage in the semi-confined Munazio Ireneo cubicle in Cagliari (Sardinia): A correlation between damage and microclimate. Environ Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 529. https://doi.org/ /10.1007%2Fs12665-017-6868-2.
55.  Marrocchino E, Telloli C, Rizzo A. Chemical Characterization of Particulate Matter in the Renaissance City of Ferrara. Geosc. 2021;11:227. https://doi.org /10.3390/geosciences11060227.
56.  Vidovic K, Hocevar S, Menart E, Drventic I, Grgic I, Kroflic A. Impact of air pollution on outdoor cultural heritage objects and decoding the role of particulate matter: A critical review. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29:46405–46437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20309-8
57.  Bonazza A, Messina P, Sabbioni C, Grossi CM, Brimblecombe P. Mapping the impact of climate change on surface recession of carbonate buildings in Europe. Scien total environ. 2009;407(6):2039-50. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.10.067
58.  Gandini A, Garmendia L, San Mateos R. Towards sustainable historic cities: Mitigation climate change risks. Entrep. Sustain. 2017;4:319–327. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.9770/jesi.2017.4.3S(7).
59.  United Nations. Transforming OurWorld: The Agenda 2030 for the Sustainable Development; A/RES/70/1; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
60.  Kucera V, Tidblad J, Kreislova K, Knotkova D, Faller M, Reiss R, et al. UN/ECE ICP Materials Dose-response functions for the multi pollutant situation. In Acid Rain—Deposition to Recovery; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 249–258.
61.  Dowling RK. Geotourism’s global growth. Geoher. 2011; 3(1):1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12371-010-0024-7.
62.   Németh B, Németh K, Procter JN. Visitation rate analysis of geoheritage features from earth science education perspective using automated landform classification and crowdsourcing: A geoeducation capacity map of the auckland volcanic field, New Zealand. Geosc. 2021;11(11):480. https://doi.org/10.3390/ geosciences 11110480.
63.  The geopark interpretation center [Internet]. geoparc; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www. geoparc.cat.
64.  Geology map of Zanjan [Internet]. gis-store; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.gis-store.ir.
65.  Qeshm Geopark [Internet]. youtopin; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www. youtopin.com
66.   Zafeiropoulos G, Drinia H, Antonarakou A, Zouros N. From geoheritage to geoeducation, geoethics and geotourism: A critical evaluation of the Greek region. Geosc. 2021;11(9):381. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences 11090381.
67. Martínez-Graña AM, Díez T, González-Delgado JÁ, Gonzalo-Corral JC, Merchán L. Geological heritage in the “arribes del duero” natural park (western, spain): a case study of introducing educational information via augmented reality and 3d virtual itineraries. land. 2022;11(11):1916. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11111916
مطالعات در دنیای رنگ
دوره 15، شماره 1
اسفند 1403
صفحه 77-89

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 24 آبان 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 29 دی 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 30 دی 1403

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار