International Journal of Sciences:

Basic and Applied Research

(IJSBAR)
ISSN 2307-4531
(Print & Online)

[Link]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventory and Assessment of the Geomorphosites of

Bahariya –Farafra Territory, Western Desert, Egypt

M. M. El Arefa, M. S. Hammedb, A. Salamac*

a,b
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
c
Nature Conservation Sector, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA)
a
Email: elarefmortada@[Link], bEmail: salehhamad@[Link]
c
Email: maazapark@[Link]

Abstract

The study area forms the central territory of the Western Desert, Egypt, and encompasses two declared
Protected Areas namely, the White Desert National Park and Al Wahat Al Bahariya under the law number 102
/1983 in the framework of protected areas in Egypt. The Ministerial Decrees No. 1220/2002 and No. 2656/2010
declared the White Desert National Park to protect spectacular karst landscapes and associated erosional
features and Al Wahat Al Bahariya Protected Area to protect the sites of the Cenomanian Dinasour as a natural
heritage and the black duricrusted cone hills. The present study presents an inventory and assessment for the
wonderful geosites within the Bahriya- Farafra territory, Western Desert, Egypt, with emphases on the protected
areas, using inclusive inventory cards for each selected site. Firstly, up to 52 potential sites are selected
representing the remarkable historical geological evolution of the Early Cretaceous to a Recent time span. Later
nineteen of them as significant geomorphosites have been subjected to further assessment. The main inventory
results revealed that the Bahariya - Farafra territory has a great geodiversity reflecting high scientific, aesthetic
and management values for various activities of geotourism and education and research institutions. Protection
and conservations of the recorded geosites are available to a certain extent, but still not high enough to regulate
the visiting activities. The visitors' awareness is of very low level due to the lack of an adequate infrastructure
and qualified administrative and guiding staff.

Keywords: Geoheritage; Geosite; geomorphosites; inventory; assessment; protected area.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Corresponding author.

128
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

1. Introduction

Figure 1: The relationship between Geoheritage and Geosite [1]

The term geoheritage is defined by Dixon [1] as the components elements of natural geodiversity of significant
value to humans, including scientific research, education, aesthetics and inspiration, cultural development and a
sense of place experienced by communities (Figure.1).

It is a generic term comprising a place where the geomorphological and geological setting makes the landscapes
distinctive features, or defined as apportions of the geosphere that present a particular importance for
comprehension of earth history, geological or geomorphological objects that have acquires scientific, cultural,
aesthetic or essential economic value due to human perception or exploitation [2]. The geosite can be divided
into groups, including sedimentological, stratigraphical, volcanic, geomorphological, petrographical and mining.
term “Geomorphological” became widely used since the beginning of the 90’s and researchers from all over
Europe started discussing the issues of conservation of geological and geomorphologic landforms and
landscapes. Different terms have been used in literature to describe geomorphologic landforms such as
geomorphological assets[3], geomorphological goods[4] (Carton and his colleagues 1994), geomorphological
sites [5], geomorphological geotopes [6], sites of geomorphological interest [7]. The term «geomorphosite» has
recently been introduced as an acronym for «geomorphological site» [8]. It is defined as a landform that has
acquired a special value due to human perception or exploitation [3]. This value depends on the scientific,
ecological, environmental, cultural, aesthetic and/or economic importance [9], (Figure.2). The scientific value
must be seen as a fundamental kind of value for that recognition but other types of value like cultural, ecological
or aesthetic are often considered in the selection and comparison of geomorphosites, Economic value refers
mainly to the tourism potential of sites. Authors [6] and [9] defined the term geomorphosite as any part of the

129
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

Earth’s surface that is important for the knowledge of Earth, climate and life history.

Figure 2: The characteristics of geomorphosites according to [9]

The term inventory means identification of potential geomorphosites. One of the essential aims of the inventory
stage is the selection of landforms that can be defined as geomorphosite. The inventory processes involve the
detailed analysis of all sites of geomorphological features within a study area.

2. Geology and karst morphology

The study area is located in the central Western Desert of Egypt and encompasses within it El Bahr Valley and
two large depression is known respectively as El Bahariya and El Farafra Depressions (Figure.3). The exposed
rocks in the study area are of sedimentary nature except for the occurrences of Oligo-Miocene basaltic flows and
intrusions. This sedimentary succession ranges in age from Late Cretaceous to Recent. The distribution of
carbonate rocks covers an area about 35.000 km2,and characterized by intensive dissolution and karst features,
while the non-karst rocks include, sand and clays, sand dunes in El Bahr valley, Cenominean clastic rocks of
Bahariya Formation, clastic rocks of Wadi Hennis Formation in the northern part of El Farafra Depression,
Dakhla shales, interbedded clays and carbonate layers of Esna Formation and sand dunes covers an area about
20.000 km2 and in the El Farafra Depression hidden under it the karst rocks of Cretaceous and Paleocene age
Fig.3. The surface karst landforms and morphology in the study area were classified by [10] in press into
sixteen assemblage fields include, El Bahr Valley, Karst depressions, cone karst, Carbonate pavements,
rejuvenated karst and Degraded caves, MaqfiUvala, Polygonal doline karst, Tower karst, Mushrooms, karren,
Half dome (Chocolate balls), Ripple, Degraded karst, solution basin(pan-like), Karst inselbergs and Grike and
Client which used to produce karst map for the first time in Egypt (Figure 4). Each field includes several
residual landforms shaped by karstification processes and some geosites produced as a result of volcanic
activities. These fields help us to identify the important geological and geomorphological sites within the
studied region.

130
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

Figure 3: Location map of the study area and encompasses protectorates. Note the distribution of karst and non-
karst rocks

Figure 4: Karst Map shows different karst landform fields in the study area after El Aref and his colleagues [10]

131
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

3. Methodology

Since 1990s various inventory and assessment methods for geosite and geomorphosite were introduced by
several authors (e.g., [3,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The present study followed the methodology of [19] and the
reputable methodological guidelines of [20] , shown in (Figure 5). stage, of the important geomorphosites are
collected, depending on the detailed field observations and documentation on the entire surface of the study
area. During the quantification stage, the importance of each site is determined by numerical assessment of
criteria, allowing the comparison of sites. The approach is based on the previous definition of three types of
geomorphosites according to the observation scale including single places, areas and panoramic viewpoints.

Figure 5: The main stages and sub-stages used in geomorphosite assessment after [20].

4. Inventory of the Geomorphosites

Step 1: Selection of potential geosites

Up to 52 important sites are selected and identified (Figure.6 and Table 1) based on various criteria including:

i. the scientific value (adopted from the results of the present work),
ii. The value of landform aesthetics and characteristics in relation to sites in the same type or of other
areas,
iii. The relationship between landforms and cultural elements, such as archaeological features and,
iv. links between landforms and ecological issues, such as fauna and flora populations. The result of the
inventory stage shows that most sites are of karst type (Table 1).

Step 2: Qualitative Assessment

After identification of sites, use is made of a qualitative evaluation process to determine geomorphological
intrinsic value, potential use, and required protection. The assessment is based on the basis of knowledge and
existing detailed inventory of the potential geosites and geomorphosites. The geomorphological value is defined
by comparison of sites against their scientific, ecological, cultural and aesthetic performance, with scores being

132
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

given from nil (0) to very high (5) for each of the criteria. Potential use is defined on the basis of three main
criteria: accessibility, visibility, and evidence of importance in other areas (e.g. biological, archaeological). The
latter aspect thus also takes a current promotion and use of a site in other fields into account. Required
protection includes assessment of the level of intactness (deterioration) and vulnerability, with scores ranging
from high (3) to low (1). Although the qualitative assessment may be brief, subjective and strongly influenced
by the assessor’s understanding of geomorphology and geo-conservation, it is a fundamental step in the overall
assessment. The results serve as a basis for the further stages in the inventory phase (Table. 2).

Step 3: Geomorphosite selection.

Only 19 landforms from the ones listed above could truly be classified as geomorphosites (Figure.1) based on
their rank performance during the qualitative assessment, those sites that scored overall highest being selected
for further characterization.

Step 4: Geomorphosite Characterization

Figure 6: Geomorphosite location map of the potential and selected geomorphosites.

In this step the characterization of Geomorphosites aims to collect a set of wide-ranging data, including name of
the site, location, coordinates, owner (public or private) of the land, cartographic data, description, accessibility,
Legal protection, genesis, chronology, state of conservation, current use, impact of threats and contribution of
the area in job opportunities. The present results are compiled and arranged (Table .3), using the guidelines of
Pereira and Periera [20] and Serrano and Trueba [21].

133
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

5. Quantification of Geomphosites In Bahariya - Farafra Region

• Numerical Assessment

According to Pereira and Periera [20], the framework for numerical assessment uses the criteria introduced in
the previous stages but divides them up into different classes in order to create two levels, principal, and
secondary indicators. The division of criteria takes into account the possible objectives of the assessment, i.e.
the protection or promotion of geomorphosites. For this reason, the principal indicator geomorphological value
includes the secondary indicators scientific value and additional values, while management value, as a second
principal indicator, integrates the secondary indicators use value and protection value for a detailed description
of each indicator. Regarding the weighting of results, the geomorphological value and management value are
treated the same with a maximum of 10 points each (Table.4). The sum of all indicators determines the total
value of the geomorphosite.

Table 1: The main Geological and Geomorphological landforms inventoried in the Bahariya- Farafra region

134
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

Table 2: Criteria used in the Qualitative assessment of potential geomorphosites (after [20]

Criteria Assessment
2- Low
3-Medium
Scientfic value(Sc)
4- High
5- very high
Additional Value(Adv.) 0 - nile
Geomorphological Value
Cultural(Cult.) 1- very low
Aesthetic(Aest.) 2- Low
Ecological(Ecol.) 3-Medium
4- High
5- very high
Use Value(Usv.) Accessibility(Ac) 1- Very difficult
Visibility (Vi) 2- diffiicult
Other natural and cultural features 3- medium
4- easy / good
5-very easy/ very good
protection status Integrity / intactness(In) 1- Low
Vulnerability(Vu) 2-Medium
3- High

• Geomorphosite Ranking

In this sub-stage, the results of the numerical assessment are recorded in a quantification table. All criteria are
assessed for each of the geomorphosites. As all data are recorded on the same table, a direct comparison of site
ranks is possible (Table.5). Whereas the sum of all principal and secondary indicators is expressed as a total
value, the sum of rank positions according to an indicator (primary and secondary) are taken into account under
final ranking. Consequently, the sites with lowest final ranking scores may be considered to be of greatest value
in an assessed area.

The advantage of emphasizing rank averages in geomorphosite assessment is the greater attention given to
overall relative value or homogeneity of criteria results. Thus, geomorphosites that score well over the full
spectrum of indicators will also be amongst the best place in final ranking.

The final ranking is consequently felt to be particularly useful for supporting site management decisions with
regards prioritization of measures for the protection, education (e.g. setting up trails, installation of descriptive
panels) and promotion of geomorphosites (Pereira and Periera, 2010).

135
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

Table 3: Example of the description of geomorphosite characterization (inventory card), after [20] and [21].

GEOMORPHOSITE DESCRIPTION CARD

Identification Site Crystal Mountain (Degraded Caves) No. 6 Photo

Name
Comments The term Mountain is invalid because the site cannot follow
the criteria of the mountain from the elevation point of
view.
Place: Qaret El Sheikh
Abdalla( north Farafra
oasis)
Governorate: New Valley

Coordinates N 27 39 40.84
E 28 25 50.34
Altitude (a.s.l) 220 m

landowner public

Type Singular place

Landforms description Remnants of infilled caves are widely distributed in this karst terrain. Ultimate denudation
led to the complete removal of the roofs and consequently exposing the internal cave
sediments including variable forms of crystal calcite clusters, flowstones, dripstones and
fructified calcite layers.
Genesis Degraded caves related to Karst processes

Chronology The original caves and cave sediments are of Cretaceous-Paleocene time span originated
during multi-cycles of humid karstification and exposed to the surface during tectonically
uplifting phase followed by younger paleo-karst denudation.
Cultural content Not present in the site

Accessibility Easy close to road Difficult far away from road Very difficult
√
Level of interest Very high due to its exceptional location within the WDNP.

State of conservation Very good Good bad

√
Current uses The site is one of the most popular places for visitors come to the White Desert National Park

Impacts or threats Natural threats: does not exist

Anthropogenic threats: does not exist (may exist due to the collection and damage of the
calcite crystals)

136
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

The area contributes very High High Medium Low

√
to job opportunities

The area is very important to local communities accompanying the tourists to recreation and
ecotourism activities.
Legal Status Crystal mountain is a part of the White Desert protected area which declared by The prime
Minister decree No.1220/2002 and protected by the law No.102/1983.
References El Aref and his colleagues (1987); Present Work (2017).

Table 4: Criteria and indicators used in geomorphosite numerical assessment based on the methodology applied
by [18,20].

Geomorphological Value (GmV., SCV +AdV) Maxiumum score (10)

Scientfic value ScV = (Ra+In+Rp+Div+Ge+Kn+RMaxiumum(5.5) [Link]
Ra Rareness in relation to the area 1
In Integrity 1
Rp Representativeness of geomorphological processes 1
Div Divesity of (conetent) site (stratigraphical, geomorphological, etc 1
Ge Other geological features with heritage value 0.5
Kn Scientfic Knowledge on geomorphological issues 0.5
Rn Rareness at national level 0.5
Additional Value( Adv)=(Cult+Aest+ecol) Maxiumum(4.5)
Cult. Cultural value 1.5
Aest Aesthetic value 1.5
Ecol. Ecological value 1.5
Management Value (MgV.,UsV+prV) Maxiumum score (10)
Use value Usv = (Ac+Vi+Gu+Ou+Lp+Eq) Maxiumum(7.0)
Ac Accessibility 1.5
Vi Visibility 1.5
Gu present use of the geomorphological interest 1
Ou present use of other natural and cultural interests 1
Lp legal protection and use limitation 1
Eq Equipemt and support services 1
Protection Value (Vpr) = (In+Vu) Maxiumum (3.0)
In Integrity / intactness 1
Vu Vulnerability of use as geomorphosite 2

137
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

ScV. (5.5) AdV.(4.5) GmV. UsV.( 7) PrV.( 3) MgV. TV(20) Rk

1 st TK (5.5) As (2.98) Tk (7.75) Dc (6.25) TK (2.9) Wd (8.74) Tk (16.14) Tk (17)
2 nd Dc (5.25) Am (2.68) Di (7.28) Wd (6.24) Di (2.8) Od (8.64) Wd (15.6) Di (29)
3 rd Bd (5.3) Tk (2.25) wd (7.28) Od (6.24) CO (2.8) Dc (8.5) Di (15.44) Wd (32)
4 th Di (5.08) Bh (2.21) Bd (6.71) Bd (6.17) Ma (2.8) Tk (8.39) Dc (15.15) Dc (32.4)
5 th Wd (5) Di (2.2) Dc (6.65) Mu (5.82) Ah (2.75) Bd (8.39) Bd (15.1) Bd (50)
6th Sb (4.91) Aw (2.08) Mu (6.65) Pe (5.54) Th (2.7) Mu (8.22) Bd (15.1) Od (52)
7th Co (4.81) Od (1.88) Bh (6.54) Tk (5.49) As (2.7) Di (8.16) Mu (14.77) Mu (54)
8 th Mu (4.67) Mu (1.88) ow (6.46) Hf (5.41) pk (2.67) As (7.89) Hd (14.07) Hd (77)
9th Rp (4.66) Wd (1.86) Hd (6.46) Di (5.36) Rp (2.65) Pk (7.83) Sb (13.99) Sb (78)
10 th Hf (4.66) Pe (1.85) Sb (6.35) As (5.19) Bh (2.6) Th (7.73) Pe (13.9) Pk (79)
11th Od (4.58) Hd (1.80) pe (6.26) Pk (5.16) Ma (2.5) Pe (7.64) Pk (13.87) As (82)
12 th pk (4.49) PK (1.55) Co (6.23) Aw (5.09) Ak (2.5) Sb (7.64) Th (13.76) Th (82)
13 th Th (4.5) Th (1.53) Re (6.12) Th (5.03) WD (2.5) Hd (7.61) As (13.32) Pe (86)
14 th Ma (4.42) Ma (1.5) Pk (6.04) Sb (4.84) Mu (2.4) Aw (7.59) Re (13.32) Ah (87)
15 th pe (4.41) Rp (1.46) Th (6.03) Ah (4.76) Od (2.4) Ah (7.51) Co (13.04) Co (90)
16 th Bh (4.33) Sb (1.44) Ma (5.92) Rp (4.55) Dc (2.25) Rp (7.2) Ah (12.99) Bh (92)
17 th Ah (2.8) Bd (1.41) As (5.58) Ma (4.09) Bd (2.22) Co (6.81) Bh (12.77) Rp (92)
18th Aw (2.7) Cr (1.42) Ah (5.58) Co (4.01) Hd (2.2) Ma (6.59) Ma (12.51) Aw (100)
19 th As (2.6) dc (1.4) Aw (4.78) Bh (3.63) pe (2.1) Bh (6.23) Aw (12.37) Ma (101)

Table 5 : Quantified results of 19 selected Geomorphosites in the study area based on the guidelines of Pereira
and his colleagues (2007)[18] and Pereira and Pereira (2010).[20]

6. Results and Conclusion

The inventory stage revealed that 52 potential sites represent the evolution stage of the earth history of the study

138
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

area from Early Cretaceous to Recent. Nineteen important geomorphosites were selected for further assessment
(Figure.6, Table 6.). These sites are located within two protected areas; Al Wahat Al Bahariya protected Area
and White Desert National Park. The single places are all landforms with high natural geomorphological value,
whereas a large number of panoramic viewpoints reflects a touch of pragmatism, as from these points a great
variety of landforms can easily be observed and recognized. Most of the selected morphosites are of karst origin
controlled mainly by the structural geometry and lithology of the host rocks as well as with the climatic
conditions.

The results of the numerical assessment and ranking of geomorphosites are presented in Table 6. the analysis
revealed that the sites often have a height scientific value. As shown in Tables (6 and 7), Tower

karst (Tk) in Farafra area appears to be the most valuable geomorphosite in the White Desert National Park,
scoring highest in total value and final ranking, despite coming first in both geomorphological and management
value (1st order). These back to the site representative of good processes, with high geodiversity and have good
habitat for endangered bird species (Sooty Falcon) in addition to the

importance of the site for tourist attraction. The sites G. Dist (Di), White Desert (Wd), are equals in
geomorphological values. G. Dist (Di) is the second higher rank (2nd order), as it includes Dinosaur bone
fragments and traces. While the white desert (Wd) came the third in the final ranking (3rd order), this back to
has a higher management value (tourist attraction). Old White Desert (Od), Degraded Caves (Dc), Black Desert
(Bd), Mushroom (Mu) and Half Dome (Hd), are the strongest in terms of management value (8.64), (8.5),
(8.39), (8.22) and (7.61), respectively. In spite of Od has high value in management value it was the 6th in the
final ranking value due to a low geomorphological value as the site not supported by biological diversity. The
other geomorphosites have higher values in both geomorphological and management values. Figure 7.

Table 6 : Ranking results of 19 selected Geomorphosites in the study area

ScV. (5.5) AdV.(4.5) GmV. UsV.( 7) PrV.( 3) MgV. TV(20) Rk

1 st TK (5.5) As (2.98) Tk (7.75) Dc (6.25) TK (2.9) Wd (8.74) Tk (16.14) Tk (17)
2 nd Dc (5.25) Am (2.68) Di (7.28) Wd (6.24) Di (2.8) Od (8.64) Wd (15.6) Di (29)
3 rd Bd (5.3) Tk (2.25) wd (7.28) Od (6.24) CO (2.8) Dc (8.5) Di (15.44) Wd (32)
4 th Di (5.08) Bh (2.21) Bd (6.71) Bd (6.17) Ma (2.8) Tk (8.39) Dc (15.15) Dc (32.4)
5 th Wd (5) Di (2.2) Dc (6.65) Mu (5.82) Ah (2.75) Bd (8.39) Bd (15.1) Bd (50)
6th Sb (4.91) Aw (2.08) Mu (6.65) Pe (5.54) Th (2.7) Mu (8.22) Bd (15.1) Od (52)
7th Co (4.81) Od (1.88) Bh (6.54) Tk (5.49) As (2.7) Di (8.16) Mu (14.77) Mu (54)
8 th Mu (4.67) Mu (1.88) ow (6.46) Hf (5.41) pk (2.67) As (7.89) Hd (14.07) Hd (77)
9th Rp (4.66) Wd (1.86) Hd (6.46) Di (5.36) Rp (2.65) Pk (7.83) Sb (13.99) Sb (78)
10 th Hf (4.66) Pe (1.85) Sb (6.35) As (5.19) Bh (2.6) Th (7.73) Pe (13.9) Pk (79)
11th Od (4.58) Hd (1.80) pe (6.26) Pk (5.16) Ma (2.5) Pe (7.64) Pk (13.87) As (82)
12 th pk (4.49) PK (1.55) Co (6.23) Aw (5.09) Ak (2.5) Sb (7.64) Th (13.76) Th (82)
13 th Th (4.5) Th (1.53) Re (6.12) Th (5.03) WD (2.5) Hd (7.61) As (13.32) Pe (86)
14 th Ma (4.42) Ma (1.5) Pk (6.04) Sb (4.84) Mu (2.4) Aw (7.59) Re (13.32) Ah (87)
15 th pe (4.41) Rp (1.46) Th (6.03) Ah (4.76) Od (2.4) Ah (7.51) Co (13.04) Co (90)
16 th Bh (4.33) Sb (1.44) Ma (5.92) Rp (4.55) Dc (2.25) Rp (7.2) Ah (12.99) Bh (92)
17 th Ah (2.8) Bd (1.41) As (5.58) Ma (4.09) Bd (2.22) Co (6.81) Bh (12.77) Rp (92)
18th Aw (2.7) Cr (1.42) Ah (5.58) Co (4.01) Hd (2.2) Ma (6.59) Ma (12.51) Aw (100)
19 th As (2.6) dc (1.4) Aw (4.78) Bh (3.63) pe (2.1) Bh (6.23) Aw (12.37) Ma (101)

139
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

Finally, we can conclude that the Bahariya - Farafra region has a great geodiversity reflecting high scientific,
aesthetic and management values very much attractive for various types of geotourism and educational and
research institutions. All the activities of desert safari are based on marketing the geomorphosites or landscape
in the study area and represent the main generate income for the local communities in both Bahariya and Farafra
Depressions. The protection and conservation of the area is present to a certain extent, but still not high enough
to regulate visits to each area. The education of visitors is also on a very low level due to the lack of adequate
infrastructure and qualified staff who should be engaged in education and interpretation.

Table 7 : Types of the selected geomophosites.

Type N0. Name

panoramic 8 Old White Desert, White Desert, Theatre, Ain Abu Hawas (Ain
viewpoints Maqfi. Ah), Ain El Serw (As), Ain El Wadi (Ain Khadra. Aw)
Springs, El Bahr Valley, Black Desert
Areas 7 Crystal Mountain (Degraded Caves), Solution Basins (Pan Like),
Ripple Cuesta-Like Forms, Cone Karst, Pedestal/Trittekarren, Marsos
and Half Dome Forms.
single 4 Pinnacle, Tower, Mushrooms and G. Dist,
places

Figure 7: Selected important gemorphosites

140
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

a) Tower karst in the Farafra Depression; b) Panoramic view of [Link] Magraph at El Bahariya Depression, the
dinosaur site c) Panoramic view of the White Desert; d) Remains of unroofed cave fills (crustified calcite like
octopus shape e) Panoramic view showing conical hills of the black desert; f) Panoramic view showing ruins
for remains of old lakes in White Desert. g) Panoramic view of Mushrooms karst zone (Cheiken) in White
Desert, Farafra Depression; h) Panoramic view of Al Masrah; i) Columnar joint of Basalt at [Link] Marsos one of
attractive point for tourists in Al Wahat Al Bahariya Protected area; j) Pinnacle karst in White Desert Protected
area k) Al serw karst spring in White Desert National Park;l) Remains of chalk (Pedistole) with conspicuous
trittkarren.

7. Recommendations

1. So far in Egypt, the inventory and assessment of the various geosites are completely missed and the
present work represents the first milestone for future processes of geomorphosites identification and
inventory.
2. It is highly recommended to use the recorded data in the structure and design of the guide and geotour
maps.
3. Implementation of the obtained results in another area to evaluate the geomorphosite in Protected
Areas in Egypt as a step to create geoparks.
4. Focusing should be done in the interplay between the humid paleokarst features and the arid recent
abrasion and sedimentation.
5. The present inventory and assessment data of the study area should be re-evaluating and re-assist with
the other comparable features of national and international worldwide scale.
6. It constitutes the base for the preparation of various geotourist products (educational trails, panels, and
leaflets).
7. Increase the public awareness of local guides and tourist guides by the importance of geological and
geomorphological heritage to preserve it for future generations.

References

[1] Dixon (1996 Dixon, G. (1996) “Geoconservation: An International Review and Strategy for Tasmania”,
Occasional Paper 35. Hobart, Tasmania: Parks & Wildlife Service.

[2] Reynard, E. (2004) “Géotopes, géo(morpho)sites et paysages géomorphologiques” – In: Reynard, E. &
J.-P. Pralong(eds): Paysages géomorphologiques. Travaux et recherches 27,Lausanne, Institut de
Géographie pp.123-136

[3] Panizza [Link] Piacente S. (1993) “Geomorphological assets eva-luation”. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie, Suppl. Bd. 87, pp.13-18.

[4] Carton, A., Cavallin, A., Francavilla, F., Mantovani, F., Panizza, M., Pellegrini, G.G. & C. Tellini
(1994) “Ricerche ambientali per l’individuazione e la valu-tazione dei beni geomorfologici – metodi ed
esempi” – In: Il Quaternario 7, 1 pp. 365-372.

141
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

[5] Hooke, J.M. (1994): “Strategies for conserving and sustaining dynamic geomorphological sites”,. – In:
O’Halloran, D. et al. (eds): Geological and landscape conservation. – London: Geological Society, pp.
191-195.

[6] Grandgirard V. (1997) “Géomorphologie, protection de la nature et gestion du paysage”. Thèse de

doctorat en géographie, uni-versité de Fribourg, 210 p

[7] Rivas, V., Rix, K., Frances, E., Cendrero, A. & D. Brunsden (1997) “Geomorphological indicators for
environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources”. –
In: Geomorphology 18: 169-182

[8] Panizza M. (2001) “Geomorphosites. Concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological survey”.
Chinese Science Bulletin46, 4-6.

[9] Reynard E. (2005) “Géomorphosites et paysages. Géomorphologie: relief, processus”, environnement 3,

pp.181-188.

[10] El Aref, M.M., Saleh, M,H., and Salama,A.M,. (2017): “Geomorphological classification and zonation
of the exposed karst landforms in Bahariya- Farafra region, Western Desert Egypt ”, International
Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) 6, 5, pp.956-965.

[11] Grandgirard V. (1999) “L’évaluation des géotopes”. Geologica Insubrica 4-1, 59-66.

[12] Reynolds, J. (2001) “Notes to accompany RIGS recording, assessment and designation and notification
sheets”. In Notes on the UKRIGS Conference 2001. Penirth: UKRIGS
[Link][Link]

[13] Coratza, P. & C. Giusti(2005) “Methodological pro-posal for the assessment of the scientific quality of
geomorphosites”. – In: Piacente, S. & P. Coratza(eds): Geomorphological sites and geodiversity. – In:
Il Quaternario 18, 1,pp. 307-313.

[14] Pralong J.-P., (2005) “A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites”,
Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, 3, pp. 189-196.

[15] Zouros N., (2005) “Assessment, protection, and promotion of geomorphological and geological sites in
the Aegean area, Greece”, Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, 3, pp. 227-234

[16] Zouros N. (2007) “Geomorphosite assessment and managementin protected areas of Greece. Case
study of the Lesvos island –coastal geomorphosites”. Geographica Helvetica62, pp.169-180

[17] Reynard E., Fontana G., Kozlik L. and Scapozza C., (2007) “A method for assessing «scientific» and
«additional values» of geomorphosites”,Geographica Helvetica,62, 3, pp.148-158

142
 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2017) Volume 33, No 2, pp 128-143

[18] Pereira P., Pereira D.I., Alves M.I.C. (2007) “Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park
,Portugal”. Geographica Helvetica 62, pp.159-168

[19] Pereira P. (2006) “Património geomorfológico: conceptualiza-ção, avaliação e divulgação. Aplicação

ao Parque Natural deMontesinho”. PhD thesis, Departmento de Ciências da Terra, uni-versidade do
Minho, 370 p

[20] Pereira,P. and Pereira, D.(2010) “Methodological guidelines for geomorphosites assessment
indications méthodologiques pour l’évaluation des géomorphosites”. Géomorphologie : relief,
processus, Environnement, 2010, n° 2, pp. 215-222

[21] Serrano E., Gonzalez-Trueba J. (2005) “Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the
Picos de Europa National Park Spain”, Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement 3, pp.197-
208.

143