preliminary geosite assessment model (gam) and its application on fruska gora mountain, potential geotourism destination of serbia Miroslav D. Vujicic, Djordjije A. Vasiljevic, Slobodan B. Markovic, Thomas A. Hose, Tin Lukic, Olga Hadzic, Sava Janicevic Loess profile »Surduk« in the gully between Novi Slankamen and Stari Slankamen villages - currently the only law protected loess exposure in Serbia with fossil palaeosols Preliminary geosite assessment model (gam) and its application on Fruska gora mountain, potential geotourism destination of Serbia DOI: 10.3986/AGS51303 UDC: 913:338.483(497.11) 338.483:55(497.11) COBISS: 1.01 ABSTRACT: This paper presents a preliminary geosite physical assessment model which has the potential to assist in the sustainable planning and management of natural heritage locations and their transformation into tourism destination. The methodology is based on several existing models and presented through two groups of values - main and additional, which are further divided into indicators and subindicators respectively. The resultant model is a graph that consists of nine fields, into which geosites can be classified as fitting into nine general areas of suitability for tourism in terms of their main (scientific/educational, aesthetic/scenic and protection as market appeal and conservation) and additional values (functional and tourism use as current stage of development). This could prove to be of great help to natural heritage protection and tourism managers, as they could assess the current state of a geosite and thence propose a future path for it. KEY WORDS: geosites, assessment, geotourism, Fruska gora, Serbia The article was submitted for publication on May 19, 2011. ADDRESSES: Miroslav D. Vujicic, M. Sc. Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: miroslav.vujicic@dgt.uns.ac.rs Djordjije A. Vasiljevic, M. Sc. Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: geotrends@dgt.uns.ac.rs Slobodan B. Markovic, Ph. D. Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: slobodan.markovic@dgt.uns.ac.rs Thomas A. Hose, Ph. D. School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol, BS81RJ, UK E-mail: gltah@bristol.ac.uk Tin Lukic, M. Sc. Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: tin.lukic@dgt.uns.ac.rs Olga Hadzic, Ph.D. Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 2, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: ohadzic@dmi.uns.ac.rs Sava Janicevic, Ph. D. Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 2, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: sava.janicevic@dgt.uns.ac.rs Contents 1 Introduction 2 Regional settings and geosites inventory 3 Methodology 4 Application of GAM to Stari Slankamen loess geosite 5 Results and discussion 6 Conclusion 7 Acknowledgement 8 References 364 364 366 371 372 374 374 374 1 Introduction As tourists' expectations of quality experiences from the late twentieth century became more demanding, they were reflected in the expansion of their interest in and motivation to adopt new emerging forms of tourism such as special interest (Weiler and Hall 1992) and niche (Novelli 2005) tourism. Furthermore, the slightly earlier and concomitant rapid urbanization and other human-made activities that increasingly degraded the environment (see Fairbrother 1970 for discussion) influenced modern tourists to convert to sustainable and nature-friendly tourism activities commonly in aesthetic landscape settings, commonly identified as sustainable tourism (Page and Connell 2007) and ecotourism (Boo 1990). This indicates that the promotion of natural resources raises tourists' consciousness, not only about their importance and attractiveness, but also their vulnerability and thus conservation necessity. This conservation rationale underpins the geotourism concept as developed in Europe (Hose 1995) that also promotes tourism for both urban and, especially relevant to the model herein presented, rural destinations whilst promoting geoconservation (Hose 2007). Besides living nature, flora and fauna, recent European leisure trends have shown heightened appreciation of non-living natural resources - geodiversity. This variety of abiotic natural resources is defined by Gray (2004) as »the range of soil, geomorphological and geological features«. The components of geo-diversity that have scientific, educational, aesthetical and inspirational significance are considered to be determined as geoheritage (Dixon 1996; Erhartic 2010) and they are identified as having conservation significance (Gray 2004, Erikstad 2008). Conservation of the geoheritage (geoconservation) is a dynamic approach to the preservation and maintenance of geosites (Hose 2003) whose main purpose is to address concerns over their damage or destruction, whilst at the same time recognising the need to ensure through promotion and interpretation their availability and access (Hose 2005a) to a wider audience of casual as well as dedicated geotourists (Hose 2005b). This form of activity is underpinned by what has been defined from the 1990s as 'geotourism' which is focused on »the promotion of geologic and geomorphic sites for their scientific and societal value to ensure their conservation for future use by academics, tourists and casual recreationalists« (Hose 2000, 2008). A recent geotourism model indicates the necessity to select and inventory geosites identified initially through geological and geomorphological research and evaluated against tourism infrastructure, to underpin its development. In this context, as for every destination and its special places, before any planning at potential geotourism destinations, there should be a thorough assessment made to determine the condition and values of all the geosites of a destination. This assessment should give the clear picture of future activities regarding further development and management of geotourism at these sites. Thus, assessment should not only involve classification of sites, but offer suggestions for their protection, promotion and monitoring (Pereiraet al. 2007). The aim of this paper is to propose a new geosite assessment model (in further reading GAM), created by looking on the existing ones (Pralong 2005, Reynard etal. 2008, Pereiraet al. 2007, Zouros 2007) which are here integrated into one manifold and for the purpose of this study applied on geosites of the Fruska Gora mountain in the Vojvodina region, north Serbia. 2 Regional settings and geosites inventory Fruska Gora Mountain is situated at the confluence of the Danube and Sava Rivers, in Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, northern Serbia, between 45° 00' and 45° 15' north latitude and 16° 37' and 18° 01' north longitude (Figure 1). Although there are only a few peaks higher than 500 meters (highest peak, Crveni Cot at 539 meters), it represents a dominant orographic complex in the mostly plain and monotonous landscape of the Vojvodina region. Besides its geomorphologic significance this mountain represents the largest formation of geological and pedological diversity in the Pannonian area of Serbia. Furthermore, this relatively small region reflects a very complicated geological evolution that formed a unique tectonic, lithological and stratigraphic mosaic (Markovic 2007b). For the purpose of this research the inventory of geosites at Fruska Gora Mountain, determined by Markovic et al. (2001), was used. These authors identified 14 geosites in situ according to their scientific, educational and aesthetic value, current condition and accessibility. The complete list of these geosites is presented in Table 1. Ex situ sites were excluded from this paper because their characteristics could not be assessed by the selected indicators and thus could not be evaluated properly by GAM. Figure 1: Location of Fruska Gora Mountain with disposition of proposed geosites (Markovic, 2007b, modified). Table 1: Preliminary list of geosites of Fruska Gora Mountain with description (Markovic et al., 2001). No. Geosite Name and Label Description 1 The site of volcanic tuff »Galerija« near Rakovac village - GS1 Tuff horizon (8 m thick) interstratified between Miocene - Tortonian layers. The monument of Nature from 1982 (Knezevic, 1998). 2 Trachyte Quarry »Kisnjeva glava« - GS2 Trachyte dyke injected into Cretaceous formations of sandstone and flysch. The hight of steep slopes up to 80m (PetkoviCetal., 1976). 3 Trachyte Quarry »Srebro« near Ledinci village - GS3 Abandoned quarry with lake of exceptional aesthetic values. Steep slopes high up to 110 m. Very good display of geo and biodiversity (PetkoviCetal., 1976). 4 Palaeontological site of Miocene marine fossils- »Filijala« near Beocin village - GS4 Upper Miocen-Pannonian sediments with rich presence of caspibrackish water fauna. This site is considered as important checkpoint for sediment age determination in the region of ancient Tethys Ocean as a parastratotype (Knezevic, 1998). 5 Palaeontological site of Cretaceous marine fossils in Cerevic village - GS5 The most complete succession of the Upper-Cretaceous sediments. Fossil remains of Orbitoides, Loftusias, corrals, worms, Brachiopods, Gastropods and Lamelibranhiats (PetkoviCetal., 1976). 6 Palaeontological locality of the mio--pliocenic fossils-»Grgeteg« - GS6 7 The structural palaeontological site of Neogene gastropod marine fossils near Stari Slankamen village - GS7 The sediments of Sarmat, Upper Pontian and Pannonian age with rich caspibrachish water mollusk fauna. More than 40 species were extracted and determined from the exposed site (Knezevic, 1998; PetkoviCetal., 1976). Pannonian age sediments in discordant and transgressive position overlaying Badenian age limestones with numerous fossil marine gastropods (Knezevic, 1998). 8 »Grgurevacka« cave - GS. A unique karst underground geomorphological object in Vojvodina, northern Serbia (Petrovic, 1966) 9 A gorge-like part of Almas brook valley - GS9 Composite valley in the lower course of brook (of around 100 m) sediments with small waterfalls formed in loess sediments (Miljkovicetal., 1998) 10 Vrdnik mine - GS,, Abandoned coal mine with rich geological depository revealed in 26 underground mine shafts up to 280 m of depth (Vasiljevic and Markovic, 1999). 11 Loess section (»Ruma« brickyard) - GS11 Detailed evidence of paleogeographic events during the last 450 000 years. Fossil remains of the large Pleistocene mammals: Mamuthus primigeniusand Ursus deningeri (Markovicetal., 2004; 2006). 12 Loess profile »Surduk« in the gully between Novi and Stari Slankamen villages - GS12 Currently the only law protected loess exposure in Serbia with fossil palaeosols (Markovic, 2000). 13 Loess section in »Irig« - GS,3 The most northern profile with temperate and arid like terrestrial fossil malacofauna which indicates the existence of dry and warm glacial palaeoclimate (Markovic, 2007c). 40 m tick section with 10 palaeosols (contains valuable paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental records of the Middle and Late Pleistocene) (Markovic, submitted). 14 Loess profile »Cot« in Stari Slankamen village - GS14 Figure 2: Grgurevac cave - unique karst underground geomorphological object in Vojvodina, northern Serbia. Fruska Gora was proclaimed a National Park in 1960 with 25,525 ha of protected area due to its rich, rare and endangered biodiversity. Flora is presented by 1,454 species (Butorac 2007), while fauna refers primarily to ornithofauna with more than 200 species (Habijan-Mikes 2007). Additionally, within the Park and wider area of Fruska Gora Mountain, there are numerous historical and cultural monuments with almost 20 orthodox monasteries hidden in the woods which earned this destination the epithet 'the Holy Mountain' apropos Serbian Atos (Davidov 2007). Although some of the proposed geosites are within the National Park and thus officially under national concern, these sites do not have an adequate level of protection. Even worse, several sites (e.g. loess sections in Ruma and Irig, palaeontological site »Filijala«) are in the possession of commercial companies and exploited as construction resources (Vasiljevic et al. in press). On the other hand, some features are less well known to the public, in remote or inaccessible areas, or perfectly hidden by nature and therefore still intact and preserved. 3 Methodology The evaluation of geosites has been developing since the 1990s in terms of their interpretative potential and provision (Hose 1997, 2000). Three main physical domains (Reynard 2008) have also been recognised from the 1990s onwards: within the context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures (Rivasetal. 1997, Cendrero and Panizza 1999); for the elaboration of geographic knowledge on the geomorphological heritage in the context of land planning (Stürm 1994, Grandgirard 1999); and finally, and more recently, in the context of the promotion of the geomorphological heritage (geotourism, cultural heritage in a broad sense; see Panizza and Piacente 2003). Very useful comparison of four major assessment models (respectively: Reynardetal. 2007, Pereiraetal. 2007, Pralong 2005 and Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba 2005) was given by Erhartic 2010 who also claims that contemporary models should reduce the subjective factor with the assistance of numerical evaluation which could raise the level objectiveness and provide more effective geosite comparison in general. In order to create GAM, various relevant publications on these issues were consulted. For over a decade numerous papers were written concerning the evaluation of scientific, aesthetic and other values of geosites (e.g. Hose 1997, Pralong 2005, Reynardetal. 2008, Pereiraetal. 2007, Zouros 2007, etc). According to Reynardet al. (2007) most of them could be divided in several groups, due to their scopes and aims. Consequently, one group regards preferentially environmental impact assessment (EIA) and land-use inventories evaluating only scientific values (e.g. Grandgirard 1999, Rivasetal. 1997, Bonacheaetal. 2005, Coratza and Giusti 2005), while other evaluates not only the scientific quality of the sites, but also their additional values, such as ecological, aesthetic, cultural and economic (Reynard et al. 2007). Methods of the most recent group of research (e.g., Bruschi and Cendrero 2005, Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba 2005, Pralong 2005, Pereiraet al. 2007), besides the quality of the sites, also evaluate their use or potential for use, as they take into consideration accessibility, visibility, present use of the geomorphological interest, present use of other natural and cultural interests, legal protection and equipment and support services, which are very important for tourism development. Pralong (2005) has developed a specific method for the assessment of the tourist quality of geomorphosites and their use by the tourism sector as he evaluates cultural and economic potentials of geosites. The Geosite Assessment Model (GAM) was created according to several existing evaluation methods and most of the criteria proposed for the numerical assessment were taken from extant literature on the field. The complete structure of GAM is presented in Table 2. With the slight modification of existing models (e.g. Reynardet al. 2007, Pereiraet al. 2007) that specify two groups of indicators - scientific and additional, GAM proposes main and additional values. The first group, main values, comprises three indicators: scientific/educational, scenic/aesthetical and protection values. The first indicator in main values group is scientific and educational value (VSE) as suggested by Zouros (2007) with subindicators also proposed by Reynard et al. (2007), Pereira et al. (2007) and Pralong (2005), but with additional component »level of interpretation« as key element for understanding and explanation to wider audience and non-specialists. In contrast to before mentioned references, scenic and aesthetic values (VSA) are by GAM identified as main values, as they are relatively constant in time and not significantly human-influenced in general. This indicator was mostly created after Pralong (2005) with addition of »environmental fitting of site«, e.g. does certain manmade outcrop fit to its natural surroundings. Opposite to some previous models (e.g. Legal protection and use limitations, Pereiraetal. 2007; Threats/Endangerment level, Reynard 2007; Potential threats & protection needs, legal protection and vulnerability, Zouros 2007), protection (VPr) is here presented as indicator of main values, it should be essential activity before any promotional or tourism development in general. The second indicator group of the geosite assessment model, additional values, is further divided in to two indicators, functional and touristic values, as presented in Table 2. Some authors previously proposed some functional elements such as (e.g. Accessibility, Pralong 2005, Pereiraet al. 2007 Zouros 2007), but for the purpose of this paper and model Functional value (VFn), was further developed and it consists of six elements. New elements that were added are additional natural values, additional anthropogenic values, vicinity of emissive centers, vicinity of important road network and additional functional values. Purpose of these elements is not tourism development and they do not directly contribute to tourism, but are essential. The third and last indicator, Tourism values (VTr), evaluates the current state of (geo) tourism services and facilities. Several authors proposed some elements of the tourism values - e.g. Equipment and support services as a part of Use value (Pereiraet al. 2007), management measures (Reynard 2007), economic potential as a potential for use indicator (Zouros 2007), annual number of visitors and attraction as part of economic values (Pralong 2005). In contrast to the previous models, GAM offers tourism values as independent indicator with nine subindicators (see Table 2). In total sum, there are 12 subindicators of Main Values, and 15 subindicators of Additional Values which are graded from 0 to 1 (see Table 2) that define GAM as a simple equation: • GAM = Main Values (VSE + VSA + VPr) + Additional Values (VFn + VTr) Table 2: The structure of geosite assessment model (GAM). Indicators/Subindicators Description Scientific/Educational value (VSE) Rarity Number of closest identical sites Representativeness Didactic and exemplary characteristics of the site due to its own quality and generalconfiguration (Perreira, 2007) Knowledge on geoscientific issues Number of written papers in acknowledged journals, thesis, presentations and other publications Level of interpretation Level of interpretive possibilities on geological and geomorphologic processes, phenomena and shapes and level of scientific knowledge. Scenic/Aesthetic (VSA) Viewpoints Number of viewpoints accessible by a pedestrian pathway. Each must present a particular angle of view and be situated less than 1 km from the site. Surface Whole surface of the site. Each site is considered in quantitative relation to other sites. Surrounding landscape and nature Panoramic view quality, presence of water and vegetation, absence of human-induced deterioration, vicinity of urban area, etc. Environmental fitting of sites Level of contrast to the nature, contrast of colors, appearance of shapes, etc. Protection (VPr) Current condition Current state of geosite. Protection level Protection by local or regional groups, national government, international organizations, etc. Vulnerability Vulnerability level of geosite Suitable number of visitors Proposed number of visitors on the site at the same time, according to surface area, vulnerability and current state of geosite. Functional (VFn) Accessibility Possibilities of approaching to the site Additional natural values Number of additional natural values in the in radius of 5 km (geosites also included). Additional anthropogenic values Number of additional anthropogenic values in the in radius of 5 km. Vicinity of emissive centers Closeness of emissive centers. Vicinity of important road network Closeness of important road networks in the in radius of 20 km. Additional functional values Parking lots, gas stations, mechanics, etc. Touristic values (VTr) Promotion Level and number of promotional resources. Organized visits Annual number of organized visits to the geosite. Vicinity of visitors center Closeness of visitor center to the geosite. Interpretative panels Interpretative characteristics of text and graphics, material quality, size, fitting to surroundings, etc. Number of visitors Annual number of visitors Tourism infrastructure Level of additional infrastructure for tourist (pedestrian pathways, resting places, garbage cans, toilets, wellsprings etc.). Tour guide service If exists, expertise level, knowledge of foreign language(s), interpretative skills, etc Hostelry service Hostelry service close to geosite. Restaurant service Restaurant service close to geosite. Grades (0-1) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Common Regional National International The only occurrence None Low Moderate High Utmost None Local publications Regional publications National publications International publications None Moderate level of Good example Moderate level of Good example of processes but hard to of processes but hard to processes but easy to processes and easy to explain to non experts), explain to non experts explain to common visitor explain to common visitor None 1 2 to 3 4 to 6 More than 6 Small - Medium - Large - Low Medium High Utmost Unfitting - Neutral - Fitting Totally damaged Highly damaged Medium damaged Slightly damaged No damage (as a result of human (as a result of natural (with essential activities) processes) geomorphologic features preserved) None Local Regional National International Irreversible (with High (could Medium (could Low (could be damaged None possibility of total loss) be easily damaged) be damaged by natural only by human activities) processes or human activities) 0 0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 50 More than 50 Inaccessible Low (on foot with Medium (by bicycle High (by car) Utmost (by bus) special equipment and and other means of expert guide tours) man-powered transport) None 1 2 to 3 4 to 6 More than 6 None 1 2 to 3 4 to 6 More than 6 More than 100 km 100 to 50 km 50 to 25 km 25 to 5 km Less than 5 km None Local Regional National International None Low Medium High Utmost None Local Regional National International None Less than 12 per year 12 to 24 per year 24 to 48 per year More than 48 per year More than 50 km 50 to 20 km 20 to 5 km 5 to 1 km Less than 1 km None Low quality Medium quality High quality Utmost quality None Low Medium High Utmost (less than 5000) (5001 to 10.000) (10.001 to 100.000) (more than 100.000) None Low Medium High Utmost None Low Medium High Utmost More than 50 km 25-50 km 10-25 km 5-10 km Less than 5km More than 25 km 10-25 km 10-5 km 1-5 km Less than 1 km li 1 i 2: i ? ■ * w ■ • • « * < 1 • • z z z i 21 31 1 4 gs •gs2 i** • g5, •G5 *gs gs. • gs. i ■ 2 id u 12 Main Values Figure 3: Disposition of geosites to certain fields according to GAM. Based on the results of the assessment, a matrix of main and additional values could be created (Figure 3), where these values are presented via X and Y axes respectively. The matrix is divided into nine fields (zones) that are indicated by Z(i,j) (i,j=1,2,3) based on the grade they received in the previous evaluation process. Major gridlines that create fields, for X axe have value of 4 and for Y axe of 5 units. This means that, for example, if sum of Main Values is 7 and of additional values is 4, the geosite would be in the field Z21 which indicates moderate level of Main Values and low level of Additional Values. During the quantification phase, the importance of sites is determined by attribution of values to predetermined criteria. According to certain assessment, each geosite can be plotted in the field of the matrix with regard to its position in relation to each continuum (main and additional values) as indicated in Figure 3. It then could be linked to an appropriate overall tourism development, market appeal and conservation management policy which could benefit its future. When evaluating a geosite, managers need to asses current condition. As mentioned, there are five subindicators that evaluate the geosite and its main and additional values. After ratings are done, every geosite is put in one field or cell of the matrix. For example, geosites that fit in cell Z31 and Z32 have high scientific, aesthetic and protection values, but low developed tourist and functional sector. So managers have to promote, plan and enhance these assets, while not degrading the first one. On the other side, geosites that fit in Z11 and Z12 cell have low main values and also low additional values. In this case there are two scenarios: the first one is that the geosite has no main values, and because of that additional values are also low; the second scenario is where the geosite is not fully researched and because of that is not protected, which implies that there is no need for additional values. Geosites that fit in Z33 and Z23 have high ratings in main and additional values. On these sites managers should measure the impact of tourism and threats; a solution for this problem is the constant monitoring of proposed subindicators. 4 Application of GAM to Stari Slankamen loess geosite In order to thoroughly elucidate utilization of GAM, the proposed method will be applied to loess profile Cot near Stari Slankamen (Table 1 (GS14), Figure 4). Accordingly, the proposed methodology is clarified in some detail. The first group of main indicators, scientific and educational (VSE) values, shows highest values (Grade 1) of subindicators rarity and representativeness as this site represents one of the most complete palaeocli-matic and palaeoenvironmental archive on European land (Markovicetal., 2007a). Also, numerous scientific papers regarding this site, published in acknowledged international journals (e.g. Markovic et al. 2007a, 2008, 2009, submitted), also bring the highest grade for knowledge on geoscientific issues. All this resulted in the highest interpretation level as it is concluded that the Stari Slankamen loess profile represents an excellent example of palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental records of the Middle and Late Pleistocene Figure 4: Profile Cot near Stari Slankamen village, the most significant loess section in the Vojvodina region. that could provide simple and interesting stories to common tourists who are non-specialists or casual geotourists (Hose 2005b). Apart from the above mentioned values, the Stari Slankamen site also possesses notable scenia (VSA) that can be observed from three different viewpoints (0.5). Furthermore, the site is situated and well fitted on the far slopes of Fruska Gora Mountain, with exquisite natural surroundings and a view at confluence of Danube and Tisza rivers, river islands and wetlands on the opposite bank. This earned high grades for surrounding landscape and nature (0.75), its surface (1) in comparison to other sites and environmental fitting of sites (1). As formerly stated, the last group of main values is based on level of protection (VPr) and human involvement. The Stari Slankamen loess profile, although not officially protected (Grade 0) is only slightly damaged due to the natural processes (0.75). Damage to this site could occur only in a long time due to the natural processes (0.75) and due to its large surface area it can withstand more than 50 visitors at once (1). Opposite to main, subindicators of additional values have mostly medium or low values. Functional indicators (VFn), such as accessibility, vicinity of important road network or additional functional values have average grade (0.5) as the site is accessible only on foot and bicycle, the regional road is in its vicinity and the mediocre level of additional functional values - no proper parking lot, but it has all the other needed functional commodities. Additional natural values and anthropogenic values also earned medium grade for the Danube and Tisza rivers vicinity, loess profile »Surduk« in the gully between Novi and Stari Slankamen villages, mineral spring »Slanka«, remains of Roman fortification Acuminicum, Stari Slankamen spa, oldest one in the Vojvodina region and Ottoman bath house, etc. As the closest greater emissive (Novi Sad and Belgrade) are more than 50 km from the site, this subindicator is graded by 0.25. As geotourism is a still only theoretical phenomenon in Serbia, (geo) touristic (VTr) characteristics have the lowest values of all indicators as there are no organized visits and visitors at all, nor tour guide service (grade 0), with low level of interpretative panel, tourism infrastructure, hostelry and restaurant service (grade 0.25). Based on the sum of grades the Stari Slankamen loess profile has high level of main values (9.5 of 12) and low level of additional (4.25 of 15). The overall grade puts the Stari Slankamen loess profile in the Z31 cell which is shown in Figure 3. This indicates that further attention towards creating tourism attractive geosite should be directed to tourism infrastructure and services. Although in good condition, the protection status of this site should never be neglected. 5 Results and discussion By following the evaluation methodology of the Stari Slankamen site, all fourteen proposed geosites at Fruska Gora Mountain have been assessed (see Table 3). A more visual approach to the evaluation results can be presented as a matrix (see Figure 3) in which every site is presented by dots with their pertinence to the relevant field. The matrix evidently indicates that six sites fit in the Z21 field, five of them in Z22 field and three in Z31 field. These results show that the sites are graded with high (21%) and medium (79%) levels of the main values, with no single site in the low level, which leads to the conclusion that Fruska Gora Mountain has adequate levels of natural resources for geotourism development. However, the analysis also shows that nine geosites (64%) have low additional values, with none belonging to the high level of this group. This implies that there is an urgent need for the more rapid, though sustainable, development of tourism infrastructure and services. The presence of the National Park should hasten this process as certain facilities already exist and could regain their functionality with slight modifications. With the development of additional values, the main values would also advance through public awareness and appreciation of the geosites. This would lead to a much thorough investigations of this destination and, with new discoveries, the protection and thus promotion of these locations would bring more consideration to the additional values. As is perhaps obvious, the development of both main and additional values is a closed circle where affecting one influences the other. The proposed geosite assessment model is only a preliminary one, and the next step should be the evaluation of weighting criteria. Tourists, conservation managers and tourism managers should be inter- Table 3: Overall ranking of Fruska gora mountain geosites using GAM. Geosite Label Values Main VSE+VSA+VPr Additional VFn+VTr Overall Field GS, 2+1.25+2 2.75+1.5 9.5 Z21 gs2 2.25 + 2.5 + 2.5 2.25+0.5 10 Z21 Z21 GS3 1.75 + 3.5 + 1.75 3 + 0.25 10.25 gs4 gs5 2.5 + 2.25 + 1.75 3.25 + 2 11.75 Z22 Z31 2.25 + 2.75 + 3.25 2.25+1 11.5 'go^G^ GG 2.5 + 1.75 + 2.25 3.75 + 2 12.25 Z22 Z21 2.25 + 1.75 + 2 3+1 10 GG 1+1.5 +2 1.75 + 1.5 7.75 Z21 Z21 1.75+2.25+1.5 1.75+0.75 8 GS10 GS,, 2.25+3+2 4 + 1.5 12.75 Z22 Z22 3.25+2.75+1.5 4 + 2 13.5 GS12 GS13 3.25+3.25+3.25 2.75 + 1.5 14 Z31 Z22 3.5+2.25+1.5 4 + 1.75 12 GS14 4 + 3.25 + 2.5 2.75 + 1.5 14 Z31 viewed in order to assess the value of each indicator's elements, as the elements are of unequal importance with regard to tourism planning and management. For example, within the main values, interpretation level and rareness or representativeness of site, which are relatively constant in time (except if major discoveries occur), should be considered as more valuable than its surface or environmental fitting. Evidently, for the purpose of geotourism development, it is more important to form or improve guide services or interpretive panels (Figure 5) than to have the road network or some additional functional values developed. Consequently, this is why scientific/educational and protection values should be evaluated by experts Figure 5: Geosite Grgeteg - palaeontological locality of the mio-pliocenic fossils, interpreted by T. Lukic during the Geotrends 2010 conference fieldtrip. and conservation managers, while aesthetic/scenic, functional and tourist values should be evaluated by visitors and their experiences. Based on the newly developed grading criteria of evaluated indicators, this model could then give clearer guidelines for recognising important geotourism destinations. 6 Conclusion Nowadays, geosites have the potential to be acknowledged as both natural heritage and tourist resources with potential economic benefits (Hose 2005b), especially if located in protected areas, and when made readily physically and intellectually accessible to tourists (Hose 1996, 2000). The results of the assessment indicate that the Fruska gora Mountain geosites have significant main values, but low additional values so they could be considered only as potential tourist attractions in terms of their scientific/educational values and aesthetic/scenic appeal, the latter has yet to be discovered and will require suitable tourism promotion. Further steps should involve improving and supplementing the essential geotouristic infrastructure (such as interpretive panels, marked paths, signs, etc.) and the promotion within the National Park itself and more globally (brochures, web promotion, fairs, seminars, etc.) its geosites. Also, there is an active initiative for proclaiming Fruska Gora a GEOpark, as it fulfils most of criteria (geodiversity, surface, etc.), but designation awaits the resolution of detailed political, managerial and planning issues. However, it is apparent that, in addition to all the other complementary natural and cultural values of this area, Fruska Gora Mountain provides a timely perspective on a potential sustainable (geo) touristic destination. 7 Acknowledgement This work is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia (grant 176020). 8 References Bonachea, J., Bruschi, V., Remondo, J., González-Díez, A., Salas, L., Bertens, J., Cendrero, A., Otero, C., Giusti, C., Fabbri, A., González-Lastra, J., Aramburu, J. 2005: An approach for quantifying geomor-phological impacts for EIA of transportation infrastructures: a case study in northern Spain. Geomorphology 66. Amsterdam. D0I:10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.09.008 Boo, E. 1990: Ecotourism: the potentials and pitfalls. Washington. Bruschi, V. M., Cendrero, A. 2005: Geosite evaluation. Can we measure intangible values?. Il Quaternario 18-1. Rome. Butorac, B. 2007: Fruska gora: Prirodne odlike - biljni svet. Belgrade. Cendrero, A., Panizza, M. 1999: Geomorphology and environmental impact assessment: an introduction. Supplementi di Geografía Fisica Dinamica Quaternaria 3-3. Turin. Coratza, P., Giusti, C. 2005: Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geo- morphosites. Il Quaternario 18-1. Rome. Davidov, D. 2007: Fruska gora: Sveta srpska gora - Fruskogorska »Sveta Gora«. Belgrade. Dixon, G. 1996: Geoconservation: an international review and strategy for Tasmania. Miscellaneous report parks & wildlife service. Tasmania. Erhartic, B. 2010. Geomorphosite assessment. Acta geographica Slovenica. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS49204 Erikstad, L. 2008: History of geoconservation in Europe. The history of geoconservation. London. Fairbrother, N. 1970: New Lives, New Landscapes. London. Grandgirard, V. 1999: L'évaluation des géotopes. Geologia Insubrica 4-1. Milano. Gray, M. 2004: Geodiversity - valuing and conserving abiotic nature. London. Habijan-Mikes, V. 2007: Fruska gora: Prirodne odlike - zivotinjski svet. Belgrade. Hose, T. A.: 1995. Selling the Story of Britain's Stone, Environmental Interpretation, 10-2. London. Hose, T. A.: 1996. Geotourism: or can tourists become casual rockhounds? Geology on your Doorstep: The role of urban geology in earth heritage conservation. London. Hose, T. A.: 1997. Geotourism - selling the earth to Europe. Engineering geology and the environment. Amsterdam. Hose, T. A. 2000: 'European Geotourism - geological interpretation and geoconservation promotion for tourists. Geological geritage: its conservation and management. Madrid. Hose, T. A. 2003: Geotourism in England: a two-region case study analysis. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. Birmingham. Hose, T. A. 2005a: Geo-tourism - appreciating the deep time of landscapes. Niche Tourism: contemporary issues, trends and cases. Oxford. Hose, T. A. 2005b: Writ in Stone. Stone in Wales: Minerals, heritage and conservation. Cardiff. Hose, T. A. 2007: Geotourism in Almeria province, southeast Spain. Tourism: an interdisciplinary journal. 55-3. Zagreb. Hose, T. A. 2008: Towards a history of geotourism: definitions, antecedents and the future. The history of geoconservation. London. Kneževi}, S. 1998: Geological neogene localities of fruška gora mountain. Protection of nature 48/49. Beograd. Markovi}, S. B. 2000.: Paleogeografija kvartara na teritoriji Vojvodine. Ph. D. thesis. Instiute of Geography. Novi Sad. Markovi} S. B., MijoviC D., Jovanovi} M., Kova~ev N. 2001: Geo-heritage sites of Fruška Gora Mountain. Protection of nature 53-1. Belgrade. Markovi}, S. B., Kosti}, N., Oches, E. A. 2004: Palaeosols in the Ruma loess section. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geologicas 21-1. Mexico City. Markovi}, S. B., Oches, E., Sumegi, P., Jovanovi}, M., Gaudenyi, T. 2006: An introduction to the Upper and Middle Pleistocene loess-palaeosol sequences of Ruma section (Vojvodina, Serbia). Quaternary International 149. Oxford. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2005.11.020 Markovi}, S. B., Hambach, U., Oches, E. A., McCoy, W. D., Zoeler, L., Jovanovi}, M. 2007a: 850 Millennia of paleoclimatic history recorded in the loess sequences of Vojvodina region, Serbia, Quaternary International 167/168. Oxford. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2007.04.001 Markovi}, S. B. 2007b: Fruška gora: Fizi~ko-geografska svojstva. Beograd. Markovi}, S.B., Oches, E. A., McCoy, W. D., Gaudenyi, T., Frechen, M. 2007c: Malacological and sedi-mentological evidence for »warm« glacial climate from the Irig loess sequence (Vojvodina, Serbia). Geophysics, Geochemistry and Geosystems 8. DOI: 10.1029/2006GC001565. Markovi}, S. B., Bokhorst, M, Vandenberghe, J., Oches, E. A., Zoller, L., McCoy, W. D., Gaudenyi, T., Jovanovi}, M., Hambach, U., Machalett, B. 2008: Late Pleistocene loess-paleosol sequences in the Vojvodina region, North Serbia. Journal of Quaternary Science 23-1. Chichester. DOI:10.1002/jqs.1124 Markovi}, S. B., Smalley, I., Hambach, U., Antoine, P. 2009: Loess in the Danube region and surrounding loess provinces: The Marsigli memorial volume. Quaternary International 198, Oxford. DOI:10.1016/ j.quaint.2009.02.001 Markovi}, S. B., Hambach, U., Stevens, T., Kukla, G. J., Heller, F., William D. McCoy, W. D., Machalett, B., Oches, E. A., Buggle, B., Zoller, L. 2011. The last million years recorded at the Stari Slankamen loess-palaeosol sequence: revised chronostratigraphy and long-term environmental trends. Quaternary Science Reviews 30. Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.02.004 Miljkovi}, Lj., Bogdanovi}, Ž., Krsti}, N., Kova~ev., N. 1998: Canyon Part of the Almaš Stream Valley -Scientific Valorisation And Protection. In Serbian with English abstract. Protection of nature 48/49. Belgrade. Novelli, M. 2005: Niche Tourism: contemporary issues, trends and cases. Oxford. Page, S. J., Connell, J. 2007: Sustainable Tourism. London. Panizza, M., Piacente, S. 2003: Geomorfologia culturale. Pitagora Editrice. Bologna. Pereira, P., Pereira, D., Caetano Alves, M. I. 2007: Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica 62. Basel. Petkovi}, K., Či~uli}-Trifunovi}, M., Paši}, M., Raki}, M. 1976: Fruška Gora - monografski prikaz geološke grade i tektonskog sklopa. Matica srpska. Novi Sad. Petrovi}, J. 1966: Grgureva~ka pe}ina (speleobiološka istraživanja). Matica Srpska Proceedings for Natural Sciences 30. Novi Sad. Pralong, J. P. 2005: A method for assessing the tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites. Géomorphologie. Relief, processus, environnement 3. Paris. Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., Scapozza, C. 2007: A method for assessing »scientific« and »additional values« of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62-3. Basel. Reynard, E. 2008: Scientific research and tourist promotion of geomorphological heritage. Geografia fisica e dinamica quaternaria 31-2. Turin. Rivas V., Rix K., Francés, E., Cendrero, A., Brunsden, D. 1997: Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Geomorphology 18. Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-555X(96)00024-4 Serrano, E., González-Trueba, J. J. 2005: Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie. Formes, processus, environnement 3. Paris. Stürm, B. 1994. The geotope concept: geological nature conservation by town and country planning. Geological and Landscape Conservation. Malvern International Conference 1993. London. Vasiljevic, M., Markovic, S. 1999: Rudnik mrkog uglja »Vrdnik« u Vrdniku. Faculty of Science, Institute of Geography. Novi Sad. Vasiljevic, Dj.A., Markovic, S. B., Hose, T. A., Smalley, I., Basarin, B., Lazic, L., Jovic, G. 2011. Geoconservation of Loess-Palaeosol Sequences in the Vojvodina Region: significant Geoheritage of Serbia. Quaternary International 240. Oxford. DOI: 10:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.07.008 Weiler, B., Hall, C. M. H. (eds.) 1992: Special Interest Tourism. Belhaven Press. London. Zouros, N. C. 2007: Geomorphosite assessment and management in protected areas of Greece Case study of the Lesvos island - coastal geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62-3. Basel.