Introduction

Since the declaration of the rights of the memory of the Earth was announced in Digne-les-Bains in 1991 in France, numerous advances have been made to recognize the value of geological heritage and geoconservation (Fassoulas et al. 2012). Many researchers (e.g. Burek and Prosser 2008; Gray 2004; Zwoli_nski and Stachowiak 2012) and global organisations (e.g. UNESCO 2010) have initiated many studies and projects to show the richness of geological heritage at different levels. Geological heritage can provide a source of sustainable economic benefit to local communities (McKeever and Zouros 2005). The promotion of geological and geomorphological heritage is growing in importance for cultural tourism, landscape valorisation and educational initiatives as thematic paths and itineraries. The importance of studying geotourism in Nian village stems from the fact that in addition to natural resources, it also includes historical and cultural capitals, and since geotourism and geomorphosites are closely related to cultural heritage, so the study it has made this area more important. In this research, we have adopted a new method that depends on the scientific values and added values that have been used in many studies. The objectives of this study are: (a) to prepare a list and evaluation of geomorphosites for the development of geotourism in the Nian region, (b) to increase diversity in the offer of sustainable regional and national tourism, (c) to obtain a list of geomorphosites to support conservation and (d) provide a scientific document for land heritage management in the study area.

Methodology

In this research, multiple data have been used. This research has led to the identification, classification and evaluation of geomorphosites in Nian village based on the knowledge and criteria improved in previous studies. The process of identifying geomorphosites was divided into three main stages. Geomorphological forms and processes, geomorphological units and geological environment of the study area were identified based on available documents, maps and fieldwork. The process of identifying geomorphosites was divided into three main stages. Geomorphological forms and processes, geomorphological units and geological environment of the study area were identified based on available documents, maps and fieldwork. The identified sites were first classified into separate landforms or small groups of landforms. Geomorphological and geological components that can be identified as potential geomorphosites were then identified. Then the characteristics and values of geomorphosites (scientific, educational, aesthetic, cultural, historical, religious, tourism) were identified. The selection of geomorphosites was based on two conditions proposed by Grangrad (1997).  Site documentation consists of two main components: general data collected and descriptive data.  General data were expressed numerically using geomorphosite identification code (such as position, height and size Identification code shows the location of the geomorphosite on a sinthetic map. The numerical assessment of the intrinsic value of each geomorphosite was made according to consistent criteria. The estimation of the scientific value of the geomorphosites was then based on the three criteria integrity, representativeness and rarity. This stage of assessment was ultimately devoted to identifying additional values that were intended to improve and to diversify the tourist offer for geomorphosites. These additional values were thematically grouped according to ecological, aesthetic, cultural or economic criteria. In the determination of use and management characteristics, the current protection status of sites with regard to various human or natural threats, attacks and site preservation issues were described.

Results

In total, 51 geological and geomorphological sites and landforms that could be considered as potential geomorphosites were identified, of which 12 were selected based on the above criteria and considered as geomorphosites. These sites were separate landforms (Kerfin Wetland, Qilan Gully) or geomorphological systems (Anareg Karst Mountains, valleys and Nian close). The results of geomorphosite identification of Nian village revealed the existence of 12 geomorphosites that are representative of the folded Zagros geodiversity. Therefore, these sites were selected for further evaluation. The results show that geomorphosites are grouped into four groups. Group 1 The most notable and most visited geomorphosites with high scientific value and medium value added: Sarab Nian, Warkawr rock, Nian close, Group 2 with high scientific value and low added value: Qarzhileg close, Mehrnegar Castle, Golkhirak Castle and shekarao spring, Group 3 with medium scientific value and low added value: Kalay mountain, Qilan gully, Toeroileh close and group 4 with low scientific value and low added value: Badlands of Qilan and Karfin Wetland.

Discussion

Visiting conditions are good in Sarab Nian, Kalay Mountain, Warkowr rock, Badlans of Qilan and Karfin wetland geomorphosites, and they benefit from having or near asphalt roads. The quality of tourism infrastructure seems to be poor to some extent moderate .The educational value of the geological and geomorphological heritage of the region is moderate to high in terms of the history of the folded Zagros and river and karst processes. However, the educational value of these geomorphosites is very low, as there are no educational panels in any of the geomorphosites.

Conclusion

This study is the first study related to the geomorphosites of Nian village in the southwest of Kermanshah province and the folded Zagros zone. The evaluation results showed that geomorphosites fall into three categories of intrinsic value, high and medium use and management. SWOT analysis allows us to identify areas for the development of geotourism in the region and suggests specific activities for the use of geotourist resources in a sustainable manner. Accordingly, specific strategies for the development of geotourism can be proposed: The geographical diversity of the nationally assessed areas is not unique (except in a few cases), but their educational value is high. Access conditions are poor. Tourism facilities are poor or below average. This issue needs further investigation in connection with the need to develop the adjacent tourism infrastructure (especially in the city of Gilan-e-Gharb). If it is decided to support the development of geotourism activities, close communication with local communities is necessary to develop effective management of geotourism resources. Collaboration with research institutes is important because academic research paves the way for further activities to support the promotion of land heritage.