A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye)

Büşra Eraslan; Selim Eraslan

doi:10.46453/jader.1990820

TR EN

Jeomiras Değerinin Nicel Analizi ve Jeoturizm Amaçlı Kullanımı (Bulanık PIPRECIA-Kaba WASPAS): Bayburt İli Örneği (Türkiye)

Abstract

Doğal mirasın ayrılmaz bir parçası olan jeomiras ögeleri, sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve bölgesel kalkınma süreçlerinde değişken değerlere sahip çeşitli kullanım potansiyelleri barındırmaktadır. Bu potansiyellerin rasyonel bir şekilde açığa çıkarılması ve jeoturizm faaliyetlerine kazandırılması, söz konusu ögelerin nicel değerlerinin somut parametrelerle belirlenmesiyle mümkündür. Bu bağlamda gerçekleştirilen çalışmada, yüksek jeoturizm potansiyeline sahip Bayburt ili sınırları içerisinde yer alan 14 stratejik jeositin tespit edilmesi ve bu jeositlerin bilimsel, eğitsel, ekonomik, jeokoruma ile ek değer faktörleri açısından önem derecelerinin bütüncül bir yaklaşımla belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Değerlendirme sürecinde, çağdaş çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden F-PIPRECIA (Bulanık Pivot İkili Karşılaştırmalı Kriter Önem Derecesi Değerlendirmesi) ve R-WASPAS (Kaba Kümelerle Ağırlıklandırılmış Toplam Çarpım Değerlendirmesi) metotları entegre bir şekilde analize dahil edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, sahada yer alan jeositlerin taksonomik tanımlanması gerçekleştirilmiş, kriterlerin ağırlık katsayıları hesaplanmış ve nihai olarak jeositlerin önem düzeyleri matematiksel olarak sıralanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre; G12 (Sırakayalar Şelalesi), G13 (Helva Köyü Buz Mağarası) ve G14 (Çımağıl Mağarası) incelenen tüm faktörler matrisinde "çok yüksek öneme sahip jeosit" olarak en üst sırada öne çıkarken; kültürel bir jeosit niteliği taşıyan G1 (Soğanlı Dağı Tarihi Yolu) ise ek değerler parametresinde bu grupta yer almıştır. Geriye kalan jeositlerin büyük bir bölümünün ise farklı çevresel ve lojistik faktörlere bağlı olarak yüksek, orta veya düşük önem derecesine sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışma, klasik bir jeomiras değerlendirme yöntemini özgün ve yenilikçi bir metodolojik yaklaşımla genişleterek ilgili ulusal ve uluslararası literatüre teorik bir katkı sunmayı hedeflemektedir. Ayrıca elde edilen ampirik sonuçların, bölgede gelecekte yürütülecek potansiyel jeopark projelerinde, planlama süreçlerinde ve jeokoruma faaliyetlerinde karar verici pozisyondaki paydaşlar için uygulamaya yönelik pratik, sürdürülebilir ve stratejik perspektifler sağlayacağı öngörülmektedir.

Keywords

Jeosit, Jeokoruma, Jeoturizm, Bayburt, Türkiye

A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye)

Abstract

Geoheritage elements, as an integral part of natural heritage, possess various utilization potentials with varying values in sustainable and regional development processes. The rational revelation of these potentials and their integration into geotourism activities are dynamic processes that depend on determining the quantitative values of the subject elements through tangible parameters. In this context, this study aims to identify 14 strategic geosites within the provincial borders of Bayburt, which exhibits high geotourism potential, and to comprehensively determine their significance levels in terms of scientific, educational, economic, geoconservation, and additional value factors. In the evaluation process, modern multi-criteria decision-making methods, namely F-PIPRECIA (Fuzzy-Pivot Pairwise Relative Criteria Relevance Assessment) and R-WASPAS (Rough-Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment), were integrated into the analysis. As a result of the research, the taxonomic identification of the field geosites was performed, criterion weighting coefficients were calculated, and the importance levels of the geosites were mathematically ranked. According to the empirical findings, G12 (Sırakayalar Waterfall), G13 (Helva Village Ice Cave), and G14 (Çımağıl Cave) stood out at the top of the matrix as "geosites of very high importance" across all analyzed factors, while G1 (Mount Soğanlı Historical Road), characteristically a cultural geosite, was included in this group under the additional values parameter. The vast majority of the remaining geosites were determined to possess high, medium, or low levels of importance, depending on various environmental and logistical factors. This study aims to make a significant theoretical contribution to both national and international literature by extending a classical geoheritage assessment method with an original and innovative methodological approach. Furthermore, the obtained empirical results are anticipated to provide stakeholders and decision-makers with practical, sustainable, and strategic perspectives for future potential geopark projects, planning processes, and geoconservation activities in the region.

Keywords

Geosite, Geoconservation, Geotourism, Bayburt, Türkiye

References

Antić, A., Luetscher, M., Perret, A., Ferrando, A., & Reynard, E. (2025). Cave tourism in Switzerland: The assessment and implications for subterranean geoheritage sustainability. Moravian Geographical Reports, 33(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2025-0003
Antić, A., Tomić, N., & Marković, S. B. (2022). Applying the show cave assessment model (SCAM) on cave tourism destinations in Serbia. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 10(4), 616–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.10.001
Arslan, M., Aslan, Z., & Dokuz, A. (2005). Bayburt tüflerinin petrografik, petrokimyasal ve petrolojik özellikleri: Doğu Pontid Güney Zonu’nda Eosen kalkalkalen felsik volkanizması [Petrographic, petrochemical, and petrological characteristics of the Bayburt tuffs: Eocene calc-alkaline felsic volcanism in the Southern Zone of the Eastern Pontides]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Mühendislik, Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 20(1), 49–68. https://izlik.org/JA32HM36SP
Ballesteros, D., Fernández-Martínez, E., Carcavilla, L., & Jiménez-Sánchez, M. (2019). Karst cave geoheritage in protected areas: Characterisation and proposals of management of deep caves in the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Geoheritage, 11, 1919–1939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00416-8
Başar, Ö. (2021). Bayburt bölgesinde gözlenen kehribar oluşumlarının jeolojisi ve gemolojik özellikleri (Tez No: 708999) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
Birinci, S., & Zaman, M. (2016). Çımağıl Mağarası (Bayburt) ve çevresinin ekoturizm potansiyeli [Ecotourism potential of Çımağıl Cave (Bayburt) and its surroundings]. Turkish Studies, 11(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9171
Blagojević, A., Stević, Ž., Marinković, D., Kasalica, S., & Rajilić, S. (2020). A novel entropy-fuzzy PIPRECIA-DEA model for safety evaluation of railway traffic. Symmetry, 12(9), 1479. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091479
Brilha, J. B. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage, 8(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3
Brilha, J. B. (2018). Geoheritage and geoparks. In Geoheritage (pp. 323–335). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00018-6
Canpolat, E., Yulu, A., Keserci, F., Demir, E., & Bayrakdar, C. (2026). The geoheritage of Mount Ararat and its vicinity: An assessment of geodiversity with a focus on glaciation and mountaineering. Geoheritage, 18, 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-026-01269-8

Carrión-Mero, P., Turner-Carrión, M., Herrera-Franco, G., Bravo-Murillo, G., Aguilar-Aguilar, M., Paz-Salas, N., & Berrezueta, E. (2022). Geotouristic route proposal for touristic development in a mining area—Case study. Resources, 11(3), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11030025
Čech, V., Klamár, R., Krokusová, J., & Vašková, J. (2025). Multi-hazard assessment in post-mining landscape and potential for geotourism development (On the example of the Central Spiš Region in Slovakia). Land, 14(5), 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051000
Çiftçi, Y., & Güngör, Y. (2021). Natural and cultural heritage integration and geoconservation recommendatory of the Nemrut-Süphan proposed geopark area, Bitlis-Turkey. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration, 165, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.19111/bulletinofmre.860092
Đalić, I., Stević, Ž., Karamasa, C., & Puška, A. (2020). A novel integrated fuzzy PIPRECIA—interval rough SAW model: Green supplier selection. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(1), 126–145. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2003114d
Danacı, F. (2009). Bayburt yöresi Eosen nannoplankton biyostratigrafisi (Doğu Pontitler) (Tez No: 259065) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
Dede, V., & Zorlu, K. (2023). Geoheritage assessment with entropy-based WASPAS approach: An analysis on Karçal Mountains (Turkey). Geoheritage, 15, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00777-7
Demirbağ, H. (2023). Bayburt yöresi kayaçlarının yapısal özellikleri (Tez No: 798952) [Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
Doğan, U., Şenkul, Ç., & Yeşilyurt, S. (2019). First paleo-fairy chimney findings in the Cappadocia Region, Turkey: A possible geomorphosite. Geoheritage, 11, 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0320-1
Doğanay, H. (2011). Türkiye’de az tanınan üç doğa harikası: Tomara-Sırakayalar ve Muradiye çağlayanları [Three little-known natural wonders in Türkiye: Tomara-Sırakayalar and Muradiye waterfalls]. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 6(3). https://izlik.org/JA65KS68WW
Dowling, R. (2013). Global geotourism—An emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech Journal of Tourism, 2(2), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.2478/cjot-2013-0004
Efe, R., Soykan, A., & Cürebal, İ. (2026). Geosite assessment for geotourism purposes: Case study of Ida Madra Geopark, Türkiye. Geoheritage, 18, 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-026-01278-7
Eraslan, S., Zorlu, K., & Dede, V. (2023). A quantitative assessment of selected potential geosites from Gümüşhane (Türkiye) for the development of geotourism. Journal of History School, 16(66), 3082–3106. https://doi.org/10.29228/Joh.71660
Erginal, A. E., Öniz, H., Erenoğlu, O., & Sarıaltun, S. (2021). An under-recognised geoarchaeological heritage asset in Turkey: Dana Island, Mersin. Geoheritage, 13, 89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00618-z
Farsani, N. T., Coelho, C., & Costa, C. (2011). Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.800
Ghosh, A., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Chatterjee, S. (2021). Assessment of geoheritage and prospects of geotourism: An approach to geoconservation of important geological and geomorphological sites of Puruliya district, West Bengal, India. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 9(2), 264–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.03.001
Gioncada, A., Pitzalis, E., Cioni, R., Fulignati, P., Lezzerini, M., Mundula, F., & Funedda, A. (2019). The volcanic and mining geoheritage of San Pietro Island (Sulcis, Sardinia, Italy): The potential for geosite valorization. Geoheritage, 11, 1567–1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00418-6
Güney, Y. (2020). The geomorphosite potential of the badlands around Küpyar, Manisa, Turkey. Geoheritage, 12, 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00433-y
Habibi, T., Ponedelnik, A. A., Yashalova, N. N., & Ruban, D. A. (2018). Urban geoheritage complexity: Evidence of a unique natural resource from Shiraz city in Iran. Resources Policy, 59, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.06.002
Hose, T. A. (1995). Selling the story of Britain’s stone. Environmental Interpretation, 10(2), 16–17. Karadeniz, E., Er, S., Boyraz, Z., & Coşkun, S. (2022). Evaluation of potential geotourism of Levent Valley and its surroundings using GIS route analysis. Geoheritage, 14, 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00710-y
Kaygusuz, A. (2022). Petrographic and geochemical characteristics of Paleozoic gabbroic rocks around Taşdelen (Özdil/Trabzon, NE Türkiye). Journal of Engineering Research and Applied Science, 11, 2111–2122. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6277-6969
Kaygusuz, A., & Vural, A. (2024). Somarova Plutonu'nun (Bayburt, KD Türkiye) jeolojisi, mineralojisi ve petrografisi [Geology, mineralogy, and petrography of the Somarova Pluton (Bayburt, NE Türkiye)]. In 4th International Conference on Frontiers in Academic Research Proceedings (pp. 100–111). All Sciences Academy. https://www.icfarconf.com/
Kaygusuz, A., Arslan, M., Sipahi, F., Temizel, İ., Yücel, C., & Çakmak, G. (2019). Doğu Pontid Güney Zonu’ndaki (Bayburt) Tersiyer yaşlı intruzif kayaçların petrokimyası, jeokronolojisi ve izotop sistematikleri [Petrochemistry, geochronology, and isotope systematics of Tertiary intrusive rocks in the Southern Zone of the Eastern Pontides (Bayburt)] (Project No. 115Y154). TÜBİTAK.
Kayima, P., & Karasiewicz, T. (2025). Harnessing geo-diversity: Geosites and geotourism in Uganda's Albertine Region. Geoheritage, 17, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-01053-6
Kazancı, N. (2012). Geological background and three vulnerable geosites of the Kızılcahamam-Çamlıdere Geopark Project in Ankara, Turkey. Geoheritage, 4, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-0064-2
Kazancı, N., Suludere, Y., Özgüneylioğlu, A., Mülazımoğlu, N. S., Şaroğlu, F., Mengi, H., … Gürbüz, A. (2019). Mining heritage and relevant geosites as possible instruments for sustainable development of miner towns in Turkey. Geoheritage, 11, 1267–1276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00391-0
Kazancı, N., Şaroğlu, F., & Suludere, Y. (2015). Geological heritage and framework list of the geosites in Turkey. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration, 151, 263–272. https://doi.org/10.19111/bmre.39701
Keskin, İ., Korkmaz, S., Gedik, İ., Ateş, M., Gök, L., Küçümen, Ö., & Erkal, T. (1989). Bayburt dolayının jeolojisi [Geology of the Bayburt area] (MTA Compilation Report No. 8995). Ankara: Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü.
Keskin, L, Korkmaz, S., Gedik, L, Ateş, M., Gök, L., Küçümen, Ö., Erkal, T., 1989, Bayburt dolayının jeolojisi, MTA derleme rapor no: 8995, Ankara.
Ketin, İ. (1951). Bayburt yöresinin jeolojisi [Geology of the Bayburt region]. İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Mecmuası, 16.
Korkmaz, S., & Baki, Z. (1984). Demirözü (Bayburt) yöresinin stratigrafisi [Stratigraphy of the Demirözü (Bayburt) region]. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 5, 107–115.
Köroğlu, F., & Kandemir, R. (2019). Vulnerable geosites of Çayırbağı-Çalköy (Düzköy-Trabzon) in the Eastern Black Sea Region of NE Turkey and their geotourism potential. Geoheritage, 11(3), 1101–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00358-1
Köroğlu, F., & Mülayim, O. (2023). Geoconservation strategies of Türkiye. Geoheritage, 15, 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00862-5
Kubalíková, L. (2019). Assessing geotourism resources on a local level: A case study from Southern Moravia (Czech Republic). Resources, 8(3), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030150
Kubalíková, L., & Kirchner, K. (2016). Geosite and geomorphosite assessment as a tool for geoconservation and geotourism purposes: A case study from Vizovická vrchovina Highland (Eastern Part of the Czech Republic). Geoheritage, 8, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-015-0143-2
Kudla, M., Javorská, M., Vašková, J., Čech, V., & Tometzová, D. (2024). Inventory and evaluation of geosites: Case studies of the Slovak Karst as a potential geopark in Slovakia. Sustainability, 16(17), 7783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177783
Massuqueto, L. L., Pontes, H. S., & Fernandes, L. A. (2022). A speleological relevance assessment protocol based on the geodiversity of natural underground cavities in different lithotypes in Brazil. Geoheritage, 14, 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00724-6
Metin, H., & Yılmaz, M. (2023). Aydıntepe Yeraltı Şehri (Bayburt): Mimari fonksiyon analizi [Aydıntepe Underground City (Bayburt): Architectural function analysis]. Amisos, 8(14), 70–93. https://doi.org/10.48122/amisos.1257965
Mikhailenko, A. V., & Ruban, D. A. (2019). Geo-heritage specific visibility as an important parameter in geo-tourism resource evaluation. Geosciences, 9(4), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9040146
Okay, A. I., & Tüysüz, O. (1999). Tethyan sutures of northern Turkey. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 156(1), 475–515. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.156.01.22
Ortega-Becerril, J. A., Jorge-Coronado, A., Garzón, G., & Wohl, E. (2017). Sobrarbe Geopark: An example of highly diverse bedrock rivers. Geoheritage, 9(4), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0207-y
Ortega-Becerril, J. A., Polo, I., & Belmonte, A. (2019). Waterfalls as geological value for geotourism: The case of Ordesa and Monte Perdido National Park. Geoheritage, 11, 1199–1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00366-1
Özer, S., & Mülayim, O. (2022). Geoconservation and geotourism potential of vulnerable rudist fossil geosites from SE Anatolia (Turkey). Geoheritage, 14, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00650-7
Özkul, M., Gül, A., Koralay, T., Özen, H., Semiz, B., & Duman, B. (2024). Denizli Travertine: A global heritage stone resource nominee from Western Türkiye. Geoheritage, 16, 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-00970-w
Özsayar, T., Pelin, S., & Gedikoğlu, A. (1981). Doğu Pontidlerde Kretase [The Cretaceous in the Eastern Pontides]. KTÜ Yer Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 65–114.
Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). Integration of interval rough AHP and interval rough MABAC methods for evaluating university web pages. Applied Soft Computing, 68, 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.02.057
Parlıtı, U., & Akyüz, E. (2023). Doğunun Batıya Açılan Kapısında, kültürlerin kaynaşma noktası: Çiğdemtepe Höyük Kazısı ışığında Kuzeydoğu Anadolu prehistoryasına yeni bir bakış [At the gateway of the East to the West, a meeting point of cultures: A new perspective on Northeast Anatolian prehistory in light of the Çiğdemtepe Mound excavation]. Anadolu Araştırmaları, 27, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.26650/anar.2022.1194798
Pontes, H. S., Massuqueto, L. L., Fernandes, L. A., Foltran, A. C., de Melo, M. S., & Moreira, J. C. (2019). Caves geodiversity evaluation as an instrument to the management of the Campos Gerais National Park, Southern Brazil. Geoheritage, 11, 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0317-9
Ruban, D. A., Mikhailenko, A. V., & Yashalova, N. N. (2022). Valuable geoheritage resources: Potential versus exploitation. Resources Policy, 77, 102665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102665
Sallam, E. S., Ruban, D. A., & Ermolaev, V. A. (2022). Geoheritage resources and new direction of infrastructural growth in Egypt: From geosite assessment to policy development. Resources Policy, 79, 103127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103127
Sremac, S., Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Arsić, M., & Matić, B. (2018). Evaluation of a third-party logistics (3PL) provider using a rough SWARA–WASPAS model based on a new rough Dombi aggregator. Symmetry, 10(8), 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10080305
Stanković, M., Stević, Ž., Das, D. K., Subotić, M., & Pamučar, D. (2020). A new fuzzy MARCOS method for road traffic risk analysis. Mathematics, 8(3), 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8030457
Stević, Ž., Stjepanović, Ž., Božičković, Z., Das, D. K., & Stanujkić, D. (2018). Assessment of conditions for implementing information technology in a warehouse system: A novel fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Symmetry, 10(11), 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10110586
Stojić, G., Stević, Ž., Antuchevičienė, J., Pamučar, D., & Vasiljević, M. (2018). A novel rough WASPAS approach for supplier selection in a company manufacturing PVC carpentry products. Information, 9(5), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9050121
Taheri, K., Mohseni, H., Biglari, F., Maleki, A., Afrasiabian, A., Shiraishi, F., … Shidrang, S. (2025). Stepping on the back of the stone dragon! A geo-mytho-morphological landscapes of the Baba Gorgor Travertine Springs, Kurdistan, Iran. Geoheritage, 17, 172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01229-8
Tanrıverdi, Y., Kundakcı, N., & Ertuğrul, İ. (2025). International market entry strategy analysis with hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods. Review of International Business and Strategy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-10-2024-0122
Tičar, J., Tomić, N., Breg Valjavec, M., Zorn, M., Marković, S., & Gavrilov, M. (2018). Speleotourism in Slovenia: Balancing between mass tourism and geoheritage protection. Open Geosciences, 10(1), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0027
Topuz, G., Altherr, R., Kalt, A., Satır, M., Werner, O., & Schwarz, W. H. (2004). Aluminous granulites from the Pulur complex, NE Turkey: A case of partial melting, efficient melt extraction and crystallisation. Lithos, 72(3–4), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2003.10.002
Topuz, G., Altherr, R., Satır, M., Hans-Jürgen, G., & Dürr, S. (2010). Carboniferous high-potassium I-type granitoid magmatism in the Eastern Pontides: The Gümüşhane pluton (NE Turkey). Lithos, 116(1–2), 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2010.01.003
Uzun, A. (1990). Masat Çayı Havzasının fiziki coğrafyası (Tez No: 367327) [Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
Uzun, A. (1993). Nişantaşı yarma vadisi (Bayburt) [Nişantaşı gorge valley (Bayburt)]. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 28, 165–179. https://izlik.org/JA74MA66ZG
Uzun, A., & Zeybek, H. İ. (1996). Akçakale Mağarası (Gümüşhane) [Akçakale Cave (Gümüşhane)]. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, 31, 39–55. https://izlik.org/JA27FP73BC
Vesković, S., Milinković, S., Abramović, B., & Ljubaj, I. (2020). Determining criteria significance in selecting reach stackers by applying the fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta2001072v
Yashalova, N. N., & Ruban, D. A. (2024). Geoheritage value of three localities from Kislovodsk in the Southern Central Ciscaucasus: A resource of large resort area. Geosciences, 14(5), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14050134
Yenilmezel, S., & Ertuğrul, İ. (2024). Human resources management application selection with fuzzy MAIRCA method based on fuzzy PIPRECIA. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.47097/piar.1427355
Yılmaz, C. (2002). Gümüşhane-Bayburt yöresindeki Mesozoyik havzalarının tektono-sedimantolojik kayıtları ve kontrol etkenleri [Tectono-sedimentological records and controlling factors of the Mesozoic basins in the Gümüşhane-Bayburt region]. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 45(1), 141–165.
Yücel, Ç., & Akyüz, E. (2023). Anadolu'da ticaretin simgesi damga mühürler: Çiğdemtepe örneği [Stamp seals as a symbol of trade in Anatolia: The case of Çiğdemtepe]. Amisos, 8(15), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.48122/amisos.1334790
Zavadskas, E. K., Stević, Ž., Tanackov, I., & Prentkovskis, O. (2018). A novel multicriteria approach—Rough Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis method (R-SWARA) and its application in logistics. Studies in Informatics and Control, 27(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.24846/v27i1y201810
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antuchevičienė, J., & Zakarevičius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810
Zorlu, K., Dede, V., & Eraslan, S. (2022). Yorumlayıcı Yapısal Modelleme (YYM) ile Ardahan İli Turizminde Topluluk Kapasitesi Oluşturmayı (TKO) Sınırlayan Engellerin Analizi. Journal of Humanities and Tourism Research, 12(2), 235-251.
Zorlu, K., & Dede, V. (2023a). The geomorphosite assessment by trapezoidal bipolar fuzzy information-based CRITIC-MABAC method. Geoheritage, 15, 94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00859-0
Zorlu, K., & Dede, V. (2023b). Assessment of glacial geoheritage by multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in the Yalnızçam Mountains, Northeastern Türkiye. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 11(1), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.01.001
Zorlu, K., & Dede, V. (2024). Analysis of barriers to sustainable tourism development with interpretive structural modelling and fuzzy PIPRECIA. Journal of Anatolian Geography, 1(2), 84–96. https://izlik.org/JA38RD22HY
Zorlu, K., Dede, V., Öztürk, Y., Çorba, B. Ş., Kopar, İ., & Serin, S. (2025). An approach to assessment of geoheritage elements determined in the Upper Aras Basin (NE Türkiye) as resources: A decision-making model based on interval rough numbers (IRNs). Resources Policy, 109, 105724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2025.105724
Zorlu, K., Dede, V., Zorlu, B. Ş., & Serin, S. (2023). Quantitative assessment of geoheritage with the GAM and MEREC-based PROMETHEE-GAIA method. Resources Policy, 84, 103796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103796
Zorlu, K., Polat, S., Yılmaz, A., & Dede, V. (2024a). An integrated fuzzy-rough multi-criteria group decision-making model for quantitative assessment of geoheritage resources. Resources Policy, 90, 104773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104773
Zorlu, K., Tuncer, M., & Yılmaz, A. (2024b). Assessment of resources for geotourism development: Integrated SWARA-COBRA approach under spherical fuzzy environments. Geoheritage, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-00993-3

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Physical Geography and Environmental Geology (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Büşra Eraslan ^*
0000-0003-1822-2368
Türkiye

Selim Eraslan
0009-0006-3965-453X
Türkiye

Publication Date

August 27, 2026

Submission Date

July 23, 2026

Acceptance Date

August 17, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Number: 17

DOI

https://doi.org/10.46453/jader.1990820

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA56ZM46AA

APA

Eraslan, B., & Eraslan, S. (2026). A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye). Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17. https://doi.org/10.46453/jader.1990820

AMA

1.Eraslan B, Eraslan S. A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye). JADER. 2026;(17). doi:10.46453/jader.1990820

Chicago

Eraslan, Büşra, and Selim Eraslan. 2026. “A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and Its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye)”. Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, nos. 17. https://doi.org/10.46453/jader.1990820.

EndNote

Eraslan B, Eraslan S (August 1, 2026) A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye). Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi 17

IEEE

[1]B. Eraslan and S. Eraslan, “A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye)”, JADER, no. 17, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.46453/jader.1990820.

ISNAD

Eraslan, Büşra - Eraslan, Selim. “A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and Its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye)”. Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi. 17 (August 1, 2026). https://doi.org/10.46453/jader.1990820.

JAMA

1.Eraslan B, Eraslan S. A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye). JADER. 2026. doi:10.46453/jader.1990820.

MLA

Eraslan, Büşra, and Selim Eraslan. “A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and Its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye)”. Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, no. 17, Aug. 2026, doi:10.46453/jader.1990820.

Vancouver

1.Büşra Eraslan, Selim Eraslan. A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye). JADER. 2026 Aug. 1;(17). doi:10.46453/jader.1990820

Aim & Scope

Author Guidelines

Preparation of Manuscripts

It is recommended that manuscripts prepared in Turkish be checked for grammar and spelling rules.
Manuscripts prepared in English must be reviewed by qualified and authorized individuals or institutions for language accuracy. Authors are required to provide a document confirming that the manuscript has been checked and corrected in this respect.

Manuscripts must be prepared and submitted in **MS Word format**. For the peer-review process to proceed smoothly, all lines of the manuscript should be numbered.

**Sample MS Word File (Download)**

Submissions should be written on A4-sized white paper, with 3 cm margins on all sides, single-spaced, justified alignment, without hyphenation at line ends, and in 12-point *PT Sans* font. Tables, figures, images, and graphics must not exceed the journal’s page dimensions and should fit within a 15 × 23 cm area for usability. Smaller font sizes and single spacing may be used in tables and figures, provided they remain legible.

The manuscript title, first page, file information, and file name must not contain any author details.

A separate MS Word page must be prepared including:
- Article type
- Author(s)
- Corresponding author
- Full address(es)
- Email(s)
- ORCID(s)
- Scientific contribution of the manuscript
- Acknowledgments

**Sample MS Word File (Download)**

To avoid problems in acceptance and peer-review assignment, careful attention to these requirements is strongly advised.

---

Research Articles
- Turkish Title / English Title
- 250–300 word Turkish Abstract + 4–5 Keywords
- 250–300 word English Abstract + 4–5 Keywords
- Extended Abstract (minimum 1000 words; not required for manuscripts written entirely in English)
- Introduction (Aim, Scope, Literature Review, Study Area)
- Materials and Methods (Materials used must be listed with their purpose; methods should be detailed enough to allow replication)
- Results (Present data produced in the study)
- Conclusion – Discussion – Recommendations (Summarize findings, compare with existing literature, provide suggestions for future research)
- Acknowledgments (Specify individuals/institutions providing financial or moral support)
- References (Citations must follow APA style, listed alphabetically by author surname)
- Appendices (if any)

---

Review Articles
The purpose of review articles is to summarize approaches and ideas of other researchers and provide a synthesis. Review articles should:
- Address a research question developed by the author
- Provide a synthesis of results based on summarized knowledge
- Highlight controversial or incomplete information in the literature
- Suggest potential future research topics

Structure:
- Turkish Title / English Title
- Abstract (Turkish) + 4–5 Keywords
- Abstract (English) + 4–5 Keywords
- Extended Abstract (minimum 1000 words; not required for manuscripts written entirely in English)
- Introduction
- Findings
- Conclusion – Discussion – Recommendations
- References

---

Title
Titles must be provided in both Turkish and English, kept as concise as possible, and accurately reflect the content of the manuscript.

---

Main Text
Submissions must be in *.doc* or *.docx* format, written in *PT Sans* font, 12-point size, single-spaced, and single-column.
Mathematical expressions and equations must be numbered, aligned to the left, with equation numbers in parentheses aligned to the right.

Order of sections:
- Title (with English equivalent)
- Turkish Abstract + Keywords
- English Abstract + Keywords
- Main Text (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Conclusion, Discussion, Recommendations)
- Acknowledgments
- References and Appendices (if any)

---

Abstract
Abstracts must be prepared in both Turkish and English, not exceeding 300 words. They should include the aim, study area (if applicable), materials and methods, main findings, and main conclusions. At the end of the abstract, 4–5 keywords must be provided.
For manuscripts written entirely in English, a Turkish abstract is not required.
Abstracts must be formatted in 8-point font, justified alignment.

---

Figures, Tables, and Maps
All visual materials (maps, graphics, diagrams, photographs, etc.) must be labeled as “Figure,” while tables must be labeled as “Table.”
Each visual must include both Turkish and English captions.
Figures must be of high quality, with a minimum resolution of 300 dpi (preferably 600 dpi), in JPEG, PNG, or TIFF format.
All figures must be numbered consecutively and placed in the appropriate location within the text.
Maps must include scale and orientation indicators.

---

References and Citations
The **APA citation style** must be used. APA guidelines can be downloaded [here].
In-text citations should be ordered chronologically (from oldest to newest).
The reference list must be arranged alphabetically by author surname, and within each author’s works, chronologically (from oldest to newest).

Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Publication Ethics and Responsibilities

The publication processes applied in the *Journal of Geomorphological Research (JADER)* form the foundation for the impartial and respected development and dissemination of knowledge. These processes directly reflect the quality of the work of authors and their supporting institutions. Peer-reviewed studies embody and reinforce the scientific method. Therefore, it is essential that all stakeholders in the process (authors, readers, researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors) adhere to ethical standards. Within the framework of publication ethics, JADER expects all stakeholders to uphold the following responsibilities.

The ethical duties and responsibilities outlined below have been prepared in accordance with the guidelines and policies published by the **Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)**.

Publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a fundamental building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. This reflects directly on the quality of the work of authors and their institutions. Peer-reviewed articles support and shape scientific methods. Therefore, agreement on expected ethical standards is important for all parties involved in publishing: authors, journal editors, reviewers, and publishers.

---

### 1. Authors’ Ethical Responsibilities
- Copyright cannot be claimed for manuscripts submitted to the journal.
- Submitted manuscripts must be original.
- References must be complete, and all cited sources must be properly acknowledged.
- Authors wishing to withdraw a manuscript must submit a written request.
- Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
- Authors may be asked to provide raw data during the review process and must be prepared to share it with the editorial or scientific board.
- If authors discover an error in their published, early-view, or under-review manuscript, they must inform the editor or publisher and cooperate in correction or retraction.
- Authorship responsibilities cannot be changed once the review process has begun (e.g., adding/removing authors, changing author order).
- Manuscripts submitted to JADER must comply with research and publication ethics.

**Violations of research and publication ethics include:**
- *Plagiarism*: Presenting others’ ideas, methods, data, applications, writings, figures, or works without proper citation.
- *Fabrication*: Producing data not based on research or presenting false data.
- *Falsification*: Manipulating research records or data, misrepresenting methods, or altering results.
- *Duplicate publication*: Publishing the same results in multiple works.
- *Salami slicing*: Fragmenting research results into multiple publications without proper cross-referencing.
- *Unjust authorship*: Including individuals without contribution or excluding contributors.
- *Other violations*: Failure to acknowledge support, disregard for human/animal ethics, misuse of resources, or making unfounded accusations of misconduct.

---

### 2. Editors’ Ethical Duties and Responsibilities
Editors follow COPE’s *Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors*. Their responsibilities include:
- Ensuring the quality and integrity of published works.
- Supporting academic freedom and intellectual property rights.
- Maintaining transparency in corrections and clarifications.
- Upholding impartiality in relations with readers, authors, reviewers, and the editorial board.
- Implementing and monitoring the double-blind peer-review process.
- Protecting personal data and ensuring compliance with human and animal rights.
- Preventing misconduct and addressing complaints constructively.
- Safeguarding against political or commercial influence.
- Managing conflicts of interest to guarantee independent and unbiased publication decisions.

---

### 3. Reviewers’ Responsibilities
- All manuscripts are evaluated under a **double-blind peer-review system**.
- At least two reviewers assess each manuscript; if one rejects, a third reviewer or the editor makes the final decision.
- Reviews must be objective, impartial, and constructive.
- Reviewers must be experts in the subject matter.
- Conflicts of interest must be avoided.
- Reviewed manuscripts must remain confidential and destroyed after evaluation.
- Reviews must focus solely on content, free from bias related to nationality, gender, religion, politics, or commercial interests.
- Reviewers must report any misconduct (e.g., plagiarism) to the editor immediately.

---

### 4. Publisher’s Ethical Responsibilities
- JADER does not charge authors any fees.
- Editorial decisions are independent of economic or political considerations.
- The journal protects copyright and maintains records of all published works.
- The database is openly accessible online.
- Measures are taken against plagiarism, citation manipulation, and unethical practices.

---

### 5. Plagiarism Detection Policy
All manuscripts are screened using **intihal.net** and **iThenticate** to confirm originality and absence of plagiarism.

---

### 6. Reporting Ethical Misconduct
If you notice a significant error or unethical behavior in a published article, please contact:
📧 **jader@jd.org.tr** or **curebal@balikesir.edu.tr**.
Complaints are welcomed as opportunities for improvement, and JADER aims to respond promptly and constructively.

Indexes

Journal Boards

Scientific Publication Coordinator

Musa ULUDAĞ

Türkiye Physical Geography, Physical Geography

Editor in Chief

İsa CÜREBAL

Physical Geography and Environmental Geology, Natural Hazards, Drainage, Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes, Quaternary Environments

Editors

Mesut ŞIMŞEK

Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes

Murat POYRAZ

Geographic Information Systems, Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes, Physical Geography

Language Editor

Cengiz YILDIRIM

Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes, Quaternary Environments, Structural Geology and Tectonics

Layout Editor

Abdulkadir DURAN

Geographic Information Systems, Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes

Muhammed Mustafa ÖZDEL

Conservation and Biodiversity, Ecological Impacts of Climate Change and Ecological Adaptation, Climatology

Editorial Adviser Board

Ahmet Evren ERGINAL

Ecological Applications, Marine Geology and Geophysics , General Geology, Geoarcheology , Geochronology

Hüseyin TUROGLU

Regional Planning, Watershed Management, Hydrography, Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes, Climatology

Uğur DOĞAN

Quaternary Environments, Palaeogeography, Physical Geography

Murat TÜRKEŞ

Biogeography and Phylogeography, Environmental Education and Extension, Physical Geography and Environmental Geology, Biogeography, Watershed Management, Hydrography, Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes, Physical Geography, Climatology

Mustafa Hakan YIĞITBAŞIOĞLU

Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes, Physical Geography

M. Kirami ÖLGEN

Health Sciences, Physical Geography

Tuncer DEMIR

Physical Geography and Environmental Geology, Watershed Management, Hydrography, Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes, Physical Geography, Climatology

Abdullah SOYKAN

Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes, Physical Geography

Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi ( JADER ) - Journal of Geomorphological Researches

TR Dizin - DOAJ - Crossref - Google Scholar

Turkish Society for Geomorphology

www.jd.org.tr

A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye)

Jeomiras Değerinin Nicel Analizi ve Jeoturizm Amaçlı Kullanımı (Bulanık PIPRECIA-Kaba WASPAS): Bayburt İli Örneği (Türkiye)

Abstract

Keywords

A Quantitative-Based Assessment of the Value of Geoheritage and its Use For Geotourism Purposes (Fuzzy Piprecia - Rough Waspas): The Case of Bayburt Province (Türkiye)

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Aim & Scope

Author Guidelines

Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Indexes

Citation Indexes

Other Indexes

Journal Boards

Scientific Publication Coordinator

Editor in Chief

Editors

Language Editor

Layout Editor

Editorial Adviser Board