Next Article in Journal
Albedo of a Small Ice-Covered Boreal Lake: Daily, Meso-Scale and Interannual Variability on the Background of Regional Climate
Next Article in Special Issue
Geotourism: A Systematic Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Migration and Morphology of Asymmetric Barchans in the Central Hexi Corridor of Northwest China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Geoheritage, Geotourism and the Cultural Landscape: Enhancing the Visitor Experience and Promoting Geoconservation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Geotourism and Local Development Based on Geological and Mining Sites Utilization, Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador

1
Centro de Investigación y Proyectos Aplicados a las Ciencias de la Tierra (CIPAT-FICT), ESPOL Polytechnic University, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Campus Gustavo Galindo, Km. 30.5 vía Perimetral, 09-01-5863 Guayaquil, Ecuador
2
Facultad de Ciencias de la Ingeniería, Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE), Avda. principal La Libertad—Santa Elena, 240204 La Libertad, Ecuador
3
Escuela Superior y Técnica de Ingenieros de Minas, Universidad de León (ULE), Campus of Vegazana, s/n, 24071 León, Spain
4
Departamento de Geología, Universidad de Oviedo (UNIOVI), Calle Jesús Arias de Velasco, s/n, 33005 Oviedo, Spain
5
Instituto Geológico y Minero de España (IGME), C/Matemático Pedrayes 25, 33005 Oviedo, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Geosciences 2018, 8(6), 205; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060205
Submission received: 8 May 2018 / Revised: 31 May 2018 / Accepted: 4 June 2018 / Published: 6 June 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geotourism)

Abstract

:
This study offers a detailed assessment of the geosites and mining sites present in the Zaruma- Portovelo mining district (Ecuador) through their qualitative and quantitative assessment. It shows up the potentiality of this area taking advantage of its geological-mining heritage. The methodological process includes: (i) compilation and inventory of all the sites within the study area with particular geological or mining interest; (ii) preparation of reports and thematic cartography, (iii) assessment and classification of the elements of geological-mining interest; (iv) SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis and TOWS (Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, Strengths) matrix preparation seeking strategies to guarantee the viability of geotourism. A total of 16 sites of geological interest and 11 of mining interest were identified. The 77% of these sites was proved to be of high and very high interest in scientific terms. Likewise, their susceptibility to degradation assessed from their vulnerability and fragility was found to be high or very high in the 30% of the cases. As for the protection priority, all the studied sites obtained a medium-high result. Finally, the study based on the SWOT-TOWS revealed the possibility of applying action strategies in order to facilitate the compatibility of geotourism with the current productive activities, despite the difficult situation in the study area created by mining activities.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The word and the concept of “geodiversity” was first introduced in the early nineties [1,2]. The term, coined as an analogue to biodiversity [3], has become increasingly common, and it mainly appears in relation to geological heritage and conservation [4,5]. Nevertheless, it has not always been used with the same meaning. For [6] geodiversity is “the number and variety of structures (sedimentary, tectonic, geological materials (minerals, rocks, fossils and soils)), that constitute the substratum in a region, above which the organic activity is settled, the anthropic included”. This definition focuses on the geological features leaving space for the possibility of the development of anthropic activities. On the other hand, [7] considers geodiversity as the diversity of the geographical space and defines it as “the diversity coming from the nature itself (physical-geographical environment) and from the social processes, such as production, settlement and circulation (the human being and its activities)”, considering human activities (e.g., mining) as part of geodiversity. According to [4], the question regarding whether geodiversity should be included in geographical diversity or excluded from it poses practical problems, and therefore geodiversity should be considered as an intrinsic part and a characteristic feature of the territory. As part of the territory, it would relate directly to the geography, landscape, climate, culture and economy of the area. The study of geodiversity, limited to strictly geological features (geology, topography, geomorphology, hydrogeology and soils), represents the base from which relationships between other features and the geological heritage can be developed.
The geological heritage is defined as the group of geological elements with outstanding scientific, cultural and educational values [4,5,8,9,10]. Even though the terms “geological heritage” and “geodiversity” are related to each other and they are both subject to assessment of interest and quality, the study of geological heritage is independent from that of geodiversity. The latter does not consider the variety, frequency and distribution of geological-geomorphological features. Some authors, such as [11], maintain that the geological heritage is a representative example of the geodiversity of a given site. Geological heritage is formed by all those places or points of geological interest, defined as sites or geosites that stand out from their surroundings due to their scientific and/or educational value.
Usually, only a small fraction of the geodiversity has a relevant value to justify the application of geoconservation measures, regardless of whether this fraction is considered geological heritage or not [12]. According to [13], geoconservation strategies should be applied to the characterization and management of every feature of geodiversity that shows any kind of value. A simplified conceptual framework explaining and correlating geodiversity and its main components, within the domain of natural diversity (geosites, geoheritage elements, geodiversity sites and geodiversity elements) [12], is shown in Figure 1.
Many governmental programs (e.g., Geoheritage-federal-programs, USA) aim to preserve the sites that are considered the most valuable in terms of their geodiversity especially if they are classified as geological heritage. These programs are generally referred to as geoconservation programs [12,14,15]. The development of an inventory of geosites should be the first step of every strategy pursuing geological heritage conservation. The implementation of conservation and interpretation without a complete inventory of geosites is an inappropriate beginning for any geoconservation project [16]. Creating a protected area is, in most of the countries, a long and complicated bureaucratic process. Thus, this effort must only be applied to those geosites, which stand out due to their scientific, academic and touristic values. To assess this importance, a sound national inventory is essential. After creating an inventory of geosites, the following steps in the geoconservation strategy must be their characterization by assessing their relevance, their protection according to the national legal framework, their preservation, interpretation, and monitoring [12].
Another concept directly related to geologic heritage or geoheritage is “mining heritage”. It can be defined as the total surface and subsurface mining works, hydraulic and transport facilities, machinery, documents or objects related to former mining activities with a historical, cultural or social value [17]. There are several places on the Earth with outstanding geomining features (mining sites) [18] that found a way to benefit from these singular historic and touristic values and use them for local development. Among these cases are Ouro Preto and Diamantinita in Brazil, Cerro Rico de Potosí in Bolivia, Las Escombreras in Sardinia or the Kurkur-Dungul area in Egypt [18,19,20].
In terms of appreciation of geology and landscape, travelling to areas of either great natural beauty or unique geographical phenomena is not something new. Nevertheless, the concept of geotourism [21] appeared in the nineties as “geological” rather than “geographical” tourism. Geotourism, regarded as geographical tourism, was first reported by the National Geographic Society [22]. Thus, geotourism can be seen as a branch of tourism based on geographical location and geological nature that attributes “sense of place” to the area [14,23]. Geotourism understands, promotes and appreciates the environment. It recognizes the importance of geological and climatic phenomena also as a determinant factor in the biotic environment [17,24,25]. Nevertheless, if geotourism lacks the adequate control and prevision, it can itself pose a threat to nature [25].
The region studied here is located in Southern Ecuador. It is a mining district where activity goes back to the Pre-Columbian era. It has a great potential as a touristic destination due to its areas of geological and mining interest, among other aspects. However, the situation of uncontrolled mining activity in the area, currently limited by legal restrictions, calls for alternatives favoring the socioeconomic development while respecting the environment and the territory. On the basis of the above, the aim of this work is to examine the potentiality of geotourism in Zaruma-Portovelo through the inventory, description and assessment of the outstanding geological and mining features in the area (sites of geological and mining interest) while exploring solutions to the environmental and socioeconomic problems related to gold mining. It is important to consider that Zaruma-Portovelo area was selected for this study due to its significance as gold deposit in Ecuador, its relevant geological-mining heritage and, principally, cultural heritage.

2. Geographic and Geological Setting

The study area lies in Southern Ecuador (Figure 2a), in the higher part of El Oro province (municipalities of Zaruma and Portovelo), and it is known as Zaruma-Portovelo mining district. The extension of the area of interest is approximately 1000 km2 and its average elevation is around 1200 m. The area is located in the western part of the Andean Mountains (Chilla Cordillera) and within the medium-high section of the Puyango River basin. From a geological point of view, this zone is characterized mainly by the presence of continental-volcanic, plutonic and metamorphic rocks (Figure 2b). Furthermore, the predominant structures (faults) follow an E-W direction, and thus are discordant with the septentrional and eastern Andean system, in which the predominant direction is NNE [26,27,28]. Morphologically, the most remarkable feature is the mountain relief, characterized fundamentally by noticeable fluvial incisions and by the absence of stratovolcanoes [29], very common in the Andean Mountains.
It is an argentiferous polymetallic, epigenetic mineral deposit with an epithermal character, in which the ore occurs in seams [28,29,30]. The mining activity in the Zaruma-Portovelo region traces its origins back to the Pre-Columbian era and continues nowadays. Along with the ongoing development of a planned exploitation methods (using modern equipment and machinery for the extraction, grinding, crushing, transportation and recovery processes) promoted by mining companies and associations, there still exists unofficial and uncontrolled mining activity in the area. This poses a serious threat to the natural resources and to the human activities [31,32]. Facing these circumstances, apart from politics limiting this kind of exploitation, it is necessary to consider alternative economic enterprises, such as geotourism, that are compatible with the planned activities under development (mining, agriculture, ranching and tourism).

3. Methodology

The procedure followed in this study is divided into three different phases (Figure 3) adopting the methods of other previous studies of characterization, assessment and use of areas with singular geological-mining values [12,33]. The scientific value is focused on highlighting the importance of the site from the point of view of its contribution to knowledge advance while the academic value is focused on the ease of transmitting this knowledge to society.

3.1. Information Gathering and Preliminary Analysis

In this phase, all the available information was gathered in a thorough literature review of project reports, theses, articles and scientific publications about the study area [19,20,29]. Furthermore, enquiries were held to local agents (e.g., interviews with the miners and the general population) and also on fieldwork [18,34]. The areas of interest were inventoried and stored in a Geographical Information System (GIS) for their posterior analysis and detailed assessment. As a result of this first phase, an inventory was obtained, containing information about areas of remarkable geological interest (geosites) and mining interest (mining sites). The criterion established to decide whether a site is rather of geological or of mining interest was to consider its most remarkable geological or mining feature.

3.2. Specific Selection and Site Assessment

All the sites of interest listed in the mentioned inventory were studied in detail, including a quantitative assessment of the degree of interest. Even though there are several methods for the specific assessment of the sites with geological or mining interest [12,33,35], here we followed the procedure proposed by [33]. Firstly, the interest of the sites was assessed by three independent experts on the basis of a wide range of parameters (e.g., representativeness, rareness, spectacularity, etc.) listed in Table 1.
The Table 1 allows calculating the final parameters in an automated manner by combining the values established by experts and the valuation weights described in the scientific literature. The procedure comprised the following elements: (i) the score of the interest criterion established by experts with numerical values 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 (being 0 the lowest and 4 the highest); (ii) the valuation weights for each criterion, according to the information available in the specialized literature [33]; (iii) the automated calculation of the scientific (Sc), academic (Ac), touristic (To) and total interest degrees. The total degree is the average of the other three values. Furthermore, the results yielded by the numerical assessment (Table 1) allowed us to conduct a qualitative evaluation of the sites.
In relation to conservation, site degradation susceptibility (DS) was assessed as a function of fragility (Fr.) and vulnerability (Vul.) to external threats. Furthermore, protection priority (Pp) was determined on the basis of the DS and total interest values. The analysis of a series of criteria, such as the size of site or threats, served as input for these assessments. The complete list of parameters considered in the study is listed in Table 2 along with the sheet that allows the automated calculation of the final parameters (Fr., Vul., and DS) by combining assessment values given by experts with the valuation weights described in the scientific literature [33], similar to the procedure followed in Table 1.
Degradation susceptibility assessment was conducted taking into consideration the following results: (i) fragility and vulnerability scores given by experts with numerical values between 0 and 4 (0 the lowest and 4 the highest); (ii) valuation weights for every criterion, in accordance with the information available in specific literature [33]; (iii) calculated values of fragility and vulnerability degree and of degradation susceptibility (multiplying the values of fragility and vulnerability and then dividing the result by 400), by using a calculation sheet. Once established the degree of interest and the degradation susceptibility, we have calculated the scientific, academic, touristic and protection priorities (Pp) using formulae (1)–(4) (Table 2).
Pp (Sc) = (ISc)2 × SD × (1/4002)
Pp (Ac) = (IAc)2 × SD × (1/4002)
Pp (To) = (ITo)2 × SD × (1/4002)
Pp = ((ISc + IAc + ITo)/3)2 × SD × (1/4002)

3.3. Diagnosis and Proposal for Geotourism

A diagnosis, through the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) was applied taking into account the list of assessed sites of geological and mining interest. The SWOT analysis was developed with the participation of several representatives from the public and private sectors, and also from the general public, aiming to gather a significant sample of opinions. This phase of the work pursued to redefine the geotourism potential of the area including criteria that describe the relationship between local society and the geological and mining potential.

4. Results

4.1. Inventory of Sites

As baseline information, available data of 52 elements of potential touristic, scientific and academic interest were considered. As the result of a first selection, 27 locations were chosen, and then defined as geosites or mining sites (Table 3 and Figure 4), considering their characteristic features (either geological or mining). Table 3 lists the 16 potential geosites including mountains, rivers and waterfalls with a marked geological nature (Figure 5). In the case of the mining sites, 11 potential places of interest were identified, among which mines and mining facilities stand out (Figure 6). This inventory served as a starting point to gauge the potential of the area and to carry out a more exhaustive assessment afterwards.

4.2. Assessment of the Selected Geosites and Mining Sites

In this phase of the study, the scientific, didactic and touristic/recreational interests were assessed, following the described procedure.
In Table 4, the resulting scores are listed in decreasing order according to the mean value of the interests (scientific, academic and touristic). In accordance with the value rank presented in Table 1:
  • one site (4%) is of very high interest. It is a mining site.
  • twenty sites (74%) are considered of high interest, of which 15 are geosites (75%), and 5 are mining sites (25%).
  • six sites (22%) are considered of medium interest, of which one is a geosite (17%), whereas the remaining 5 are mining sites (83%).
  • none of the proposed sites is considered to have a low interest, which proves the great relevance of the selected sites in the Zaruma-Portovelo district.
Next, the 27 selected sites were assessed in terms of fragility and vulnerability. The degradation susceptibility was calculated from these two parameters. The combination of degradation susceptibility and interest permitted the evaluation of the protection priority, Pp, of the sites. In Table 5, the results are listed in decreasing order according to degradation susceptibility and protection priority values.
According to the classification described in Table 2, all the geosites and mining sites have high degradation susceptibility (DS):
  • Two sites (7%) have very high DS. They are both mining sites.
  • Fifteen sites (56%) have high DS. Seven of these sites are mining sites (47%) whereas the remaining eight are geosites (53%).
  • Ten sites (37%) have a medium DS. Only one of them is a mining site (10%).
  • There are no sites with low DS.
The combination of degradation susceptibility and interest allows the determination of the protection priority (Pp). The results listed in Table 5 reveal that the geosites and mining sites have a medium-high protection priority:
  • Six sites (22%) present a high Pp index, of which 5 are mining sites (83%).
  • Twenty-one sites (78%) present a medium Pp index, 16 of which are geosites (76%) and 5 are mining sites (24%).
  • None of the analyzed sites have either low or very high Pp values.
In general, the results demonstrate the existence of geological singularities as well as an important mining legacy, both with a real potential to be exploited in the context of geotourism.

4.3. SWOT Analysis and TOWS Matrix

Together with the inventory and assessment of the geosites and mining sites, a SWOT analysis was performed (Table 6) in order to determine the strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats of the area in geotourism.
The TOWS matrix tool was used to create strategies (Table 7) by the combination of the internal (Strengths and Weaknesses) and the external features (Opportunities and Threats) identified in the SWOT analysis (Table 6).
It is important to mention that the SWOT and TOWS analyses involve the same basic steps and are likely to produce similar results. The order in which managers think about strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities may, however, have an impact on the outcome of the analysis. The SWOT analysis and the TOWS matrix enabled us to establish a series of strategies to guarantee the optimal use of resources including the most appropriate actions for preserving, restoring and divulgating the identified geosites and mining sites. Finally, an attempt was made to establish the foundation for future, more ambitious actions (e.g., proposal for the creation of a geopark named Ruta del Oro).
The outcome of the combined analysis of the internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external features (opportunities and threats) can be summarized in seven general strategies:
(i)
To raise awareness about and to promote geosites and mining sites as a basis for alternative tourism (geotourism). Specific programs to develop consciousness about the great importance of these areas as tourist destinations should be created by local public organisms (municipalities), educational centers (schools and high schools) and private companies of the tourism sector.
(ii)
To formalize alliances between different sectors to maximize the utilization of these resources. Work committees could identify specific actions to boost the tourism development building on geological and mining resources.
(iii)
To steer current infrastructure development policies towards the enhancement and conditioning of these facilities (e.g., roads, drinkable water, recreational areas, signposting, etc.) in the areas of interest.
(iv)
To guarantee the preservation and protection of the geological heritage and the geodiversity through the implementation of land management plans. It is fundamental to introduce local legislation regulating the management of the natural areas, in general, and of the geological and mining resources, particularly.
(v)
To motivate quality improvement in the current tourism services through the creation of programs ensuring their quality and their long-term maintenance.
(vi)
Development of supplementary activities directly linked to tourism through participatory models, especially in related productive activities (agriculture, construction, craftwork, transportation, communications, etc.).
(vii)
Implementation of integral programs for the development of specific tourism products and services: adventure tourism and ecotourism, spa and hydrotherapy, cultural and archaeological tourism, etc.

4.4. Proposed Route Including Geosites and Mining Sites

Based on the described data and on previous studies concerning the creation of a geotourism route named “Ruta del Oro” (Gold Route) [19,34,39,40], we propose the development of a specific itinerary of the geosites and mining sites in the area (Figure 7).
The proposed itinerary is one example among several potential alternatives considering the sites inventoried in this study. Apart from making the visit to these sites feasible, the route matches the following criteria: (i) accessibility to every selected geosite and mining site with a motor vehicle; (ii) pleasant and attractive tour, as the distance between the sites of interest is not too long. The circuit can be completed in about 6 hours, with the possibility of visiting other sites nearby. A general assessment of the proposed route from the average values of every suggested site is presented in Table 8. The results reveal the significance of this geotourism route and its potential contribution to the regional tourism offer. A complete visit to all the inventoried geosites and mining sites would take approximately 3 days.

5. Discussion

The described methodology [33] enables the assignment of a semi quantitative value to the tourism resources and possibilities of the Zaruma-Portovelo mining district and its surroundings. Particularly, the process made it possible to identify and order the areas of interest from three general points of view: interest, susceptibility and protection [12]. The same approach was used both for the geosites and the mining sites considering that the mining sites are often situated in places with special features of geology, topography, geomorphology, rivers, and a unique landscape and biodiversity [18]. The assessment of these sites of interest pursued to facilitate the practical use of the inventory by all the potential users. The aim of the assessment was: (i) to inform non expert people about the relative value of a site compared to others in the same area, thus allowing the prioritization for use or conservation interventions and (ii) to have distinguishable groups of sites with scientific, didactic or touristic value. According to [41], different assessment methods produce different results. This reveals the need to apply several parallel methods at a given site, since a universal application or a process that allows correlating different values have not been found yet.
The applied SWOT analysis allowed us to relate the geotourism potentiality of areas of geological and mining interest to the existing infrastructure (i.e., roads, hotels, etc.) and ongoing economic activities (mining, agriculture, livestock). Moreover, the TOWS matrix provided important information about the applicability and feasibility of geotourism development and the necessity of relating the entire potentiality of the area (i.e., biodiversity, architecture, customs, culture and history) with the geological and mining heritage [8,10,12,14,15].
Regarding the obtained results, the assessment of the geosites and mining sites evinces: (i) the high interest of the considered areas and (ii) their proximity to each other. A viable alternative to exploit the geosites and mining sites may be the creation of a Geological-Mining Park [17,18,19,42] or, in the first instance, the creation of a Mining Route [39,43] connecting the different areas. The average global values of interest, DS, and Pp (Table 8) of all the sites included in the proposed route (Figure 7) offer a complementary criterion when evaluating different sites of interest in a specific itinerary. In general, the methodology of assessing a route on the basis of individual site values, as the proposed by [33], has proved to be a viable and adequate approach.
The development of proposals for the use of the areas of geological-mining interest, such as the one discussed here (i.e., itinerary to visit geosites and mining sites) would [17,24,25]: (i) foster the protection of the geosites and mining sites, (ii) advance the knowledge of these areas and (iii) offer new economic alternatives for the local population. This would contribute to the improvement of quality of life and to a social development in harmony with the environment [18,43].
In this specific case, the alternative use of geological and mining resources through geotourism would be compatible with the economic activities in the area (mining, agriculture, ranching and tourism). At the same time, if managed correctly, geotourism would benefit the protection of the geological and mining sites of interest [25]. Furthermore, the perspective and development offered by geotourism is an innovative option against the current problems in Zaruma-Portovelo, provoked by a non-regulated and decaying mining activity.
In accordance with [18,19,39], the creation of an official framework, such as a mining route, would allow visitors to learn about the diverse aspects of the geology and auriferous mining in the area in an efficient way. In general, geotourism is a key factor in the socioeconomic development of the local population, enhancing, at the same time, the preservation and protection of the geosites and mining sites [17,24,44].

6. Conclusions

The research presented in this paper reveals the existence of several areas of geological and mining interest in the Zaruma-Portovelo mining district. Following the example of similar initiatives launched in some European countries, these sites could be exploited through the development of geotourism.
In detail, 16 geosites and 11 mining sites were defined in the study area. The interest of geosites reached a score of 153 (high), whereas the interest of mining sites reached an average value of 160 (high). Regarding degradation susceptibility, geosites obtained a rating of 69 (high), whereas for the mining sites this value was 131 (high). The protection priority assessed for geosites reached a score of 11 (medium), and it was 20 (high) in the case of the mining sites.
The SWOT analysis and the TOWS matrix evince that the creation of a Mining Route, a Geological-Mining Park or any other official recognition and/or protection framework for the geosites and mining sites would favor the socioeconomic development in the study area. Nevertheless, it is essential to take adequate legal and financial measures to materialize the viability of the geological and mining uses in any of the aforementioned figures of utilization.
In the Zaruma-Portovelo mining district, the progressive decrease in the gold mining and the problems derived from related activities (environmental issues and terrain destabilization) call for alternative development strategies, such as the one suggested in this paper. Geotourism, as proposed here, represents a sustainable activity, which is also compatible with the current socioeconomic activities in the area. Its implementation can be considered an adequate alternative for socioeconomic and environmental development.

Author Contributions

P.C.M., G.H.F. and J.B. gathered the data of geosites and mining sites, adapted the assessment procedures from the scientific literature and realized the characterization of the sites of interest; P.C., M.J.D.-C. and E.B. completed the geological setting of the studied area and applied analysis tools to grade the different geosites. All the authors wrote this manuscript. E.B. encouraged and supervised the research.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to CIPAT Institute (ESPOL Ecuador) for its funding. We also thank Timea Kovacs and Jorge Fernández for their scientific suggestions and Wilman Aguilar and Tatiana Berrezueta for provide us some pictures (Figure 5b and Figure 6a).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
SWOTStrengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
TOWSThreats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, Strengths
DSDegradation Susceptibility
ScScientific Interest
AcAcademic Interest
ToTouristic Interest
Fr Fragility
VulVulnerability
Pp Protection priority

References

  1. Sharples, C. A Methodology for the Identification of Significant Landforms and Geological Sites for Geoconservation Purposes; Report; Forestry Commission: Tasmania, Australia, 1993; p. 30.
  2. Wiedenbein, F.W. Origin and use of the term ‘geotope’ in German-speaking countries. In Geological and Landscape Conservation; O’Halloran, D., Green, C., Harley, M., Knill, J., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 1994; pp. 117–120. [Google Scholar]
  3. Erikstad, L. Geoheritage and geodiversity management—The questions for tomorrow. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2013, 124, 713–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Carcavilla, L.; Durán, J.J.; López-Martínez, J. Geodiversidad: Concepto y Relación con el Patrimonio Geológico. Geo-Temas 2008, 10, 1299–1303. [Google Scholar]
  5. Carcavilla, L.; Durán, J.J.; Garcia-Cortés, A.; López-Martínez, J. Geological heritage and geoconservation in Spain: Past, present and future. Geoheritage 2009, 1, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nieto, L.M. Geodiversidad: Propuesta de una definición integradora. Bol. Geol. Min. 2001, 112, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rojas, J. Los desafíos del estudio de la geodiversidad. Rev. Geogr. Venez. 2005, 46, 143–152. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brilha, J.B. Património Geológico e Geoconservação: A Conservação da Natureza na sua Vertente Geológica; Palimage Editores: Viseu, Portugal, 2005; p. 190. ISBN 972-8575-90-4. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lazzari, M. Geosites, cultural tourism and sustainability in Gargano National park (southern Italy): The case of the Salata (Vieste) geoarchaeological site. Rend. Online Soc. Geol. It. 2013, 28, 97–101. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lazzari, M.; Aloia, A. Geoparks, Geoheritage and Geotourism: Opportunities and Tools in Sustainable Development of the Territory. GeoJ. Tour. Geosites 2014, 13, 8–9. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sharples, C. Concepts and Principles of Geoconservation; Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service: Hobart, Australia, September 2002; Volume 3, pp. 1–79. Available online: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/geoconservation.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2018).
  12. Brilha, J. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage 2016, 8, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Henriques, M.H.; Pena dos Reis, R.; Brilha, J.; Mota, T.S. Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Dowling, J.R. Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 2011, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gray, M. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2004; p. 508. ISBN 978-0-470-74215-0. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fernanda de Lima, F.; Brilha, J.; Salamuni, E. Inventorying Geological Heritage in Large Territories: A Methodological Proposal Applied to Brazil. Geoheritage 2010, 2, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nita, J.; Myga-Piateck, U. Geotourism potential of post-mining regions in Poland. Bull. Geogr. 2014, 7, 138–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mata-Perelló, J.; Carrión, P.; Molina, J.; Villas-Boas, R. Geomining Heritage as a tool to promote the social development of rural communities. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, 3rd ed.; Reynard, E., Brihla, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 167–174. ISBN 978-0-12-809531-7. [Google Scholar]
  19. Berrezueta, E.; Domínguez-Cuesta, M.J.; Carrión, P.; Berrezueta, T.J.; Herrero, G. Propuesta metodológica para el aprovechamiento del patrimonio geológico minero de la zona Zaruma-Portovelo (Ecuador). Trabajos de Geología 2006, 26, 103–109. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sallam, E.S.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Tiess, G.; Yashalova, N.N.; Ruban, D.A. The geological heritage of the Kurkur-Dungul area in southern Egypt. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2018, 137, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hose, T.A. Geotourism, or can tourist become casual rock hounds. In Geology on Your Doorstep; Bennet, M.R., Ed.; The Geological Society: London, UK, 1996; pp. 207–228. [Google Scholar]
  22. Stueve, A.; Cook, S.; Drew, D. The Geotourism Study: Phase 1 Executive Summary. National Geographic Traveller, Travel Industry Association of America. 2002. Available online: https://www.crt.state.la.us/downloads/Atchafalaya/GeoTourismStudy.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2018).
  23. Dowling, R.K. Geotourism. The Encyclopedia of Sustainable Tourism; CABI: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 231–232. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hose, T.A. Geotourism and geoconservation. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Newsome, D.; Dowling, R.; Leung, Y. The nature and management of geotourism: A case study of two established iconic geotourism destination. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 2, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chiaradia, M.; Fontbote, L.; Beate, B. Cenozoic continental arc magmatism and associated mineralizationin Ecuador. Miner. Deposita 2004, 39, 204–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Litherland, M.; Aspen, J.A. Terrane-boundary reactivation: A control on the evolution of the Northern Andes. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 1992, 5, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van Thournout, F.; Salemink, J.; Valenzuela, G.; Merlyn, M.; Boven, A.; Muchez, P. Portovelo: A volcanic-hosted epithermal vein-system in Ecuador, South America. Miner. Deposita 1996, 31, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Calle, J. Geología regional de Zaruma-Portovelo y consideraciones ambientales del sector. In El Patrimonio Geominero en el Contexto de la Ordenación del Territorio; Martins, L., Carrión, P., Eds.; ESPOL: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2005; pp. 307–320. ISBN 9978-44-615-. [Google Scholar]
  30. Berrezueta, E.; Ordóñez-Casado, B.; Bonilla, W.; Banda, R.; Castroviejo, R.; Carrión, P.; Puglla, S. Ore Petrography Using Optiacal Image Analysis: Application to Zaruma-Portovelo Deposit (Ecuador). Geosciences 2016, 6, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Berrezueta, E. Metodología de Valoración de las Actividades de uso del Suelo en Zaruma-Portovelo. Ecuador; Seminario Internacional de Minería, Metalurgia y Medio Ambiente, Universidad Católica de Lovaina (Bélgica) y Universidad Politécnica Nacional (Ecuador): Quito, Ecuador, 2003; pp. 333–355. [Google Scholar]
  32. Espí, J.A.; Berrezueta, E. El análisis de la gestión de los recursos naturales: “la huella ecológica” como medida del esfuerzo dela naturaleza. In Agua, Minería y Medio Ambiente. Libro Homenaje al Profesor Rafael Fernández Rubio; López-Geta, J.A., Pulido, A., Baquero, J.C., Eds.; IGME: Madrid, Spain, 2005; pp. 685–706. ISBN 84-7840-574-7. [Google Scholar]
  33. García-Cortés, A.; Carcavilla, L.; Díaz-Martínez, E.; Vegas, J. Inventario de Lugares de Interés Geológico de la Cordillera Ibérica. 2012, pp. 1–147. Available online: http://www.igme.es/patrimonio/Informe%20Ib%C3%A9rica%20Final.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2018).
  34. Campoverde, C.; Ramírez, G.; Carrión, P.; Herrera, G. Zaruma-Portovelo: Contexto Geominero de Patrimonio y Diversidad para el Desarrollo Sostenible; IV Congreso Internacional de Geología y Minería Ambiental para el Ordenamiento Territorial y el Desarrollo: Molina de Aragón, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  35. Reynard, E.; Fontana, G.; Kozlik, L.; Scapozza, C. A method for assessing “scientific” and “adicional values” of geomorphosites. Geograp. Helv. 2007, 62, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Google Maps. Image of the Zaruma-Portovelo Mining District in Google Maps. Available online: https://www.google.com/maps/@-3.6953608,-79.6297901,42481m/data=!3m1!1e3 (accessed on 5 April 2018).
  37. Viajandox. Chinchilla Lagoon (Image). Available online: https://www.ec.viajandox.com/zaruma/laguna-chinchilla-A1391 (accessed on 5 May 2018).
  38. El Tiempo. Un Recorrido por 500 Metros de Historia en la Mina El Sexmo, una de las Más Antiguas de Ecuador. Available online: https://www.eltiempo.com.ec/noticias/region/12/un-recorrido-por-500-metros-de-historia-en-la-mina-el-sexmo-una-de-las-mas-antiguas-de-ecuador (accessed on 5 May 2018).
  39. Campoverde, C.; Ramírez, G.; Carrión, P.; Herrera, G. Potencial Geoturístico-Minero de la Ruta del Oro, Ecuador; IV Congreso Internacional de Geología y Minería Ambiental para el Ordenamiento Territorial y el Desarrollo: Molina de Aragón, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  40. Carrión, P.; Ramos, V.; Ladines, L.; Loayza, G.; Domínguez, J.; Berrezueta, E. La Ruta del Oro y el Patrimonio Geológico-Minero en Zaruma-Portovelo (Ecuador); IV Congreso Internacional Sobre Patrimonio Geológico y Minero, s-2, c-09: Utrillas, Spain, 2003; pp. 333–339. [Google Scholar]
  41. Strba, L.; Rybár, P.; Baláz, B.; Molokác, M.; Hvizdák, L.; Krsac, M.; Muchova, L.; Tometzová, D.; Ferencíková, J. Geosites assessments: Comparison of methods and results. Curr. Issues Tour. 2014, 18, 469–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Orche, E. Rehabilitación del Patrimonio Minero de Fontao (Villa de Cruces): Propuesta de una Nueva Oferta Lúdica Cultural en Galicia; Congreso Internacional Sobre Patrimonio Geológico e Mineiro: Beja, Portugal, 2001; pp. 291–302. [Google Scholar]
  43. Carrión, P.; Herrera, G. Proyecto RUMYS: Rutas Minerales y Sostenibilidad. In Rutas Minerales en el Proyecto RUMYS. Un Factor Integral para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Sociedad; Carrión, P., Ed.; ESPOL: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2009; pp. 7–17. ISBN 978-9942-02-240-0. [Google Scholar]
  44. Newsome, D.; Dowling, R. Geoheritage and Geotourism. In Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection and Management, 3rd ed.; Reynard, E., Brihla, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 305–321. ISBN 978-0-12-809531-7. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of geodiversity, geological heritage and geoconservation Modified from [9].
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of geodiversity, geological heritage and geoconservation Modified from [9].
Geosciences 08 00205 g001
Figure 2. (a) Simplified geological map of Ecuador and location of selected area; and (b) geological map of Zaruma-Portovelo gold field with basic geology (volcanic and intrusive rocks), principal structures and most important veins. Modified from [28] with data from [30].
Figure 2. (a) Simplified geological map of Ecuador and location of selected area; and (b) geological map of Zaruma-Portovelo gold field with basic geology (volcanic and intrusive rocks), principal structures and most important veins. Modified from [28] with data from [30].
Geosciences 08 00205 g002
Figure 3. Scheme of the methodology used for the assessment of the sites (geosites and mining sites). Modified from [12,33]. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats). TOWS (Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, Strengths).
Figure 3. Scheme of the methodology used for the assessment of the sites (geosites and mining sites). Modified from [12,33]. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats). TOWS (Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, Strengths).
Geosciences 08 00205 g003
Figure 4. Location of the geosites and mining sites identified in the Zaruma-Portovelo mining district. [36].
Figure 4. Location of the geosites and mining sites identified in the Zaruma-Portovelo mining district. [36].
Geosciences 08 00205 g004
Figure 5. Example of geosite (e.g., Laguna de Chinchilla) inventoried in the study area. (a) Panoramic view [37], (b) detailed view.
Figure 5. Example of geosite (e.g., Laguna de Chinchilla) inventoried in the study area. (a) Panoramic view [37], (b) detailed view.
Geosciences 08 00205 g005
Figure 6. Example of mining site (e.g., Mina el Sexmo) inventoried in the study area. (a) Mine entrance, (b) underground passage [38], (c) mineralization inside the mine.
Figure 6. Example of mining site (e.g., Mina el Sexmo) inventoried in the study area. (a) Mine entrance, (b) underground passage [38], (c) mineralization inside the mine.
Geosciences 08 00205 g006
Figure 7. Suggested itinerary, within “Ruta del Oro”, selecting several geosites and mining sites.
Figure 7. Suggested itinerary, within “Ruta del Oro”, selecting several geosites and mining sites.
Geosciences 08 00205 g007
Table 1. Assessment procedure of the scientific (Sc.), academic (Ac.) and touristic (To.) interest of a particular site. The indicated values are a theoretical example. Modified from [33]. Interest value rank (0, 1, 2, 3 or 4). Weight (constant values in %). Interpretation: Maximum (400), Very high (267–400), High (134–266), Medium (50–134), Low (<50).
Table 1. Assessment procedure of the scientific (Sc.), academic (Ac.) and touristic (To.) interest of a particular site. The indicated values are a theoretical example. Modified from [33]. Interest value rank (0, 1, 2, 3 or 4). Weight (constant values in %). Interpretation: Maximum (400), Very high (267–400), High (134–266), Medium (50–134), Low (<50).
ParametersInterest
Sc.Ac.To.
ValueWeightValueWeightValueWeight
Standard or reference site21005
Knowledge of the site21515
State of conservation11015
Conditions of observation1102545
Scarcity, rarity115210
Geological diversity410120
Educational values 115
Logistics infrastructure 1515
Population density 41515
Possibilities for public outreach (accessibility) 0110
Size of site 15115
Association with other natural elements 2515
Beauty 120
Informative value 415
Possibility of recreational and leisure activities 45
Proximity to other places of interest 45
Socio-economic situation 410
Total185 (high)155 (high)220 (high)
187 (high)
Table 2. Assessment procedure of the fragility (Fr.), vulnerability (Vul.) and degradation susceptibility (DS) of a particular site. The indicated values are a theoretical example. For Fr and Val., values range from 0 to 4. Weight (constant values in %). Interpretation of DS: Very high (200–400), High (68–199), Medium (13–67), Low (<13). Maximum (400). Interpretation of Pp: Very high (113–400), High (17–113), Medium (1–16), Low (0). Maximum (400). Modified from [33].
Table 2. Assessment procedure of the fragility (Fr.), vulnerability (Vul.) and degradation susceptibility (DS) of a particular site. The indicated values are a theoretical example. For Fr and Val., values range from 0 to 4. Weight (constant values in %). Interpretation of DS: Very high (200–400), High (68–199), Medium (13–67), Low (<13). Maximum (400). Interpretation of Pp: Very high (113–400), High (17–113), Medium (1–16), Low (0). Maximum (400). Modified from [33].
Parameter/CharacteristicsFr.
ValueWeightTotal Value
Geosite size140
Vulnerability to looting130
Natural hazards130 100
Parameter/CharacteristicsVul.
ValueWeightTotal Value
Proximity to infrastructures120
Mining exploitation interest015
Protected area designation015
Indirect protection015
Accessibility215
Ownership status110
Population density25
Proximity to recreational areas45 90
Parameters Total value
DS: Fr*Vul/400 22.5(medium)
Pp Sc 4.81
Pp Ac. 3.38
Pp To. 6.81
Pp. 5.00(medium)
Table 3. List of potential geosites and mining sites identified in the study area.
Table 3. List of potential geosites and mining sites identified in the study area.
No.GeositeCharacteristicsNo.Mining siteCharacteristics
1Cerro de ArcosMountain, Volcanic systems1Mina Turística el SexmoClosed mine
2Río SalviasRivers, Fluvial deposits2Museo Magner TurnerMineralogical museum
3Laguna ChinchillaLake3Monumento al minero en PortoveloMining monument
4Manantiales de aguas termales PortoveloNatural spring, Volcanic systems4Museo Mineralógico de Tesbita OrdoñezMineralogical museum
5Cascada Chorro BlancoWaterfall, Fluvial deposits5Mina VizcayaClosed mine
6Cascada El Arco IrisWaterfall, Fluvial deposits6Casa antigua de los gerentes de la SADCOMining monument
7Cordillera de Los Andes VizcayaMountain Chain, Volcanic systems7Minas Antiguas de MirandaClosed mine
8Cerro Zaruma UrcuMountain, Volcanic systems8Mina Minas NuevasClosed mine
9Cascada de Chaca-CapacWaterfall, Fluvial deposits9Antigua Planta de Beneficio SADCOMining monument
10Cerro El CalvarioMountain, Volcanic systems10Plantas de beneficio Vía Portovelo-PaccheMining monument
11Cerro San JoséMountain, Volcanic systems11Museo Municipal de ZarumaMineralogical museum
12Cascada del ÁngelWaterfall, Fluvial deposits
13Cascada de OrtegaWaterfall, Fluvial deposits
14Cascada de GuayquichumaWaterfall, Fluvial deposits
15Cascada el MolinoWaterfall, Fluvial deposits
16Colina de la LibertadHill, Volcanic systems
Table 4. Assessment of the degree of interest of the geosites and mining sites (*). Scientific (Sc), Academic (Ac), Tourism (To) and Average.
Table 4. Assessment of the degree of interest of the geosites and mining sites (*). Scientific (Sc), Academic (Ac), Tourism (To) and Average.
No.Geosites-Mining SitesInterest
ScAcToAverage
1Mina Turística el Sexmo *280300252277
2Museo Magner Turner *268276224256
3Museo Municipal de Zaruma *212264224233
4Museo Mineralógico de Tesbita Ordoñez *228216228224
5Cerro de Arcos268196168211
6Monumento al minero en Portovelo *244228136203
7Laguna Chinchilla268188148201
8Manantiales de aguas termales Portovelo200200152184
9Cascada Chorro Blanco228168140179
10Cascada El Arco Iris228168140179
11Cordillera de Los Andes Vizcaya176160180172
12Cerro Zaruma Urcu204168132168
13Río Salvias228156104163
14Cascada de Chaca-Capac212156120163
15Cerro El Calvario188152128156
16Cerro San José156148156153
17Cascada del Ángel156144140147
18Cascada de Ortega164148120144
19Mina Vizcaya *148144140144
20Cascada de Guayquichuma156132132140
21Cascada el Molino156132128139
22Colina de la Libertad128100104111
23Casa antigua de los gerentes de la SADCO *124888499
24Minas Antiguas de Miranda *112928897
25Mina Minas Nuevas *104848089
26Antigua Planta de Beneficio SADCO *80808080
27Plantas de beneficio Vía Portovelo-Pacche *104404463
Table 5. Susceptibility and Protection Priority assessment of the geosites and mining sites (*). Fragility (Fr.), Vulnerability (Vul.), Degradation Susceptibility (DS), Protection Priority (Pp).
Table 5. Susceptibility and Protection Priority assessment of the geosites and mining sites (*). Fragility (Fr.), Vulnerability (Vul.), Degradation Susceptibility (DS), Protection Priority (Pp).
No.Geosites-Mining SitesSusceptibilityNo.Geosites-Mining SitesProtection
Fr.Vul.DSPp (Sc)Pp (Ac)Pp (To)Pp
1Planta de Minerales SADCO *3402702301Mina Turística El Sexmo *50574049
2Plantas Vía Portovelo—Pacche *3202702162Museo Mineralógico Magner Turner *38402735
3Casa antigua SADCO *2502851783Museo Mineralógico de Tesbita Ordoñez *36323634
4Mina Minas Nuevas *2002801404Museo Municipal de Zaruma *22342527
5Minas Antiguas de Miranda *2602101375Monumento al minero en Portovelo *35311124
6Museo Mineralógico de Tesbita Ordoñez *2501751096Manantiales de aguas termales en Portovelo27271523
7Manantiales de aguas termales en Portovelo2601651077Río Salvias3014615
8Colina de la Libertad2002101058Laguna Chinchilla2211713
9Mina Turística El Sexmo *1602551029Cascada del Ángel14121112
10Monumento al minero en Portovelo *1402709510Cerro de Arcos1910711
11Río Salvias1602309211Cerro El Calvario1611811
12Cascada el Molino1702108912Cordillera Occidental de los Andes Vizcaya12101211
13Cascada de Guayquichuma1702108913Cascada de Guayquichuma14101011
14Cascada del Ángel1702108914Casa antigua SADCO *179811
15Museo Mineralógico Magner Turner *1702008515Cascada el Molino1410911
16Museo Municipal de Zaruma *1701857916Cerro Zaruma Urcu1510610
17Cerro El Calvario1901557417Cascada Chorro Blanco169610
18Mina Vizcaya *1601656618Cascada El Arco Iris169610
19Cordillera Occidental de los Andes Vizcaya1601506019Planta de Minerales SADCO *9999
20Cerro Zaruma Urcu1601455820Mina Vizcaya *9989
21Cascada de Ortega1601255021Cascada de Chaca-Capac14858
22Cascada de Chaca-Capac1601255022Minas Antiguas de Miranda *11778
23Cascada Chorro Blanco1601255023Colina de la Libertad11778
24Cascada El Arco Iris1601255024Plantas Vía Portovelo—Pacche *9667
25Laguna Chinchilla1601255025Mina Minas Nuevas *7677
26Cerro San José1301404626Cerro San José8756
27Cerro de Arcos220754127Cascada de Ortega15235
Table 6. SWOT Analysis (internal analysis) de la zona de estudio.
Table 6. SWOT Analysis (internal analysis) de la zona de estudio.
StrengthsOpportunities
  • Initiative compatible with ongoing economic activities (mining).
  • The population accepts this potential way of development.
  • The areas of geological and mining interest are accessible through the existing communication routes.
  • Activities are compatible with the historical and cultural wealth preservation.
  • Favorable climatology and location.
  • Existence of renowned cultural and architectonic heritage.
  • Unique biodiversity.
  • Cultural, historical and archaeological attractions.
  • Pre-existing tourism development with potential to be improved.
(a)
Development of land-use planning in the area.
(b)
Expansion of the tourism offer.
(c)
New openings to generate profit in the private and the public sectors.
(d)
New investments.
(e)
Job offers.
(f)
Preservation of areas of geological and mining interest.
(g)
Possible declaration of Zaruma as a UNESCO Cultural Heritage of Humanity site.
(h)
Creation of knowledge base for future initiatives (e.g. creation of a Geopark: Ruta del Oro)
(i)
Sustainable mining as a tourist attraction.
WeaknessesThreats
  • Deterioration and low consciousness of preservation at some places of historic value.
  • Lack of links with universities or other institutions to create cultural, scientific and tourism development plans.
  • Access routes in bad conditions.
  • Very basic tourism infrastructure.
  • Lack of public outreach efforts by mining projects.
  • Lack of a system for the identification, assessment and divulgation of the geological-mining heritage.
  • Absence of a legal framework in Ecuador for the definition of the geological-mining heritage.
  • Very limited support from the government.
  • Weak tourism promotion.
(a)
Lack of investment to preserve, restore and appreciate heritage.
(b)
Pollution due to the presence of informal mining in the area.
(c)
Lack of attention from the regional authorities.
(d)
Rivalry with other tourist destinations.
(e)
Economic crisis in the country.
(f)
Disapproval of extractive activities from social groups.
(g)
Political instability in the country.
(h)
Low interest from investors.
(i)
Problems related to the use of land and its natural environment.
Table 7. TOWS matrix developing strategies based on data from Table 6. TOWS matrix combining internal features (i.e., strengths and weaknesses) identified by numbers 1 to 9 in Table 6 and external features (i.e., opportunities and threats) identified by letters (a) to (i) in Table 6.
Table 7. TOWS matrix developing strategies based on data from Table 6. TOWS matrix combining internal features (i.e., strengths and weaknesses) identified by numbers 1 to 9 in Table 6 and external features (i.e., opportunities and threats) identified by letters (a) to (i) in Table 6.
Strategies: Strengths + OpportunitiesStrategies: Weaknesses + Opportunities
1.a.
Application of territorial legislation for the appropriate development of mining in the geomining district.
3.b.e.
Design of a tourism plan including the visits at the proposed geosites and mining sites, promoting tourism development and creating job vacancies.
4.f.g.
Planning, jointly with public entities and the private sector, the preservation of these sites of interest through the involvement of the community, seeking its recognition as Cultural Heritage.
9.h.i.
Implementation of new tourism initiatives for the development of the geomining district, such as the creation of a Geopark or Minerals itinerary.
2.f.h.
Building partnerships with universities and other institutions for the development of new initiatives that would derive in a socioeconomic boost at the sites of interest and in the surrounding communities.
4.c.d.
Improvement of the tourism infrastructures by means of links and investments from the public and private sectors, for the development and increase of tourism in the area.
8.g.
Creation of government-supported committees in the geomining district, to promote its declaration as Cultural Heritage in the near future.
5.i.
Socialization of sustainable mining projects.
Strategies: Strengths + ThreatsStrategies: Weaknesses + Threats
1.b.c.f.
Informing the population in the geomining district about the benefits resulting from developing the mining activity under a sustainable and regulated perspective.
9.e.h.
Implementation of tourism plans and initiatives for the improvement and growth of the geomining sector, and for the preservation and divulgation of the existing tourist attractions.
8.c.i.
Creation of work groups with the participation of the community and the public authorities, in order to manage the attractions, their preservation, appearance and relationship with the environment.
1.a.d.
Creation of preservation plans for the different heritage types present in the geomining sector and its surroundings through investments from the public and private sectors, to improve the competitiveness and become an icon of tourist attraction, both at national and international levels.
9.h.
Impulse of the geomining sector by means of help and adherence from investors, through the tourism promotion of the sites of geological and mining interest.
Table 8. Interest, Fr., Vul., DS, and Pp assessment in the context of the proposed route (Figure 7).
Table 8. Interest, Fr., Vul., DS, and Pp assessment in the context of the proposed route (Figure 7).
ItineraryInterestVulFrDSPp
ScAcToTotalScAcToTotal
Route 1224208164199 (Medium)17818481 (High)29251623 (High)

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carrión Mero, P.; Herrera Franco, G.; Briones, J.; Caldevilla, P.; Domínguez-Cuesta, M.J.; Berrezueta, E. Geotourism and Local Development Based on Geological and Mining Sites Utilization, Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador. Geosciences 2018, 8, 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060205

AMA Style

Carrión Mero P, Herrera Franco G, Briones J, Caldevilla P, Domínguez-Cuesta MJ, Berrezueta E. Geotourism and Local Development Based on Geological and Mining Sites Utilization, Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador. Geosciences. 2018; 8(6):205. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060205

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carrión Mero, Paúl, Gricelda Herrera Franco, Josué Briones, Pablo Caldevilla, María José Domínguez-Cuesta, and Edgar Berrezueta. 2018. "Geotourism and Local Development Based on Geological and Mining Sites Utilization, Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador" Geosciences 8, no. 6: 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060205

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop