Citation
SBE Turismo e Paisagens Cársticas

Material Information

Title:
SBE Turismo e Paisagens Cársticas
Series Title:
Tourism and Karst Areas
Alternate Title:
Revista Científica da Seção de Espeleoturismo da Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia
Publisher:
Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia
Publication Date:
Language:
Portuguese

Subjects

Genre:
serial ( sobekcm )

Notes

General Note:
Special issue: Geoparks and other approaches for territorial management and tourism in karst areas Edição especial: Geoparques e outras abordagens para a gestão territorial e turismo em áreas cársticasCapa, Expediente, Sumário e Editorial ARTIGOS ORIGINAIS / ORIGINAL ARTICLESCaves: the most important geotouristic feature in the world Cavernas: recursos geoturísticos mais importantes no mundo Arrigo A. Cigna Paolo Forti Speleological heritage in Brazil's proposed geoparks, as presented in the book "Geoparques do Brasil: propostas" Patrimônio espeleológico brasileiro apresentado no livro "Geoparques do Brasil: propostas" Marcos Antonio Leite do Nascimento Virginio Mantesso-Neto Geotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Potencial geoturístico de lugares subterrâneos na Costa Rica Andrés Ulloa Carlos Goicoechea Consumer-based cave travel and tourism market characteristics in West Java, Indonesia Características do mercado consumidor de espeleoturismo em West Java, Indonésia Eva Rachmawati Arzyana Sunkaro
Restriction:
Open Access - Permission by Publisher
Original Version:
Vol. 6, no. 1 (2013)
General Note:
See Extended description for more information.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
K26-03705 ( USFLDC DOI )
k26.3705 ( USFLDC Handle )
12641 ( karstportal - original NodeID )
1983-473X ( ISSN )

USFLDC Membership

Aggregations:
Karst Information Portal

Postcard Information

Format:
Serial

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
Description
Special issue: Geoparks and other approaches for territorial
management and tourism in karst areas Edicao especial:
Geoparques e outras abordagens para a gestao territorial e
turismo em areas carsticasCapa, Expediente, Sumrio e
Editorial
ARTIGOS ORIGINAIS / ORIGINAL ARTICLESCaves: the most
important geotouristic feature in the world Cavernas: recursos
geotursticos mais importantes no mundo Arrigo A. Cigna &
Paolo Forti Speleological heritage in Brazil's proposed
geoparks, as presented in the book "Geoparques do Brasil:
propostas" Patrimnio espeleolgico brasileiro apresentado no
livro "Geoparques do Brasil: propostas" Marcos Antonio Leite do
Nascimento & Virginio Mantesso-Neto Geotourism potential of
underground sites in Costa Rica Potencial geoturstico de
lugares subterrneos na Costa Rica Andrs Ulloa & Carlos
Goicoechea Consumer-based cave travel and tourism market
characteristics in West Java, Indonesia Caractersticas do
mercado consumidor de espeleoturismo em West Java, Indonsia
Eva Rachmawati & Arzyana Sunkaro



PAGE 2

Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3

PAGE 3

Ca mpinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 20 1 3 1 EXPEDIENTE Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia ( Brazilian Speleological Society ) Endereo ( Address ) Caixa Postal 7031 Parque Taquaral CEP: 13076 970 Campinas SP Brasil Contatos ( Contacts ) +55 ( 19) 3296 5421 turismo@cavernas.org.br Gesto 20 1 3 201 5 ( Management Board 20 1 3 201 5 ) Diretoria ( D irection ) Presidente: Marcelo Augusto Rasteiro Vice presidente: Pa vel Carrijo Rodrigues Tesoureir o : Fernanda Cristina Loureno Bergo 1 Secret rio: Teresa M aria da Franca M oniz de Arago 2 Secretrio: Luciano Emerich Faria Conselho Fiscal ( Supervisory B oard ) Delci Kimie Ishida Leonardo Morato Duarte Jefferson Esteves Xavier Alexandre Jos Felizardo suplente ( alternate ) Flavio Scalabrini Sen a suplente ( alternate )

PAGE 4

Ca mpinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 20 1 3 2 TOURISM AND KARST AREAS ( Formalmente/ F ormally : Pesquisas em Turismo e Paisagens Crsticas ) Editor Chefe ( Editor in Chief ) Dr Heros Augusto Santos Lobo Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia Brasil Editors Convidados ( Guest E ditors ) Dra. Jasmine Cardozo Moreira Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Esp Carlos Neto de Carvalho Geopark Naturtejo Portugal Editor Associado ( Associated Editor ) Dr. Cesar Ulisses Vieira Verssimo Universidade Federal do Cear UFC, Bras il Editor Executivo ( Executive Editor ) Esp. Marcelo Augusto Rasteiro Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia SBE, Brasil Conselho Editorial ( Editorial Board ) Dr. Andrej Aleksej Kranjc Karst Research Institute, Eslovnia Dr. Angel Fernndes Corts Uni versidad de Alicante, UA, Espanha Dr. Arrigo A. Cigna Interntional Union of Speleology / Interntional Show Caves Association, Itlia Dr. Edvaldo Cesar Moretti Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados UFGD, Brasil Dr. Jos Alexandre de Jesus Perinotto U IGCE/UNESP, Brasil MSc. Jos Antonio Basso Scaleante Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia SBE, Brasil MSc. Jos Ayrton Labegalini Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia SBE, Brasil Dra. Linda G entry El Dash Universidade Estadual de Campinas UNICAMP, Brasil MSc Lvia Medeiros Cordeiro Borghezan Universidade de So Paulo USP Brasil Dr Luiz Afonso Vaz de Figueiredo Centro Universitrio Fundao Santo Andr FSA, Brasil Dr Luiz Eduardo P anisset Travassos Pontifcia Universidade Catlica de Minas Gerais PUC/MG, Brasil Dr. Marconi Souza Silva Faculdade Presbiteriana Gammon Fagammon/Centro Universitrio de Lavras UNILAVRAS, Brasil Dr. Marcos Antonio Leite do Nascimento Universidade F ederal do Rio Grande do Norte DG/UFRN, Brasil Dra. Natasa Ravbar Karst Research Institute, Eslovnia Dr. Paolo Forti Universit di Bologna, Itlia Dr. Paulo Cesar Boggiani Universidade de So Paulo IGc/USP, Brasil Dr. Paulo dos Santos Pires Univers idade Vale do Itaja UNIVALI, Brasil Dr Ricardo Jos Calembo Marra Centro Nacional de Estudo, Proteo e Manejo de Cavernas I CMBio/CECAV Brasil Dr. Ricardo Ricci Uvinha Universidade de So Paulo EACH/USP, Brasil Dr. Srgio Domingos de Oliveira U UNESP/Rosana, Brasil Dr. Tadej Slabe Karst Research Institute, Eslovnia Dra. rsula Ruchkys de Azevedo CREA MG, Brasil Dr. William Sallun Filho Instituto Geolgico do Estado de So Paulo IG, B rasil Dr. Zysman Neiman Universidade Federal de So Carlos UFSCAR, Brasil Comisso de T raduo ( Translation Committee ) Dra. Linda Gentry El Dash Ingls

PAGE 5

Ca mpinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 20 1 3 3 SUMRIO (CONTENTS) Editorial 04 ARTIGOS ORIGINAIS / ORIGINAL ARTICLES C aves: the most importa nt geotouristic feature in the world C avernas: recursos geotursticos mais importantes no mundo Arrigo A. Cigna & Paolo Forti 0 9 Speleological heritage in B B P atrimnio es peleolgico br Marcos Antonio Leite do Nascimento & Virginio Mantesso Neto 27 G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Potencial geoturstico de lugares subterrneos na Costa Ri ca Andrs Ulloa & Carlos Goicoechea 43 Consumer based cave travel and tourism market characteristics in West Java, Indonesia C aractersticas do mercado consumidor de espeleoturismo em West Java, Indonsia Eva Rachmawati & Arzyana Sunkar o 57

PAGE 6

Ca mpinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 20 1 3 4 EDITORIAL W orldwide speleotourism: approaches for economic and heritage sustainability Caves are important and singular examples of Geodiversity (Gray, 2004). Generally speaking, karstic areas are a significant part of distinctive Geological Landscapes, which require a holistic and integrated management because they constitute unique natural archives, important sources of paleoclimate, paleontological and archeological sources of information for the comprehension of the Earth History. Thus, caves may be part of the S peleological Heritage as a sub domain of the Geological Heritage which, besides the representativeness and/or singularity of the cave systems and hydrogeological processes, the richness and diversity of speleothems, may also include cavernicolous biodivers ity. As habitat, and the evolutionary record, of many species of well adapted or outsider organisms, caves have been used by Man across biological and cultural/technologic evolution as home and sacred site, places of fascination, mystery, dynamic culture, science and leisure. They are territories of discovery, of education and adventure, existing almost all over the world intimately related with geodiversity and the diversity of geomorphological processes. Some remarkable examples are the Mammoth Cave Natio nal Park, in USA, with 643,7km is the 65,5km; in quartzite rocks, the Charles Brewer cave system, in Venezuela, with 17,8km already mapped is the longest one; as the Gobholo Cave, in the granites of Swaziland. As any other, Speleological Heritage needs specific measures of protection, conservation and use right in accordance with the rate of importance and vulnerability. To find the right measures inventor ying and technical scientific studies of caves at a national level, developed by responsible institutions and easily available for territorial management bodies and local communities, are fundamental as tools for the definition of geoconservation and valui ng approaches. Caves, as territories of discovery, are the earliest tourist attractions, and nowadays one of the most appreciated geotourism destinations in the world. The concept of Geotourism was originally defined by (1995; see also Newsome and Dowling 2010) as the offer of interpretation services and equipments enabling tourists to acquire knowledge and understanding of geology and geomorphology of a place (including the contribution for the development of Earth Sciences), beyond a level of esthetic a ppreciation. According to this definition, the Baumannshle Cave, in Germany, already had guided visits in 1648, as well as a conservation and a controlled number of visitors management plan as early as 1668 (Erikstad, 2008). Geotourism is a segment of Nat ure Tourism with a great potential of affirmation in the international trade (Neto de Carvalho et al., 2009; Farsani et al., 2011). In the Portuguese language, the earliest reference for Geotourism may be reported to Barbosa et al. (1999). Geotourism may have its background in the caves. The Niaux cave, in the French Pyrenees, is a labyrinth of passages and halls extending for kilometers. Here many footprints in different cavities were found in 1906, 1949 and between 1970 and 1972, showing repeated visits of Human groups during the Pleistocene (Pales, 1976). In one such cavity small footprints attributed to two young children were found showing a linear, distinct and recurring pattern, indicating that these children were drawing in the mud of the cave botto m, and developing artistic creations comparable to the more sophisticated and ritual related rock art presumably made by adults on the walls of this same cave. These Pleistocene children were having fun and playing, and at the same time learning, while vis One may say that during those times visit to caves were just for contemplative appreciation of an underground dimension unfamiliar and therefore esoteric and mystic. Not surprisingly, it still is nowadays for the majority of tourist caves. In present times, tourist caves may be defined as natural or artificial caves which, by being specially habilitated, become accessible to a broad public interested in the underground environment in its whole diversity (Brando, 2009). As tourism attraction this can be a very important resource for regional economies that might have exponential results if correct measures of geoconservation and interpretation are taken (Moreira, 2011). It is necessary adequate social and economic viability plans, presentati on of the tour, accessibilities, visitor services, charge capacity, environment control and

PAGE 7

Ca mpinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 20 1 3 5 information/interpretation for different levels of public. Moreover, sustainable development of tourist caves fosters educational tools ad activities for local comm unities thus favoring local involvement in the knowledge and valuing. New ways for sustainable use of tourist caves are being developed. One of such innovative approaches is included in a territory of wider Geodiversity and Geological Heritage of international relevance, to which up local social and economic development based on the v alue of the Geological Heritage, the Geoparks recognized by UNESCO (see Farsani et al., 2011). According to the Feasibility Study of a UNESCO Geoparks Programme (2000), the former Division of Earth Sciences of UNESCO since the beginning of this worldwide m ovement (Patzak and Eder. 1998), has defending that geoparks may become an important factor for local economic development. They may generate employment and new economic approaches related to (geodiversity related) specific subjects. The development of new trends in tourism and hadcrafting may be favored (geotourism, World Heritage inscribed in the List and located in 172 countries, only 15 include caves by its exceptional Geologi cal In this special issue of Tourism and Karst Areas dedicated to Geoparks and other approaches for territorial management and tourism in karst areas Cigna and Forti introduces the importance of cave s as tourism attraction, their fundamental importance for the history of global Geotourism and for the regional economies of many countries. The authors show also that scientific relevance of caves and the fragility of cave environments require specific ap proaches for geoconservation. Recommendations for the opening of tourist caves compiled from discussions in international scientific meetings are also presented here. In Brazil, with 17 geopark proposals selected by the Brazilian Geological Survey as the m ost promising ones at this moment, Nascimento & Mantesso Neto analysed the presence of elements of speleological heritage in these proposals. In Asia, Rachmawati and Sunkar develop a market study based on public preferences, in a regional from the Island of Java (Indonsia). This kind of approaches complementing geoconservation and valuing studies already referred by previous authors is essential for any sustainable project related to the tourism value of karstic areas. On the other part of the world, Ullo a and Goicoechea report a synthesis of the geotourist potential of Costa Rica, in a national plan of sustainable use of abundant speleological resources. In Brazil, Tourism as priority follows two worldwide trends: tourism diversification focused on the g rowth of interest about nature; and the preference (and request) for a better preserved environment (Moreira and Bigarella, 2010). The Brazillian Geological Heritage of international reference, vast and diverse where many other geotourist resources besides caves are included, has an enormous potential for generating social and economic opportunities and employment. Geoparks under the auspices of UNESCO and the sustainable based tourist caves may be innovative opportunities for local communities and to burst local economies (Neto de Carvalho et al., 2009) that progressively deserve greater attention and appreciation of the various sectors of Brazilian society. Jasmine Cardozo Moreira Carlos Neto de Carvalho G uest Editors

PAGE 8

Ca mpinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 20 1 3 6 EDITORIAL O espeleoturismo no mund o: abordagens de sustentabilidade econmica e patrimonial As grutas e cavernas constituem elementos importantes e singulares da Geodiversidade (Gray, 2004). Em geral, as reas crsticas so uma parte significativa de uma Paisagem Geolgica distinta, que re quere uma gesto holstica e integrada porque constituem arquivos naturais nicos, importantes fontes de informao paleoclimtica, paleontolgica e arqueolgica para a compreenso da Histria da Terra. Assim, as grutas e cavernas podem fazer parte do Pat rimnio Espeleolgico enquanto subdomnio do Patrimnio Geolgico o qual, para alm da representatividade e/ou singularidade das cavidades subterrneas, da riqueza e diversidade dos espeleotemas, pode incluir a biodiversidade. Alm de constiturem o habit at e o registro evolutivo de numerosas espcies de organismos, perenes ou episdicos, as grutas tm sido utilizadas pelo Homem ao longo da sua evoluo biolgica e cultural/tecnolgica como abrigo e como lugar de culto, espaos de fascnio, mistrio, cultu ra dinmica, cincia e lazer. So territrios de descoberta, de educao e aventura, que ocorrem por todo o mundo particularizando se com a geodiversidade e com a diversidade de processos geomorfolgicos. Alguns exemplos notveis so a Mammoth Cave Nationa l Park, nos EUA que possui 643,7km e uma das maiores grutas carbonatadas do mundo, A Gruta Kazamura, no Havai, um dos maiores tubos de lava do mundo, com 65,5km; J em rochas quartzticas, o Sistema de Cavernas Charles Brewer, na Venezuela, com 17,8k m cartografados; e a Gruta Gobholo, nos granitos da Suazilndia. Como qualquer outro, o Patrimnio Espeleolgico necessita de medidas de proteco, conservao e usufruto na justa medida da sua importncia e grau de vulnerabilidade. Para tal, fundamenta l um estudo tcnico cientfico e inventariao detalhada das grutas a nvel nacional, desenvolvidos por organismos com responsabilidades para tal e disponibilizado s entidades com responsabilidade no ordenamento e gesto do territrio, quer junto das comu nidades locais, como instrumentos essenciais para a definio de estratgias de geoconservao e valorizao. As grutas, enquanto territrios de descoberta, so certamente os mais antigos atrativos tursticos, e sem dvida um dos destinos geotursticos pre feridos no mundo. O conceito de Geoturismo foi definido originalmente por Hose (1995; veja se tambm Newsome & Dowling, 2010) como a oferta de servios e equipamentos interpretativos que permitam aos turistas adquirir conhecimentos e compreenso da geologi a e da geomorfologia de um lugar (incluindo o seu contributo para o desenvolvimento das Cincias da Terra), para alm de um nvel de mera apreciao esttica. Neste sentido, a gruta de Baumannshle, na Alemanha, j possua visitas guiadas em 1648, assim co mo um plano de conservao e controle do nmero de visitantes, em 1668 (Erikstad, 2008). Este um segmento do Turismo de Natureza com grande potencial de afirmao nos mercados internacionais (Neto de Carvalho et al ., 2009; Farsani et al ., 2011). Na lngu a portuguesa, as primeiras referncias ao Geoturismo devero reportar se a Barbosa et al (1999). O geoturismo ter os seus antecedentes nas cavidades subterrneas. A gruta de Niaux, nos Pirinus franceses, constitui se como um labirinto que se estende po r quilmetros. Aqui foram descobertas numerosas pegadas em distintas cavidades, em 1906, 1949 e entre 1970 e 1972, mostrando repetidas visitas de grupos humanos durante o Plistocnico (Pales, 1976). Numa destas cavidades foram encontradas pequenas pegadas, atribudas a duas crianas, que mostram um padro retilneo, distinto e recorrente, indicando que estes jovens estariam criando desenhos e padres na lama do fundo da gruta, desenvolvendo criaes artsticas comparveis com a arte rupestre mais sofisticad a e ritual feita presumivelmente por adultos nas paredes dessa mesma gruta. Estas crianas do Plistocnico divertiam se assim e brincavam no Poderia dizer se que naqueles tempos a visita s grutas teria como objetivo a apreciao contemp lativa de um mundo subterrneo estranho luz solar e, portanto, esotrico. Infelizmente, ainda hoje assim , na maioria das grutas tursticas. Nos tempos modernos, as cavernas tursticas podem ser definidas como cavidades naturais ou artificiais que, tend o passado por um processo de habilitao, se tornam acessveis a visita pelo pblico, interessado pelo ambiente subterrneo, em toda a sua diversidade (Brando, 2009). Como atrativo turstico, este pode ser um recurso muito importante para as economias reg ionais, que pode ser exponenciado se aplicadas correctas medidas de geoconservao e de interpretao (Moreira,

PAGE 9

Ca mpinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 20 1 3 7 2011). necessria uma apresentao da caverna e informao/interpretao adequadas aos tipos de visitantes, apostar nas grutas tursticas enqu anto ferramentas educativas para as comunidades locais, favorecendo o envolvimento destas na gesto e a participao de um nmero crescente de espelelogos e outros investigadores que contribuam para a sua valorizao. Surgem diferentes formas de explora o sustentvel de grutas tursticas. Uma delas inclui se num territrio de Geodiversidade mais vasta e de Patrimnio Geolgico de relevncia internacional, ao qual se associa uma estrutura de gesto do Patrimnio e uma estratgia de desenvolvimento socioeco nmico tendo por base a valorizao do Patrimnio Geolgico, que so os Geoparques sob os auspcios da UNESCO (Farsani et al ., 2011). De acordo com o Estudo sobre Exequibilidade de um Programa UNESCO de Geoparques (2000), a ento Diviso das Cincias da Te rra da UNESCO, desde o incio deste movimento em se um importante fator de desenvolvimento econmico local. Eles podem gerar emprego e novas estratgias econmicas ligadas aos seus temas (de geodiversidade) especficos. O desenvolvimento de novas orientaes no turismo e artesanato Patrimnio da Humanidade UNESCO, dos 1560 Stios inscritos na Lista, existentes em 172 pases, 15 destes incluem cavernas pelo seu Neste nmero especial da Tourism and Karst Areas dedicada aos Geoparques e outras abordagens para a gesto territorial e turismo em reas crsticas Cigna e Forti comeam por apresentar a importncia das grutas enquanto atrativos geotursticos, de importncia fundamental para a histria do Geoturismo global e para a economia de muitos pases. Os autores mostram ainda que a relevncia ci entfica das grutas e a fragilidade dos ambientes caverncolas requerem medidas de geoconservao especficas. Recomendaes para a abertura de grutas tursticas, resultantes de encontros cientficos internacionais, so ainda aqui apresentadas. No Brasil, com 17 propostas de Geoparks selecionadas pelo Servio Geolgico do Brasil como as mais promissoras neste momento, Nascimento & Mantesso Neto analisaram a presena de elementos do patrimnio espeleolgico nestas propostas. Ainda na sia, Rachmawati & Sunka r estruturam um estudo de mercado baseado nas preferncias do pblico, numa regio da ilha de Java (Indonsia). Este tipo de abordagens, em complementaridade aos estudos de geoconservao e valorizao j referidos pelos autores anteriores, fundamental e m qualquer projecto sustentvel ligado ao aproveitamento turstico de reas crsicas. No outro lado do mundo, Ulloa & Goicoechea fazem uma sntese do potencial geoturstico da Costa Rica, numa perspectiva nacional de utilizao sustentvel dos abundantes r ecursos espeleolgicos. No Brasil, a priorizao do Turismo segue duas abordagens globais que acompanham a tendncia internacional: o aumento da diversificao turstica focado num incremento do interesse pela natureza; e a preferncia (e exigncia) por um ambiente bem conservado (Moreira & Bigarella, 2010). O Patrimnio Geolgico brasileiro de referncia internacional, vasto e diverso onde se incluem inmeros outros recursos geotursticos para alm das grutas, tem um potencial enorme enquanto gerador de op ortunidades socioeconmicas e de criao de emprego. Os geoparques sob os auspcios da UNESCO e as grutas tursticas que apostam na sua valorizao sustentvel so oportunidades para as comunidades locais (Neto de Carvalho et al ., 2009) que merecem cada ve z mais a ateno dos mais diversos setores da sociedade brasileira Jasmine Cardozo Moreira Carlos Neto de Carvalho Editores Convidados

PAGE 10

Ca mpinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 20 1 3 8 REFERENCES Barbosa, B, Ferreira, N. and Barra, A. 1999. Importncia da Geologia na Defesa do Patrimnio Geolgico, no Geoturismo e no Ordenamento do Territrio. Geonovas 13, 22 33. Brando, J.M. 2009. Grutas tursticas: patrimnio, emoes e sustentabilidade. Geonovas ; 22, 35 43. Erikstad, L. 2008. History of geoconservation in Europe. In: Burek, C.V. & Prosser, C.D. (eds.), The History of Conservation. Geological Society Special Publication, 300, 249 256. Farsani, N.T., Coelho, C., Costa, C. and Neto de Carvalho, C. (eds) Geoparks and Geotourism new approaches to sustainability for the 21st Century Brown Walker P ress, Florida, 208 pp. Gray, M. 2004. Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. John Wiley & Sons, Lon don, 434pp. Environmental Interpretation 10(2), 16 17 Moreira, J.C. 2011. Geoturismo e interpretao ambiental Editora UEPG Ponta Grossa, 157pp. Moreira, J.C. and Bigarella, J.J. 2010. Geotourism and Geoparks in Brazil. In: Dowling, R. & Newsome, D. (eds), Global Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow Puiblishers, 137 152 Neto de Carvalho, C. Rodrigues, J. and Jacinto, A. (eds.) 2009 Geotourism & Local Development. Cmara Municipal de Idanha a Nova, 312 pp. Newsome, D. and Dowling, R.K. 2010. Geotourism: the Tourism of Geology and Landscape. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford, 246p. Pales, L. 197 6 Les emprientes de pieds humains dans les cavernes. Archologie Institut Palontologie Humain 36, 1 166. A new UNESCO label. Geologica Balcanica 28(3 4), 33 35. TOURISM AND KARST ARE AS ( formally /formalmente: Pesquisas em Turismo e Paisagens Crsticas) Brazilian Speleological Society / Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia ( SBE) www.cavernas.org.br/turismo.asp

PAGE 11

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 9 CAVES: THE MOST IMPORTANT GEOTOURISTIC FEATURE IN THE WORLD CAVERNAS : RECURSOS GEOTURSTICOS MAIS IMPORTANTES NO MUNDO Arrigo A. Cigna (1) & Paolo Forti ( 2 ) ( 1) International Union of Speleology / Italian Speleological Society Cocconato Italy (2) Ital ian Institute of Speleology Bologna Italy E mail : arrigocigna@tiscali.it ; paolo.forti@unibo.it Abstract Natural caves started to be opened to tourism over 400 years ago and presently quite all the Countries of the world hosts at least one, but often dozens, of show caves. Some 500 major show caves with over 50.000 visitor/year exist in the world and over 250 million visitors pay yearly a ticket to visit them. I f all the activities related to the existence of a show cave (transportation, lodging, etc.) are considered, some 100 million peoples take, directly or indirectly, their income from show caves: these figures may be at least doubled taking into consideratio n surficial and deep karst within geoparks. It is therefore evident that show caves are presently the most important geotouristic target all over the world and they represent an important economic resource for many of the still developing Countries. But ca ves have also an exceptional scientific value due to the fact that they represent the best archive for all the Quaternary and allow for extremely accurate paleo environmental and paleo climatic reconstructions. Moreover they are truly fragile environments, which may be easily destroyed when the cave is transformed into a touristic object. It is possible to maintain the aesthetic and scientific values of a cave when transforming it into a show cave; but to reach this goal it is important to follow strict rul es before, during and after their tourist development. Guidelines aiming to supply a recommendation to be endorsed for the development of show caves were drafted in the last years and received strong recommendations from the UIS Department of Protection an d Management at both the 14th International Congress of Speleology held in Kalamos, Greece, in August 2005 and the 15th International Congress of Speleology held in Kerrville, Texas, in July 2009 Key Words : Show caves ; Geotourism ; N ew materials and front iers Resumo Cavidades naturais comearam a ser abertas para o turismo mais de 400 anos atrs e atualmente quase todos os pases do mundo abrigam pelo menos uma, mas muitas vezes, dezenas de cavernas tursticas. Cerca de 500 grandes cavernas tursticas com mais de 50.000 visitantes/ano existem no mundo e mais de 250 milhes de visitantes anualmente pagam um ingresso para visit las. Se todas as atividades relacionadas com a existncia de uma caverna turstica (transporte, hospedagem etc.) fossem considerada s, os resultados seriam de cerca de 100 milhes de pessoas cuja renda depende, direta ou indiretamente, de cavernas tursticas. Estes valores podem ser pelo menos o dobro, levando em considerao reas crsticas dentro de geoparques. Portanto, evidente q ue as cavernas tursticas so, atualmente, o atrativo geoturstico mais importante em todo o mundo e representam um importante recurso econmico para muitos dos pases ainda em desenvolvimento. Mas cavernas tm tambm um valor cientfico excepcional, devid o ao fato de que eles representam o melhor arquivo para todo o Quaternrio e permitem a precisa reconstruo paleoambiental e paleoclimtica. Alm disso, elas so ambientes verdadeiramente frgeis, que podem ser facilmente destrudos quando a caverna tra nsformada em um atrativo turstico. possvel manter os valores estticos e cientficos de uma caverna quando esta transformada em uma caverna turstica, mas para alcanar este objetivo, importante seguir regras e premissas adequadas, antes, durante e aps o seu desenvolvimento turstico. Orientaes com o objetivo de fornecer uma recomendao a ser aprovada para o desenvolvimento de cavernas tursticas foram elaboradas nos ltimos anos e receberam fortes recomendaes do Departamento de Proteo e Ges to da Unio Internacional de Espeleologia (UIS), tanto no 14 Congresso Internacional de Espeleologia realizada em Kalamos, Grcia, em agosto de 2005 e do 15 Congresso Internacional de Espeleologia realizada em Kerrville, Texas, em julho de 2009 Palav ras Chave : Cavernas tursticas ; Geoturismo ; Novos materiais e fronteiras

PAGE 12

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 10 1. INTRODUCTION Our ancestors often visited caves since the far prehistory, but at that time their interest was mainly quite practical: they searched for a shelter, or a burial plac e or also looking for minerals impossible to be found outside. There is no evidence at all of an fairly later. Even if seldom touristic visits of a cave are documented since over 3000 yr BP, natural cavi ties started to be opened to tourism over 400 years ago and presently quite all the Countries of the world host at least one, but often dozens, of show caves. Actually some 500 major show caves with over 50.000 visitor/year exist in the world and over 250 million visitors pay yearly a ticket to visit them. If all the activities related to the existence of a show cave (transportation, lodging, etc.) are considered, some 100 million peoples take, directly or indirectly, their income from show caves: these fig ures may be at least doubled taking into consideration surficial and deep karst within geo parks. Another considerable implement in cave economy comes from religious and health care tourism. Beside their economic importance show caves are fundamental tool s for the protection of peculiar cave environments (e.g. archaeological and paleontological remains, peculiar biocoenosis etc.) and privileged places where to perform research in many different fields. But caves are extremely fragile environments and trans forming them into a touristic object may strong ly affect their pristine state. T herefore it is important to follow strict rules before, during and after their tourist development. After a short outline of the development of cave tourism in the last three t housand years, the present paper is focused on the best way to plan, implement and manage a show cave. At the end the UIS (International Union of Speleology) Guidelines for the development of show caves are also attached. 2. A SHORT HISTORY OF THE CAV E TOURISM Caves always attracted the attention of humans since the prehistory, but at that time the interest was mainly quite practical, i.e. to have a shelter, a sanctuary or a burial place therefore these human activities cannot be considered touristic. The very first documented tourist visit of a cave took place in Mesopotamia where, not far from its source, the river Tigris flows through a natural rock tunnel. Tiglath Pileser, King of Assyria had his portrait carved at the entrance together with an in scription in 3100 BP (Optiz D., 1929). A subsequent Assyrian King Shalmaneser, in 853 or 852 BC had his men exploring three caves near by the stream cave. The event is also reproduced in a bronze band of the gate of his royal palace in Balawat, now exhi bited in the British Museum (Fig. 1). Anyway the best monument of an Assyrian king visiting a cave (Fig. 2) is just at the entrance of Shapur Cave not far from Persepolis in Iran (Forti, 1993). Fig. 1 The bronze band of the gate of the royal palace in Balawat, now exhibited in the British Museum in which the visit to a cave (note the dripping over stalagmites) is represented Fig. 2 The entrance of Shapur Cave not far from Persepolis (Iran) in which a giant statue of the Assyrian king was carved

PAGE 13

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 11 Later, about 2000 year ago Plinius (77), a Roman writer, described the "Dog's Cave" near Naples, Italy, being visited by several peoples because of the peculiar release of carbon dioxide close to the floor, which killed small animals (hence its name) while standing people was not affected (Fig. 3). Fig. 3 XVII Century In the same period, several hot caves were transformed into Thermal baths, like the Sciacca cave in Sicily (Fig. 4), moreover in many country of the world, caves were visited for religious purposes. Later, until the Middle Age, caves were often associated with the devil or hell in general, and people avoided getting into for fear. Even if cave tourism started with King Tiglath Pileser in 1100 BC and a few other visits to caves are variously reported since that time up to the X Century, only a few centuries later a true cave tourisms started to develop. In Postojna Cave (Slovenia), on the walls of the so called "Passage of the Ancient Names" on account of the old signatures left by occasional visitors, the most ancient ones date back to 1213, 1323 and 1393 according some authors of the 19th Century (Fig. 5). Around 1920 such signatures were scarcely visible on account of the seepage; presently th e oldest signature, which can be read easily, dates 1412 and from the 16th Century onward they became rather abundant. This means that from the 16th Century many persons attracted by the underground world visited the cave more frequently. Anyway, if a show cave is defined as a cave where a fee is paid in order to have access and visit it, then the oldest one is the Vilenica Cave in Slovenia, where an entrance fee was paid since the beginning of 17 th Century The cave is close to the few kilometers from the Italian border. At the beginning of the 17 th Century Trieste and some noble friends to visit the cave. On certain holidays, at a hundred meters from the entrance, an area for the orch estra and a dance floor were set up and the entire dripstone passage was illuminated with torches and candles. Probably the admission to visit the cave. Part of the money was donated to the local church of L okev where masses were dedicated to "greater safety" of the people in the cave (Puc, 2000) Fig. 4 The Sciacca Thermal Bath in a copper engraving of the XVIII Century Fig. 5 Table reproducing the signatures of the ancient visitors of Postojna cave from Hohenwart (1830)

PAGE 14

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 12 In reality, only during the 18 th Century cave tourism became popular in Europe: several caves become world renown and visited by hundreds persons/year and therefore a tourist organization grew around them: most of these early show c aves are still important nowadays being visited by several hundred thousand visitors per year. The Cave of Antiparos in Cyclades, Greece, became a great attraction as results by the many prints reproducing the cave (Fig. 6). Also at the same time in the U ral Mountains some 100 km SE of Perm, the Kungur Cave, a gypsum cave filled by On 13 th August 1772 the scientist Joseph Banks landed on Staffa Island and in November h e wrote in the "Scots Magazine" island which the natives call the Cave of Fingal Since that time this cave became one of the best known caves of the world, inspiring poets and musicians. Its fame was so great that it became the natural cave most represented in paintings and engravings all over the world (Fig. 8). At the end of the 18 th century cave tourism starts developing also outside Europe: the Cango Cave (Oudtshoorn, South Africa) was discovered around 1780 and the first recorded visit was made in 1806 (Craven 1987; Faure 1824). A few years later a farmer bought the land around the cave with the exclusion of the entrance. The Governor included into the deeds the condition that the farmer was obliged to leave pe rfectly free and undisturbed the entrance of the cave, to be considered as public property, with a road in his land to reach the cave. This document has a historical importance because it is probably the first attempt in the world to legislate for cave pro tection (Craven 1999; 2004). The Mammoth Cave (Kentucky) was already known in prehistory and in the late 18 th Century the cave was mined for saltpeter to make gunpowder. Officially opened to tourism in 1816 it has been shown as a tourist attraction some t ens of years before (Gurnee, 1990;1993). The success of cave tourism was also testified by the fact that at the end of the XVIII and at the beginning of the XIX Century rather popular caving books became the tourist guides of the most world renown caves ( Lang 1806, Hohenwart 1830, Bullit 1845) (Fig. 8). At the beginning of the XX Century hundreds of show caves already existed, even if they were mainly located in Europe, where they were each year visited by a constantly growing number of tourists. Fig. 6 Speleothems in the main chamber of Antiparos Cave in an engraving of the XVIII Century Fig. 7 Tourist map of the Kungur Ice Cave printed in the XVIII century But the real explosion of the cave tourism started after the Second World War when the p ossibility of travel became cheaper and easier even in the middle class and the so called mass tourism became a matter of fact. At the end of XX Century and at the beginning of the third millennium the importance of

PAGE 15

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 13 cave tourism grew rapidly mainly in the still developing Countries, where hundreds of new show caves are developed each year: presently practically each Country in the world has at least one, but often dozens of show caves. Fig. 8 Frontispiece of an tourist book (1851) on Mammoth cave, Kent ucky It is rather impossible to exactly define the cumulative economic budget of the whole show caves of the world due to lack of available and reliable data of their visitors and even fewer data on the business automatically induced by the presence of a tourist cave (transportation, lodging, feeding, etc). A rough evaluation was made in the past (Cigna & Burri 2000, Cigna e Forti 2004, Cigna et al. 2000). On that basis it is realistic to state that t oday several thousand show caves are active in the world and over 500 of them are visited by more than 5 0.000 visitor/year. As a consequence over 250 million visitors pay yearly an average ticket of 5 U.S. $ to visit them, scoring a total of 1.25 billion/year. But much higher is the budget of all the activitie s strictly related to the existence of a show cave (transportation, lodging, feeding, etc.): if they are taken into account, the result is that some 100 million peoples take, directly or indirectly, their income from show caves. 3. FROM SHOW CAVES TO KARS T GEOPARKS For centuries caves were the single geologic objects interested by huge touristic flow. But in the last tens of years the idea of enlarging the content of a touristic attraction in order to take into account any possible aspects of the area con sidered took gradually more attention. This change of view was also due to economical reasons leading to a better integration among the different tourist targets. Therefore in the last 20 30 years geoparks started to be implemented all over the world, and several of them include karst features and/or show 2005) with the world renown Santa Barbara Cave basaltic sea caves (Fig. 10) are typical examples of geopark s hosting important show caves inside them. Fig. 9 General view of the Santa Barbara Cave (Sardinia, Italy) Fig. 10 One of the largest basalt caves of Hong Kong

PAGE 16

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 14 In the third millennium geopark tourism grew in exponential manner and nowadays sever al millions of tourists visit at least one geopark each year. Taking into consideration that at least 1/3 of the existing geopark host karst features, the touristic budget related not only to show caves but also to karst geoparks should be probably doubled in respect to that restricted to show caves. 4. OTHER REASONS MAKING CAVES A TARGET FOR HUMAN FREQUENTATION Presently two other human uses of caves generate huge touristic flows: the first related to religion and the second to health care. Probably the f irst time in which men started to consider caves as a peculiar place was only some tens of thousands years ago (30,000 10,000 years BP) (Shaw, 1992), and the first reason to go caving was to perform religious rites, as testified by scores of caves spread i n France, Italy, Spain etc. (Fig. 11). Anyway a deep interest into caves was maintained in all the different religions developed later, as testified by sacred caves spread all over the world. Among them the Induist and Buddhist caves from India Nepal, Myan mar etc. (Fig. 12) and the Maya caves from Mexico (Fig. 13) are here worth of mention. Fig. 11 Paintings in the Cervi Cave (Puglia, Italy) Even today the three largest monotheistic religions (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) are deeply involved in caves and some of these sacred caves are visited by millions of pilgrims every year (Fig. 14). Thus it is reasonable to evaluate that presently the cumulative budget of the sacred tourism in caves may correspond to 15 20% of that of the normal show caves and th e total employed peoples should be increased by the same amount. The second activity for economic importance, actually performed in caves is that related to health care: in the antiquity thermal caves have been used as Thermae (Verde, 2000), but it is wa s from the first half of the XX century onwards that thermal caves started to become important from the economic point of view. In the second half of the last century the cold caves also started to be widely utilized for speleotherapy, mainly in the Countr ies of Eastern Europe (Sandri 1997). Actually speleotherapy is normally used against several diseases like allergenic asthma, arthrosis etc. (AA.VV. 1997). Fig. 12 Thousands of Golden Buddha fill the Pindaya cave in Myanmar Fig. 13 Votive potte ries in Lol Tun cave (Mexico) The number of Countries, in which health care in caves is active, is still scarce, being practically restricted to Europe. Thus the number of persons actually involved in such a kind of health tourism are of course much less than those involved in the sacred or normal cave tourism: in fact they maybe a few millions yearly all over the world; anyway their number is growing fast and this activity stats spreading outside Europe. But even if the health care in cave represents no more than 3 5% of the total cave tourism, its economic importance is by far higher due to its high costs. Thus the budget of the Spas and speleotherapic caves may be evaluated up to 10 15% of that of the normal show caves, while in this

PAGE 17

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 15 case the employed persons should be considered no more than 2 3% of the total. Fig 14 A ivory reproduction of the Amarnat cave in the because just there onside the God Shiva explained to his wife Parvati the pr oblems related to immortality and metempsychosis In conclusion the two types of peculiar cave tourism, just outlined, contribute up to 35 40% to the total budget of the show caves of the world (see Tab. 1) Tab. 1 Different worldwide uses of show cave s Use of show caves Visitors (%) Economy (%) Tourism 77 83 40 50 Religious 15 20 15 20 Health 2 3 35 40 Total 100 100 5. THE SCIENTIFIC IMPORTANCE OF SHOW CAVES At the end of the second millennium it was already clear that caves are perhaps the best place of the world to perform research in many different scientific fields (Forti 2002; 2009). This is because caves are low to very low energy sites, with scarce extremely accurate experiments impossib le to perform outside. Moreover, cave environment acts as perfect accumulation traps over extremely long span of time (Fig. 15): most of the knowledge we actually have about our ancestors will never be available to us without caves. Their physical and ch emical deposits proved to record practically any event occurring in the cave area during their growth, thus allowing accurate palaeo climatological, palaeo environmental and palaeo seismical reconstructions (Fig. 16). Fig. 15 The Men of Altamura is th e best preserved old skeleton in Europe dating back to over 100.000 yr BP Fig. 16 Deflection form verticality of the stalagmite axis may record strong earthquakes of the past

PAGE 18

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 16 All these characteristics make caves perfect experimental laboratory in fiel ds like physics, biology, geology, engineering, medicine etc. Even if, theoretically, all natural cavities are suitable for research, in practice only few if them may be transformed into laboratories: in fact scientists require that a cave meets a few of c ommon characteristics, which can be summarized as: To be in a condition as pristine as possible To be easily accessible To be safe To have power supply The request of the scientists perfectly fit the common characteristics of any show cave, which are alwa ys the best site where perform any kind of research : this is the reason why several experimental laboratories have been located just within them. Anyway, until now, sometimes the show cave managers may have scarce interest or, even worse, they totally disa gree in having in their cave a scientific laboratory because they consider the research only as a waste of their money and a hinder to the normal tourist activity. Of course they are right when saying that scientific research need space, time and money, bu t they do not consider the fact that scientists may greatly help the management of a show cave in two fundamental fields: the conservation of the cave equilibrium and the increase of its touristic appeal. It is well known that tourism may induce negative changes in the cave environment : dust, lint (Fig. 17) and lampenflora degrading the cave formations and cave heating being the most frequent ones. It is evident that the presence of a laboratory, where cave parameters are constantly monitored, may help to prevent these undesirable consequences of the tourist activity. Even more important is the second effect of the presence of scientific activities (Fig. 18) within a show cave: in fact researchers may easily supply suggestions and materials for the environ mental education of the visitors, satisfying also their request of clear answers about scientific questions related to the show cave itself, or karst and caves in general. Hopefully scientists may also train the tourist guides in order to improve their kno wledge and ability to explain the cave to the visitors. Fig 17 Dust and lint cemented inside a stalagmite close to the tourist paths inside the Frasassi show cave (Italy) Fig. 18 Scientists performing research inside a cave 6. THE WAYS TO P LAN, IMPLEMENT, AND MANAGE A SHOW CAVE The fundamental criteria to be adopted are the protection of the cave environment, the safety of the

PAGE 19

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 17 visitors and a correct profit from the cave management. All such criteria must be taken into account otherwise the d evelopment would have very negative effects. As Summers (2012) stated, the worst fate that can befall a cave is for it to be developed as a show cave, then for it to fail as a business entity, and be closed. The cave becomes very vulnerable to misuse. Ther efore the show cave must not be profitable for the short term, but perpetually. The view that a show cave is a golden goose laying golden eggs implies that the goose must be properly fed and protected. This means that is necessary to having all of the know ledge and awareness regarding the physical needs of the cave to ensure that its environment is preserved and conserved. Hundreds of wild caves are yearly transformed into show caves sometimes resulting only in a waste of money and wilderness. To avoid this possibility, before to start the development a new show cave, the following questions must be positively answered: 1. Is there a real request of cave tourism in the region? 2. The cave and the karst environment may host the supposed tourism without major proble ms? In fact if even only one of this two questions has a negative answer, it is practically sure that the show cave will be unsuccessful and in few years it will be closed with noticeable loss of money and its pristine state. Thus, in order to be sure tha t a wild cave may become a good show cave it is necessary to perform a multidisciplinary study to highlight not only all the cave characteristics but also those of the country in which the cave is developed and the social and economic problems which will a rise during and after its transformation into a tourist object. Therefore a good Environmental Impact Assessment for the Development and the Management of a Show Cave must be subdivided in three different steps, where specific studies and analyses must be performed (Fig. 19): 1. Before starting 2. During Transformation 3. During management Due to the extreme differences existing from cave to cave it is impossible to list all the studies to be performed when a new show cave will be developed. In fact they will change time by time depending on the specific characteristics of the cave itself and/or of its environment. Anyway some of the most important points related to the three steps of the Environmental Impact Assessment of a Tourist cave will be shortly outlined. 6.1. BEFORE STARTING In this period all the positive possible points of interest for tourists (scenic points, speleothems and cave minerals, biologic inhabitants, archaeological remains etc.) should be described. In the same time also all the negative poi nts (hazards, like boulders sliding or breakdown, flooding, or other problems limiting or avoiding the tourist fruition of the cavity, like cave climate and microclimate) must be clearly defined and studied. But the investigations must be extended also out side the cavity, taking into consideration not only the cave area, its problem of access and infrastructures etc., but also the whole region, analysing the already existing touristic flows and the possibility to drive tourists in a fast and easy manner to the show cave. In any case the most important factor to decide if the show cave implementation is economically sustainable is the visitor carrying capacity which define the maximum number of tourists that may enter the cave in a given time interval. As i t is well known, caves may be classified into widely different energetic categories. Heaton (1986) proposed three categories: high energy, moderate energy, and low energy levels. In order to avoid any permanent change in the environmental equilibrium it i s necessary to avoid the introduction of energy beyond the intrinsic cave capacity. Such a constraint implies a limitation of both electric power i.e. the visitors carrying capacity. This limit may be ev aluated according different methods and specialists only are entrusted to carry out the whole procedure according the best choice to be applied to each local situation (e.g.: 6.2. During Transformation If the fi rst step gave a positive support to the tourist implementation of the cave then the tourist project must be defined in detail on the basis of the data collected during the previous step.

PAGE 20

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 18 Fig. 19 Flow chard for a correct planning implementing and man aging a show cave

PAGE 21

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 19 Of course the structure of the tourist pathways should be consistent with the visitor carrying capacity and must be designed to a safe approach of peoples as close as possible to the already defined scenic points, but avoiding the possibi lity to damage them. Moreover t he siting of the above ground facilities must be well planned by avoiding that these features be built over the cave itself, or relevant parts of it. In particular any intervention, such as the watertight surface of a parkin g area, must be avoided. Any change in the rainwater seepage into a cave, as well any change to the land above the cave, may have a negative influence on the cave and the growth of its formations. Later, particular care has to be addressed to the techniqu es and materials utilized to transform the wild cave into a show cave in order to optimize costs and scenic effects while keeping the loss of its pristine state to a minimum. Recently an astonishing improvement and renovation occurred in the materials to b e used in a show cave implementation (Cigna, 2013). Here are shortly described only the most important ones, those related to pathways and lighting. 6.2.1. Pathways In the last tens of years new material were develop incredible advantages with respect t o the past. In particular the pathways can be built entirely with plastics. The material used for the pathways, including the handrails and kickplates, are manufactured by a pultrusion process. It is a continuous molding process whereby reinforcing fibers are saturated with a liquid polymer resin and then carefully formed and pulled through a heated die to form a part. Pultrusion results in straight constant cross section parts of virtually any shippable length, where continuous fiberglass roving and mat i s covered by resin. The resin used for handrails is, isophtalic polyester and the resin used for other components is vinyl ester. Both have a low flame spread rating of 25 or less. These materials are delivered in various colors, avoiding, e.g., the brigh tness of the stainless steel that is not aesthetically agreeable. These components have about one third the weight of steel allowing easy an installation using standard hand saws. Stainless steel bolts connect the different parts. Such pathways may be eas ily repaired or modified to adapt to new layout, if necessary. Since the mechanical properties of this evident the advantage because also long sections can be easily transported inside a cave, while th e different parts can be easily worked out with simple instruments. The design of fiberglass pathways needs a detailed survey of the strip where the pathway itself will be installed, because each element can be prepared in advance according the design. Du ring the assembly of the pathway the legs require only small adjustment that can be easily obtained with sliding feet. 6.2.2. Lighting Nowadays very efficient light sources have been developed (see Tab. 2) The most useful in caves are the LEDs and the cold cathode lamps (CCL). Both are characterized by a very long life of 50,000 hours and longer. The LEDs cost from 20% to 100% more than CCLs for the same results. Tab 2 Indicative comparison of the overall luminous efficiency per input power for dif ferent lamps (lm/W). Lamp lm/W Incandescent (IL) 15 Light emitting diodes (LED) 45 Cold Cathode Lamps (CCL) 67 In Table 2 a comparison among the overall luminous efficiency per input power (as lumen/watt) for incandescent lamps (ILs), LEDs and CCLs is reported. The advantage of the new light sources is evident both for the cost of lighting and the long life of the lamps. But these new sources have specific qualities of their own: LEDs are point sources while CCLs are linear. LEDs may be chosen with di fferent temperature color, i.e. warm (with a red component) or cold (more white). CCLs may be produced with a negligible contribution of their emission spectrum in the regions (around 430 490 nm and 640 900 nm), which mostly contribute to the chlorophillia n process. In this way the proliferation of lampenflora is reduced. The emergency lighting can be obtained at a plastic polymer rope with lights inside that can be cut at a convenient length and placed a long the pathways (Fig. 20). In particular such emergency lights can be divided into two sections distributed alternatively and connected to two different power lines in order that, in case of a failure of one section, there will always be another one in o peration.

PAGE 22

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 20 Such a kind of lighting can also supply enough light to the pathways in normal conditions, and special scenic features only, must have additional light sources. The power supply must comply with both the country rules, which at present are in general rather severe, and the aesthetic requirements. The plastic pathways may host below the platform and along the legs, pipes with the cables of the power supply (Fig. 21). The cable network may be somewhat more complex than in the past because in gen eral only the parts of the cave occupied by visitors should be switched on. The power supply of the emergency light should be split into at least two independent sections as reported above. Fig. 20 The emergency lights placed along the edge of the pat hway in the Grutas de Bustamante, Mexico Fig. 21 The pathway in the Grutas de Bustamante, Mexico, with visitors. The cables of lighting and monitoring are placed under the walkway 6.3. During management during its tourist exploitation is the most important of the three steps, but still now is normally the neglected one by cave managers. This because they wrongly think that a well planned show cave will experience non problem and they do not want to connected to the direct cave management. As already outlined in a previous paragraph, the tourism may affect the cave environment in a strongly negative manner both in the short and long period of operation. Therefore it is really a necessity to control constantly at least the most sensitive cave parameters in order to correct immediately the cave management as soon as the very first bad effects could appear, avoiding the possibility to seriously damage the show cave it self It is evident that the presence instruments constantly monitoring cave parameters, may help to prevent such undesirable consequences. But any data collection might be of little or no use at all in the absence of persons who have the capacity to take a dvantage of the data themselves. Probably a good Scientific Committee abreast of the management is the most important tool to assure a good development of a show cave. In any case the members of such a committee must obviously have not only a deep competen ce in their specific fields of interest but also a good knowledge of the cave environment. I n the past a complete network to supply environmental data to a central computer was considered the best solution to be achieved. But it was experienced that such a network might be convenient for larger caves only. The main problems being a relatively high cost (installation and maintenance) and the danger of damages due to lightning, which may discharge high tension peaks on the line connecting the sensors with th e main computer. A less expensive solution, which is also more robust, is obtained with a number of stations whose data are download, e.g. once a month, and the elaboration is carried out in a computer outside the cave without any hardware connection. Rec ently, in addition to the usual parameters (temperature, relative humidity, etc.) radon became a relevant issue due to the regulation in some countries requiring a monitoring of its concentration in air on a yearly basis. The scope is the evaluation of the yearly average dose to cave guides to be kept below a given value, otherwise this personnel would be classified as professionally exposed and implying a number of constraints for the cave managers (Cigna, 2005). The most suitable detector is the etched tr ack detector because it is unaffected by humidity, may be kept to record the average concentration up to one

PAGE 23

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 21 year and its cost is very low. Other detectors do not comply with such characteristics and, in general, should be avoided. Finally to improve visi network enabling a guide to talk with the outside office from any point of the cave would be strongly advisable. 7. FINAL REMARKS Caves were the first and, for a long period, the single geologic item for tourism. In the last few tens geomorphological items started to become touristic targets. Anyway show caves are still now by far the most important geologic tourist attraction from the economic point of view and, in the last 20 years their interest grew very rapidly and actually show caves and karst tourism supply, directly or indirectly, the income for over 100 million peoples, many of them living in the still developing Countries. Often show caves are the best or even the single wa y to protect delicate speleothems and rare minerals, to avoid spoliation of archaeological and/or paleontological deposits, and to protect rare biocoenosis. Thanks to their facilities, show caves may result a powerful tool for scientific research and envir onmental protection, which in turn may enhance the touristic appeal of the show cave itself. Therefore the transformation of a wild cave into a show cave should be regarded, at least in theory, a good thing for caves and karst in general. But it must be c lear that, if not well planned and implemented, such a transformation will result the most efficient and the fastest method to destroy a wild cave and its treasures. Planning, implementing and managing a show cave is very complex and needs interdisciplinar y studies during the whole process, which can be which should always be present in any show cave of the world. The International Union of Speleology (UIS) is aware of the fundamental importance of a corr ect process to open a new show cave, thus worked hardly in order to produce a generally accepted guidelines aiming to supply a recommendation to be endorsed for the development of show caves. The UIS Management Guidelines for Show Caves (see Annex) are ve ry useful recommendations, if not a list of the least requirements, for a good development and management of a show cave. But such guidelines do not include the principle that it is imperative to keep oneself always up to date with the advancement of tech nology. The UIS Guidelines are the result of wide cooperation between the International Show Caves Association (ISCA), the Union Internationale de Splologie (UIS) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). The in tention was to create commonly accepted guidelines that all show cave managers can work toward, taking into account both the protection of the environment and socio economical constraints. Many recommendations and suggestions have been received in the cour se of nearly twenty years, and therefore the document reported here can be considered as the result of an active cooperation among many specialists involved in this matter. At present an agreement among such interested organizations was found aiming to rew rite a new text to assure anyway the best possible protection of the cave environment BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES AA.VV., 1997 Proc. Int. Conf. Protection and medical utilisation of karst environment. 3 5 June, Banska Bystrica, 97 p. Bullit A.C., 1845 Ra mbles in the Mammuth Cave, during the year 1844 Louisville, 101 p. Cigna A., Cucchi F., Forti P., 2000 Engineering problems in developing and managing show caves Proc. Int. Symp. Engineering Geology, Kathmandu, Nepal, J. Nepal Geol. Soc. v.22, 85 94. Cig na A.A. & Burri E., 2000 Development, management and economy of show caves Int. J. Spel., 29B (1/4), 1 27. Cigna A.A., Forti P., 2004 Show caves: the main attraction in geology. Problems and perspectives 32 nd IGC Abstract 449

PAGE 24

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 22 Cigna A.A., 2012 Show Ca ves In: White B.W. & Culver D.C. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Caves. Chennai, Academic Press, 2nd Ed., 690 697. Cigna A.A., 2013 The development of show caves: new materials and methods Proceedings 16th Int. Congr. of Speleology, Brno, v. 3, 215 218. Craven S., 1987 The early days of the Cango Caves from the late eighteenth century until 1820 William Pengelly Cave Studies Trust Ltd. Newsletter, 50, 25 28. Craven S., 1999 Land values around Cango Cave, South Africa, in the 19th century Cave and Karst Scie nce (1999) 26(3), 127 128. Craven S., 2004 1820 Quarterly Bulletin of the National Library of South Africa 58(4), 184 188. Faure P.S., 1824 Uittreksel van een reisverhaal vane en gebergte Nederduitsch Zuid Afrikaansch Tydschrift, 1, 446 452. Forti P., 1993 Breve nota a margine di un veloce viaggio in Iran (22 30 Ottobre) Sottoterra, 95 21 23 Forti P., 2002 Scientific research an d Speleology 30. Forti P., 2009 State of the art in the speleological sciences Proc. XV Int. Spel. Congr. Kerrville Texas, v.1, 26 31 Gurnee, R., & Gurnee, J., 1990 Gurnee guide to American Caves Closter, NJ, R. H. Gurnee Inc. Gurnee R., 1993 A brief history of cave studies in the United States before 1887 (16 th to the 19 th century) Proc. Int. tt di Castello 13 15 Settembre 1991, 293 308 Heaton T., 1986 Caves. A Tremendous Range in Energy Environments on Earth National Speleological Society News, August, 301 304. Hohenwart F.G. von, 1830 Adelsberger und Kronprinz Ferdinands Grotte Wien, 16+ 10+14 p. Lang 1806 Gallerie der Enterirdischen Schopfungs Wunder un des menschlichen kunstsleisses unter der erde Leipzing, 416 p. Lobo H.A.S., Trajano E., Marinho M.deA., Bichuette M.E., Scaleante J.A.B., Scaleante O.A.F., Roche B.N., Laterza F.V., 2013 Projection of tourist scenario onto fragility maps: Framework for determination of provisional tourist carrying capacity in a Brazilian show cave Tourism Management, 35, 234 243. Frquentation des grottes touristiques et cons ervation. Methodes In: Cigna A.A. (ed.) B OSSEA MCMXCV Proc. Int. Symp. Show Caves and Environmental Monitoring, Cuneo, Italy, 137 167 Optiz D., 1929 Assyrerknige als Hhlenforscher Mitt.Hhl. u Karstforsch. (2), 58 61. Pani E., 2005 Sardegna Iglesias 1 5 Dicem bre 2004, 9 10. Plinius C. S., 77 AD, Naturalis Historia Book. 2, cap. XCV. Giardini, Como.

PAGE 25

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 23 Puc M., 2000 Vilenica 119. Sandri B., 1997 Development of speleot herapy in Europe since the constitution of speleotherapy commission within the Union Internationale de Speleologie Proc. Int. Conf "Protection and medical utilisation of karst environment", Banska Bystrica, 62 64. Shaw T.D., 1992 History of Cave Science Sydney Spel. Soc., 338 p. Summers D., 2012 Address delivered at the ISCA Conference 2012 Greece Turkey, 4 10 November 2012. (in p rint). Verde G. 2000 Il termalesimo di Sciacca dalla preistoria al XX secolo Sarcuto, Agrigento, 280 p ANNEX UIS Management Guidelines for Show Caves Those guidelines received strong recommendations from the UIS Department of Protection and Management at both the 14 th International Congress of Speleology held in Kalamos, Greece, in August 2005 and the 15 th International Congress of Speleology held in Kerrville, Texas, in July 2009. Such guidelines are here reported. 1 DEVELOPMENT OF A WILD CAVE INTO A SHOW CAVE The development of a show cave can be seen as a positive financial benefit to not only itself, but also the area surrounding the cave. The pursuit of these anticipated benefits can sometimes cause pressure to be applied to hasten the developmen t of the cave. Before a proposal to develop a wild cave into a show cave becomes a physical project, it is necessary to carry out a careful and detailed study to evaluate the benefits and risks, by taking into account all pertinent factors such as the acce ss, the synergy and possible conflict with other tourism related activities in the surrounding area, the availability of funds and many other related factors. The conversion should only take place if the results of the studies are positive. A wild cave t hat is developed into a show cave, and is subsequently abandoned, will inevitably become unprotected and be subject to vandalism in a very short time. A well managed show cave assures the protection of the cave itself, is a source of income for the local economy and also may contribute to a number of scientific researches. A careful study of the suitability of the cave for development, taking into account all factors influencing it, must be carried out, and must be carefully evaluated, before physical deve lopment work commences. 2 ACCESS AND PATHWAYS WITHIN THE CAVE In many caves it has been found to be desirable to provide an easier access into the cave for visitors through a tunnel, or a new entrance, excavated into the cave. Such an artificial entrance could change the air circulation in the cave causing a disruption of the ecosystem. To avoid this, an air lock should be installed in any new entrance into a cave. On the other hand it must be mentioned that in some very exceptional cases a change in th e air circulation could revitalize the growth of formations. A decision not to install an air lock must be only taken after a special study 2 1 Any new access into a cave must be fitted with an efficient air lock system, such as a double set of doors, to avoid creating changes in the air circulation within the cave.

PAGE 26

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 24 Caves are natural databases, wherein an incredible amount of information about the characteristics of the environment, and the climate of the cave, are stored. Therefore any intervention in t he cave must be carried out with great care to avoid the destruction of these natural databases. 2 2 Any development work carried out inside the cave should avoid disturbing the structure, the deposits and the formations of the cave, as much as possible. W hen a wild cave is developed into a show cave, pathways and other features must be installed. This invariably requires materials to be brought into the cave. These materials should have the least possible impact on both the aesthetics of the cave and its underground environment. Concrete is generally the closest substance to the rock that the cave is formed in, but once concrete is cast it is extremely expensive and difficult to modify or decommission. Stainless steel has the distinct advantage that it lasts for a long time and requires little, to no, maintenance but it is expensive and requires special techniques to assemble and install. Some recently developed plastic materials have the advantage of a very long life, are easy to install and are relati vely easy to modify. 2 3 Only materials that are compatible with the cave, and have the least impact on the cave, should be used in a cave. Cement, concrete, stainless steel and environmentally friendly plastics are examples of such materials. The environ ment of a cave is usually isolated from the outside and therefore the introduction of energy from the outside will change the equilibrium balance of the cave. Such changes can be caused by the release of heat from the lighting system and the visitors and also by the decay of organic material brought into the cave, which introduces other substances into the food chain of the cave ecosystem. In ice caves, the environmental characteristics are compatible with wood, which is frequently used for the constructi on of pathways, as it is not slippery. 2 4 Organic material, such as wood, should never be used in a cave unless it is an ice cave where, if necessary, it can be used for pathways. 3 LIGHTING The energy balance of a cave should not be modified beyond its natural variations. Electric lighting releases both light and heat inside the cave. Therefore high efficiency lamps are preferred. Discharge lamps are efficient, as most of the energy is transformed into light, but only cold cathode lamps can be frequen tly switched on and off without inconvenience. Light emitting diode (LED) lighting is also very promising. As far as possible, the electric network of a cave should be divided into zones to enable only the parts that visitors are in to be lit. Where pos sible a non interruptible power supply should be provided to avoid problems for the visitors in the event of a failure of an external power supply. Local code requirements may be applicable and these may permit battery lamps or a network of LEDs or simila r devices. 3 1 Electric lighting should be provided in safe, well balanced networks. The power supply should preferably be non interruptible. Adequate emergency lighting should be available in the event of a power outage. Lampenflora is a fairly common co nsequence of the introduction of an artificial light supply into a cave. Many kinds of algae, and other superior plants, may develop as a result of the introduction of artificial light. An important method to avoid the growth of green plant life is to us e lamps that do not release a light spectrum that can be absorbed by chlorophyll. 3 2 Lighting should have an emission spectrum with the lowest contribution to the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll (around 440 nm and around 650 nm) to minimize lampenflora Another way to prevent the growth of lampenflora is the reduction of the energy reaching any surface where the plants may live. The safe distance between the lamp and the cave surface depends on the intensity of the lamp. As a rough indication, a dista nce of one meter should be safe. Special care should also be paid to avoid heating the formations and any rock paintings that may exist. 3 3 Lighting sources should be installed at a distance from any component of the cave to prevent the growth of lampenf lora and damaging the formations and any rock paintings.

PAGE 27

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 25 The lighting system should be installed in such a way that only the portions of the cave occupied by visitors are switched on, leaving the lighting in the portions of the cave that are not occupied s witched off. This is important from the aspects of reducing the heating of the cave environment and preventing the growth of lampenflora, as well as decreasing the amount of energy required and its financial cost. 3 4 Lighting should be installed to illum inate only the portions of the cave that are occupied by visitors. 4 FREQUENCY OF VISITS AND NUMBER OF VISITORS The energy balance of a cave environment can be modified by the release of heat by visitors. A human being, moving in a cave, releases about 1 50 watts approximately the same as a good incandescent lamp. Consequently, there is also a limit on the number of visitors that can be brought into a cave without causing an irreversible effect on the climate of the cave. 4 1 A cave visitor capacity, pe r a defined time period, should be determined and this capacity should not be exceeded. Visitor capacity is defined as the number of visitors to a given cave over a given time period, which does not permanently change the environmental parameters beyond t heir natural fluctuation range. A continuous tour, utilizing an entrance and another exit, can reduce the time that visitors spend in a cave, compared to the use of a single entrance/exit. In addition to the normal tours for visitors, many show caves have special activities, sometimes called cave. If such a practice is not properly planned, it may cause serious damage to the cave. 4 2 When visits to wild parts of a cave are arranged, they must be carefully planned. In addition to providing the participants with the necessary speleological safety equipment, the visitors must always be guided by a guide with good experience in wild caves. The pathway where visitors are to travel along, must be clearly defined, for example with red and white tape, and the visitors should not be allowed to walk beyond this pathway. Special care must be taken to avoid any damage to the cave environment, and the parts b eyond the pathway must be maintained in a clean condition. 5 PRESERVATION OF THE SURFACE ECOSYSTEM WHEN DEVELOPING BUILDINGS, PARKING, REMOVAL OF SURFACE VEGETATION AND WASTE RECOVERY It is important that the siting of the above ground facilities, such as the buildings, parking and waste recovery, be well planned. There is a natural tendency to try and place these development features as close as possible to the cave entrance. Sometimes these features are built over the cave itself, or relevant parts of it. The hydrogeology above the cave must not be modified by any intervention such as the watertight surface of a parking area. Any change in the rainwater seepage into a cave can have a negative influence on the cave and the growth of its formations. Ca re should be exercised also when making any change to the land above the cave, including the removal of the vegetation and disturbance of the soils above the bedrock. 5 1 Any siting of buildings, parking areas, and any other intervention directly above the cave, must be avoided in order to keep the natural seepage of rainwater from the surface in its original condition. 6 MONITORING After the environmental impact evaluation of the development, including any other study of the cave environment, it is necess ary to monitor the relevant parameters to ensure that there is no deviation outside acceptable limits. Show caves should maintain a monitoring network of the cave environment to ensure that it remains within acceptable limits 6 1 Monitoring of the cave cl imate should be undertaken. The air temperature, carbon dioxide, humidity, radon (if its concentration is close to or above the level prescribed by the law) and water temperature (if applicable) should be monitored. Airflow in and out of the cave could a lso be monitored.

PAGE 28

Cigna & Forti Caves: the m ost important geotouristic feature in the world Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 26 When selecting scientists to undertake studies in a cave, it is very important that only scientists who have good experience with cave environments be engaged for cave related matters. Many, otherwise competent scientists, may not be ful ly aware of cave environments. If incorrect advice is given to the cave management, then this could result in endangerment of the cave environment. Cave science is a highly specialized field. 6 2 Specialized cave scientists should be consulted when there is a situation that warrants research in a cave. 7 CAVE MANAGERS preserved with great care. It is necessary that persons involved in the managem ent of a show cave receive a suitable education, not only in the economic management of a show cave, but also about the environmental issues concerning the protection of the environment at large. Cave managers should be competent in both the management of the economics of the show cave and its environmental protection. 8 TRAINING OF THE GUIDES the visitor. Unfortunately, in many instances the guides hav e not been trained properly and, not withstanding that they are doing their best, the overall result will not be very good. It is very important that the guides receive proper instructions about the environmental aspects of the cave as well as dealing wit h the public. It is important that guides are skilled in tactfully avoiding entering into discussions, which can have a detrimental effect on the overall tour. The guides are the guardians of the cave and they must be ready to stop any misbehaviour by th e visitors, which could endanger the cave environment. Cave guides should be trained to correctly inform the visitors about the cave and its environment. I. Information on show caves in the world There are many books published in different countries providing guides to the local caves. On one hand they report a rather large amount of information but, on the other hand, they are fully reliable for a short time only after their publications. In fact show caves have a certain turnover with changes of the visit details, etc. or, sometimes, on very existence of the show cave itself. Recently a rather useful way to obtain up to date information became available. "Showcaves of the World" is a website, wh ich can be found at http://www.showcaves.com/ This site changes and grows continually, so on the web the latest version may be always seen. Editorial flow / Fluxo editorial : Received / Recebido em: 0 4.fev.2013 Accepted / Aprovado em: 14.set.2013 TOURISM AN D KARST AREAS ( formely /formalmente: Pesquisas em Turismo e Paisagens Crsticas) Brazilian Speleological Society / Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia (SBE) www.cavernas.org.br/turismo.asp

PAGE 29

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 27 PATRIMNIO ESPELEOL"GICO BRASILEIRO APRESENTADO NO LIVRO BRASIL: PROPOSTA Marcos Antonio Leite do Nascimento (1) & Virginio M antesso Neto ( 2 ) ( 1) Professor, Geology Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte Natal Brazil (2) Member of the Council of Geological Monuments of the State of So Paulo So Paulo Brazil E mail : marcos@geologia.ufrn.br ; virginio@uol.com.br Abstract Brazil, with its vast territory, rich geodiversity, and terrains representative of all geologic eras, has a large potential for the implementation o Brasil/CPRM), in its role of promoter of the creation of geoparks, issued in printed version in 2012, and also Brazil: proposals), vol. 1, with 17 geopark proposals, selected by CPRM as the most promising ones at this moment. In this paper, after an overview of geoparks worldwide, an analysis is made about the presence of elements of speleological heritage in this publication. Based on data presented for each proposal, tables and graphs were created, relating these elements to the local geology and particularly petrology. This analysis showed that 54% of the caves and other natural underground cavities listed are c oncentrated in sedimentary siliciclastic rocks (mostly sandstones), 38% in carbonatic rocks (essentially limestones and marbles) and 8% in rocks of the crystalline basement (orthogneisses and granites). The study also showed that despite the enormous poten tial, both in quantity and in quality, for the use of these cavities in future geoparks, they represent only a small portion (about 15%) of the proposed geosites Key Words : Geopark ; Geosite ; Speleology ; Cave Resumo O Brasil, com seu vasto territrio, ri ca geodiversidade e terrenos representativos de todas as eras geolgicas, tem um grande potencial para a implantao de geoparques. O Servio Geolgico do Brasil/CPRM, no seu papel de indutor da criao de geoparques no pas, lanou em verso impressa em 2 Nele so apresentadas 17 propostas que a CPRM selecionou como as mais promissoras no momento atual. Neste trabalho, aps uma viso geral dos geoparques no mundo, feita uma anlise sobre a presena de elementos do patrimnio espeleolgico nessa publicao. Com base nos dados apresentados para cada proposta, foram montadas tabelas e grficos que do uma viso geral dessa presena, relacionando a com a ge ologia e particularmente com a petrologia locais. Constatou se que 54% das cavernas e outras cavidades subterrneas naturais inventariadas concentram se em rochas sedimentares siliciclsticas (particularmente arenitos), 38% em rochas carbonticas (essencia lmente calcrios e mrmores) e 8% em rochas do embasamento cristalino (ortognaisses e granitos). Constatou se tambm que apesar do enorme potencial, tanto em quantidade, quanto em qualidade, de aproveitamento dessas cavidades nos futuros geoparques, estas representam apenas uma pequena parcela (cerca de 15%) dos geosstios propostos Palavras Chave : Geoparque ; Geosstio ; Espeleologia ; Caverna 1. INTRODUCTION Brazil is a vast country endowed with a rich geodiversity, with terrains representative of all the geological eras, and thus presents a large potential for the creation of geoparks. Geoparks, which include a new model of territorial management, represent a successful worldwide initiative. In the year 2000, just four geoparks, one in each of four Europe an countries, formed the European Geopark Network. As of late 2013, 92 geoparks spread in 28 countries around the world make up the Global Geopark Network (GGN), GGN, a geopark covers a geographical area with a geological heritage represented by geosites with a

PAGE 30

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 28 unique scientific, educational or touristic value, which are integrated into a holistic concept, including protection, education and sustainable development. In this area, various mechanisms are created fo r the promotion of educational actions aiming at the popularization of Geosciences, the spreading of scientific knowledge, and the conservation of the geological heritage, but also at the creation of income generating jobs. One of the results of these acti ons is the development of the practice of Geotourism, which helps in bringing means of sustainable economic growth. According to Schobbenhaus & Silva (2012a), the Brazilian Geological Service/CPRM could not be absent from this initiative. Being the most im portant generator and holder of the geological knowledge about Brazil, CPRM has also the role of stimulating the proposition of new areas with adequate potential for future geoparks. Based on that premise, CPRM launched the Projeto Geoparques do Brasil (Pr oject Geoparks of Brazil) in 2006, and, as one of its results, in 2012 published the book (Geoparks of Brazil: proposals Vol. 1) ( SCHOBBENHAUS & SILVA 2012a), which presents 17 geopark proposals already evaluat ed, currently under the process of evaluation, or that will in the near future be evaluated by CPRM itself or in partnership with other institutions. In these proposals a number of specific types of geological interests are presented, being classified into nine categories: stratigraphic, geomorphological, tectonic, paleoenvironmental, metallogenetic, paleontological, igneous, mineralogical and, of course, speleological. Based on this last category, the present paper aims at giving a panoramic set of informa tion about geosites related to the speleological heritage, represented by caves formed in different kinds of rocks, creating unique geomorphological features. Another goal of this paper is to emphasize the presence of examples of speleological heritage in Brazilian proposed geoparks. 2. GEOPARKS IN THE WORLD Aiming at the reinforcement of projects of conservation of the geological heritage, UNESCO, after its 29th General Conference in 1997, started the development of its Geoparks Program, based on four Eur opean units. In that year, according to MOREIRA (2011), an important European financing program, Leader +, allowed the initial materialization of the geopark concept, in cooperation with UNESCO, in four countries: the Natural Geological Reserve of Haute Pr ovence (France), the Petrified Forest in Lesvos (Greece), the Vulkanaifel Geopark (Germany) and the Maestrazgo Cultural Park (Spain). The Geoparks Program was presented to the international scientific community in 1999, with the characteristic of addressin g the specific need for acknowledgement and conservation of the geological heritage, with the same kind of approach that the Biosphere Reserve Program applies in its dedication to the biological heritage. The program deals with a series of locations with w orldwide geological interest based on the philosophical les Bains, France, in 1991. In 2000, the four areas that started the sistance, the European Geopark Network. However, in 2001, a UNESCO geoparks programme, but instead to support ad hoc efforts within individual Member dur ing the 1st International Conference on Geoparks, in Beijing, China, the Global Geopark Network (GGN) was officially launched (Martini, 2010). This network was created to establish, with cooperation and exchanges between specialists and all those interest in the geological heritage. with well defined limits that has a large enough surface area for it to serve local socio economic development. It comprises a certain nu mber of geological heritage sites (on any scale) or a mosaic of geological entities of special scientific importance, rarity or beauty, representative of an area and its geological history, events or processes. It may not solely be of geological significan ce but also of ecological, archaeological, historical or cultural value. A geopark serves to foster socio economic development that is culturally and environmentally sustainable. This has a direct impact on the area by improving human living conditions and the rural environment, thus strengthening identification of the population with The Global Geopark Network, assisted by UNESCO, has been spreading throughout the world, reaching many countries where there is an interest in the conservation and valuation of the geological heritage. In its beginning, it had only four geoparks; when officially created, in 2004, they were already twenty. Presently (late 2013) it congregates 92 geoparks distributed in 28 countri es (Figure 1),

PAGE 31

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 29 namely, in alphabetical order: Austria (2); Brazil (1); Canada (1); China (27); Croatia (1); Czech Republic (1); Finland (1); France (4); Germany (5 geoparks + 1 binational with Poland); Greece (4); Hungary (1 + 1 binational with Slovakia); Iceland (1); Indonesia (1); Ireland (2 + 1 binational with Northern Ireland); Italy (8); Japan (5); Malaysia (1); Northern Ireland (1 binational with Ireland); Norway (2); Poland (1 binational with Germany); Portugal (3); Romania (1); Slovakia (1 binationa l with Hungary); South Korea (1); Spain (8); United Kingdom (6); Vietnam (1). There are 54 geoparks in 23 countries in Europe, 36 in 6 countries in Asia, and 2 in the Americas ( http://en.globalgeopark.org/ ), bei ng 1 in Brazil, the Geoparque Araripe*, the first in the American continent and also the first in the Southern hemisphere ( http://geoparkararipe.org.br/ ). NOTE: the names of the one existing geopark and of th e proposed ones in Brazil, as well as the names of the geosites in all of them, will not be translated so as to allow searches, both in the Internet. According to Brilha (2012), the Global Geoparks Networ k has defined as main goals for the geoparks which participate in it: 1. Conservation of the geological heritage; 2. Provision of education about geosciences and environmental issues to the common citizen; 3. Sustainable socio economic and cultural development; 4. Mul ticultural cooperation; 5. Promotion of scientific investigation; and 6. Active participation in the network by means of the development of common activities. Fig 1 Map of the members of the Global Geoparks Network. Source: http://en.globalgeopark.org/UploadFiles/2012_5_7/GGN%20Distribution%202013.04.23.jpg

PAGE 32

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 30 3. GEOPARKS IN BRAZIL The Brazilian Geological Service/CPRM, through its Departamento de Gesto T erritorial (Department of Territorial Management), launched in early 2006 the Projeto Geoparques do Brasil (Project Geoparks of Brazil) ( SCHOBBENHAUS, 2006; SCHOBBENHAUS & SILVA, 2010; SCHOBBENHAUS & SILVA 2012a), under the executive coordination of the g eologist Carlos Schobbenhaus and the regional coordination of the representatives of the various regional offices of CPRM. This project plays an important role as inducer of the creation of geoparks in Brazil, and has as its main objectives to identify, cl assify, describe, catalog, georeference and publicize areas potentially prone to become geoparks, as well as to contribute to the definition of guidelines for their sustainable development. According to SCHOBBENHAUS & SILVA (2012a) the wealth of geological surveys existing in the country and the experience well as the contribution of studies and proposals by the geoscientific community, favor the development of this project. In some cases, this inducing activi ty in carried out in conjunction with researchers from universities and other federal, state or municipal organisms. Brasil has an enormous potential for the proposition of geoparks, because in its large territory, a rich geodiversity including represent atives from practically the whole geologic history of the planet can be found, plus non geologic sites of ecological, archaeological, historical and cultural value. Important records pertaining to all of these aspects, some absolutely unique, represent p being preserved ( SCHOBBENHAUS; SILVA 2012a). Various proposals of geoparks have already been evaluated, some are under evaluation, and others are scheduled to be evaluated i n the future as part of the Projeto Geoparques (Geoparks Project). These proposals are indicated in the map in Figure 2 and in the list presented as Table 1. The technical report of some of these proposals can be found in digital form (in Portuguese) at http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/ start.htm?sid=134 Such activities have been carried out partly in partnership with federal, state or municipal institutio ns, or with universities or private institutions. Besides those mentioned in that list, other proposals for geoparks exist: Campos Gerais (Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa e Minrios do Paran Mineropar Ponta Grossa State University and Mineropar, t he Paran state geological service); Ciclo do Ouro (Prefeitura de Guarulhos, So Paulo Municipality of Guarulhos, state of So Paulo); and Costes e Lagunas do Rio de Janeiro (Servio Geolgico do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Diretoria de Recursos Minerais Rocky shores and lagoons of the state of Rio de Janeiro State of Rio de Janeiro Geological Service Department of Mineral Resources). It is worth pointing out that in this initial stage (Table 1) there are already proposals of geoparks in which spele ology appears as a main category, particularly the following: 01. Cachoeira do Amazonas; 06. Bodoquena Pantanal; 07. Chapada dos Guimares and 15. Alto Vale do Ribeira. The practice of presenting geopark proposals has been very well received in the academi c community, as well as in government offices at the federal, state and municipal levels, in the private sector of the economy, and by local populations. These positive reactions allow this community, as well as other interested groups, to believe that the re will be new geoparks established in Brazil in the near future. 4. SPELEOLOGICAL HERITAGE Speleological heritage can be defined as per Artigo (Article) 5 (5th), inciso (item) I, of the Brazilian Decreto (Decree) n 99.556/90 as array of biotical, abiotical, socio economic and historic cultural, subterranean or surficial, elements represented by natural subterranean cavities or In its abiotical components, this kind of heritage is associated to the geological heritage a nd usually refers to those cavities that occur mainly in limestones and marbles, but occasionally also in banded iron formations, sandstones, quartzites and granites. According to CECAV/ICMBio (2011) the definition is adopted by the International Union of Speleology UIS, the international body that congregates the various national institutions dedicated to speleology and caving. The Brazilian Decreto (Decree) n 6.640/08, which partially modifies the above mentioned Decreto (Decree) n 99.556/90, theoretically eliminates the expression used in its own tex t. It is clear, then, that there exists a legal incongruence; that incongruence will not be discussed here, as it is beyond our goals. As far as this paper is concerned, since the expression

PAGE 33

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 31 scientific and speleologic communities, and is maintained in the most recent decree, it is considered by the authors as acceptable. It will be used here, not in a legal sense, but in the sense that it is normally used in those communities, meaning, in broad terms, nts of speleological environments that This same Decreto (Decree) n 6.640/08 subterraneous spaces, with or without an identified opening, accessible to a human being, known by the population as caverna gruta lapa toca abismo furna or buraco [*], including its environment, mineral and water content, fauna and found, and the rocky body in which they are located, provided they have been formed by natural processes, regardless of their size or type of rock in [* these are various Brazilian non technical terms used to name natural u nderground cavities]. Such cavities tend to be found mostly in soluble rocks (carbonatic rocks, both sedimentary and metamorphic), where they are generated precisely by dissolution by water of some of the rock components. Most typically, they are formed in limestone (sedimentary rock) and marble (metamorphic rock), in whose masses they generate the karstic morphology. However, nowadays there is a tendency to include siliceous rocks, particularly quartzites (metamorphic) and sandstones (sedimentary) in the g roup of karstifiable rocks. Such a trend is the result of recent studies that show that silica, until recently considered as a mineral of low solubility, has played a more important role than previously acknowledged in the generation of surficial and subte rraneous, typically karstic, morphologies (CECAV/ICMBio, 2011). The landscape generated in a karstic environment has a number of characteristic features, some unique to this environment. Along with the caves proper, large exposed rock masses, walls, cliffs valleys, towers, depressions, dolines, sinkholes, lagoons, speleothems (stalactites, stalagmites, helictites, cave pearls, among others) make up a very scenic, beautiful context. Fig. 2 Map with the geopark proposals already evaluated, under evalua tion and scheduled for future evaluation by the Projeto Geoparques. Based on Schobbenhaus; Silva (2012a)

PAGE 34

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 32 Table 1 List of proposals already evaluated, under evaluation and scheduled for future evaluation by the Projeto Geoparques. Based on Schobbenhaus; Si lva (2012a). Geopark proposal State Main Category(ies) 1 Cachoeira do Amazonas* AM Stratigraphic, Speleological, Archaeological 2 Morro do Chapu* BA Stratigraphic, Geomorphological, Historical Cultural 3 Pireneus* GO Stratigraphic, Tectonic, Geomorpho logical, Historical Cultural 4 Astroblema Araguainha Ponte Branca* GO/MT Astroblem (structure formed by a meteorite impact) 5 Quadriltero Ferrfero* MG Stratigraphic, Paleoenvironmental, History of Mining, Geomorphological, Metallogenetic 6 Bodoquena P antanal* MS Speleological, Paleoenvironmental, Geomorphological, Paleontological, Metallogenetic 7 Chapada dos Guimares* MT Geomorphological, Paleontological, Speleological, Scenic Beauty 8 Fernando de Noronha* PE Igneous, Scenic Beauty 9 Serid* RN St ratigraphic, Igneous, Geomorphological, Metallogenetic, Historical Cultural 10 Quarta Colnia* RS Paleontological, Stratigraphic 11 Caminhos dos Cnions do Sul* RS/SC Scenic Beauty, Geomorphological, Igneous, Stratigraphic 12 Serra da Capivara* PI Strat igraphic, Archaeological 13 Catimbau Pedra Furada PE Stratigraphic, Paleoenvironmental, Geomorphological, Igneous, Archaeological 14 Sete Cidades Pedro II PI Geomorphological, Paleoenvironmental, Mineralogical, Scenic Beauty 15 Alto Vale do Ribeira SP/ PR Speleological, Paleoenvironmental 16 Chapada Diamantina BA Geomorphological, Paleoenvironmental, Scenic Beauty, Historical Cultural 17 Uberaba, Terra dos Dinossauros do Brasil* MG Paleontological 18 Litoral Sul de Pernambuco* PE Igneous, Stratigraphi c, Scenic Beauty, Historical Cultural 19 Rio de Contas BA Stratigraphic, Geomorphological, Historical 20 Monte Alegre PA Stratigraphic, Geomorphological, Tectonic, Archaeological 21 Alto Alegre dos Parecs RO Stratigraphic, Geomorphological, Scenic Beau ty 22 Serra da Canastra MG Scenic Beauty, Geomorphological 23 Chapa dos Veadeiros GO Geomorphological, Stratigraphic, Scenic Beauty 24 Canudos BA Petrological, Stratigraphic, Igneous, Geomorphological, Metallogenetic, Historical Cultural 25 Cnion do S o Francisco SE/AL Geomorphological, Scenic Beauty 26 Rio do Peixe PB Paleontological, Stratigraphic 27 Vale Monumental CE Geomorphological, Igneous, Scenic Beauty 28 Tepuis RR Geomorphological, Stratigraphic, Paleoenvironmental, Scenic Beauty The aste risk after the name In Brazil there are a number of karstic areas with caves that show a peculiar landscape. According to AULER & ZOGBI (2005), the co untry is also very favorable to the discovery of new caves. These authors state that there are more than 4.000 is at least ten times bigger. This statement is confirmed by CECAV/ICMBio (Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservao de Cavernas do Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservao da Biodiversidade National Center of Research and Conservation of Caves of the Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biodiversity), which, in its database, shows a li ttle more than 10.000 caves already registered (details can be found, in Portuguese, at http://www.icmbio.gov.br/cecav/projetos e atividades/inventario anual do patrimonio espeleologico brasileiro.html ). According to CECAV/ICMBio (2011) about 90% of the caves known in the world are in carbonatic rocks. In Brazil however, due to peculiarities not yet well understood, but certainly related to geomorphological and climatic factors, sandstones and quartzites are also very liable to generate caves. Furthermore, it has recently been discovered that iron ore and canga (laterite, surficial or subsurficial limonite cemented unstratified ro ck, mainly related to the banded iron formations, a metamorphic rock) are extremely prone to the formation of caves, thus

PAGE 35

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 33 complex speleological matrix. There are also, albeit in a lesser scale, caves in granites ( igneous, plutonic rocks), gneisses (metamorphic rocks) and other metamorphic rocks such as micaschists and phyllites, and even in soils. Table 2 shows, in a preliminary version, the number of caves hitherto spel eological potential (caves not yet identified, but considered as probably existent). Figure 3, based on CECAV/ICMBio (2011), shows the vast variety of rocks in which caves occur in Brazil. Black represents main carbonatic areas and orange main quartzitic a reas; yellow triangles represent minor carbonatic areas, red stars represent iron ore areas, and green squares represent other lithologies (mainly sandstones) where caves also exist. The apparently larger concentration of rocks hosting known caves in the e astern part of the country may be related, at least partially, to the fact that this area has been subject to more detailed geological mapping. Table 2. ology. Based on CECAV/ICMBio (2011) and Jansen et al (2012). Lithology Number of known caves Probable potential (caves not yet known) Percentage of known caves Carbonates 7.000 > 150.000 < 5% Quartzites 510* > 50.000 < 1% Sandstones 510* > 50.000 < 1% Iron Ore 2.000 > 10.000 < 20% Other lithologies 200 > 50.000 < 0,5% Fig. 3 Map showing the main lithologies hosting natural cavities. Main carbonatic rocks (sedimentary an d/or metamorphic) are represented in black. Main quartzitic rocks (metamorphic) are represented in orange. Minor carbonatic (sedimentary and/or metamorphic) areas are represented by yellow triangles. Iron ore areas are represented by red stars. Other litho logies are represented by green squares. Based on CECAV/ICMBio (2011).

PAGE 36

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 34 speleological heritage is enormous. The main cave bearing areas are situated in an oblong zone, running from NE to SW, parallel to the co ast, with a higher concentration covering center W Bahia, eastern Gois and two branches running N S crossing the central portion of Minas Gerais. These areas are mostly covered by limestones and dolomites of the Bambu Group (Auler & Zogbi, 2005; CECAV/IC MBio 2011). One of the most important clusters, with more than 700 caves already registered, is the region of Lagoa Santa (MG), which can be considered as the cradle of Brazilian speleology. The state of Bahia hosts the five longest caves in the country ( Table 3). Crossing the easternmost boundary dividing the states of So Paulo and Paran there is another important cluster, with more than 300 caves, formed in limestones and dolomites of the Aungui Group. Most of those in the state of So Paulo are situa ted inside the PETAR (Parque Estadual Turstico do Alto Ribeira Alto Ribeira Touristic State Park), including Caverna (Cave) Santana, one of the most famous caves in the country, and Casa de Pedra (Stone House), the tallest natural rock opening known in the country (Figure 4); the caves in this region represent a meaningful portion of the geological heritage of the state, and of the country (MANTESSO NETO et al 2013). In the NE region of the country, also corresponding to the NE tip of the above mentione d oblong zone in which are concentrated the main cave bearing areas, many caves exist, but really big one of the best known is the Gruta de Ubajara, In Rio Grande do Norte, most caves are concentrated between Felipe Guerra and Apodi; among them, considered one of the biggest marble caves in the country. The map of potentiality of occurrence of caves in B rasil, in the scale 1:2.500.000 was published in 2012 ( JANSEN et al 2012). It is based in a new methodology, in which, according to the lithology, five classes of degree of potentiality are established: Very high; High; Medium; Low; and Occurrence unlikel y (Table 4). These classes were identified by the use of the following criteria: a) data about emplacement of the main karstic areas in Brazil; b) geological map of Brazil, scale 1:2.500.000, by the Servio Geolgico do Brasil/CPRM (Brazilian Geological Se rvice), with emphasis in the fields Litologia1 (Lithology1), Litologia2 (Lithology2) and Nome da Unidade of Attributes); c) geospatialized data from de caves furnished by CECAV/ICMBio (on June 1st, 2012); and d) bibliographical revision about the main lithological formations of the cavities registered in Fig. 4 and essentially corresponding to the collapsed descending limb of a me tamorphic limestone fold, Casa de Pedra (Stone House), is the tallest natural rock opening known in the country, and is possibly among the tallest in the world. It is situated in the southern portion of the state of So Paulo, in the PETAR Parque Estadual Turstico do Alto Ribeira Alto Ribeira Touristic State Park. Photo by Lalo de Almeida. Table 3. The 10 longest known caves in Brazil, according to CECAV/ICMBio (2011). By order of length Municipality km / mi 1. Toca da Boa Vista* Campo Formoso (BA) 10 6,50 / 66.6 2. Toca da Barriguda Campo Formoso (BA) 33,30 / 20.8 3. Lapa Doce II Iraquara (BA) 16,50 / 10.3 5. Gruta do Padre Santana e Santa Maria da Vitria (BA) 16,40 / 10.3 5. Boqueiro Carinhanha (BA) 15,17 / 9.5 6. Lapa do Anglica So Domingos (GO) 14,10 / 8.8 7. Gruna da gua Clara Carinhanha (BA) 13,88 / 8.7 8. Lapa do So Mateus III So Domingos (GO) 10,61 / 6.6 9. Lapa de So Vicente II So Domingos (GO) 10,13 / 6.3 10. Lapa Doce I Iraquara (BA) 10,00 / 6.3 *The Toca da Boa Vista is con sidered to be the 18th biggest cave in the world.

PAGE 37

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 35 Table 4 Degree of potentiality of occurrence of caves in Brasil according to the lithology. Based on Jansen et al. (2012) Lithotype Degree of potentiality of occurrence Limestone, Dolomite, Evaporite, Ban ded Iron Formation, Itabirite and Jaspilite Very high Calcrete, Carbonatite, Marble, Metalimestone and Marl High Sandstone, Conglomerate, Phyllite, Shale, Fosforite, Greywacke, Metaconglomerate, Metapellite, Metasiltstone, Micaschist, Mylonite, Quartzite Pellite, Rhyolite, Rhythmite, Calcosilicatic Rock, Siltstone and Schist Medium Remaining lithotypes (Anorthosite, Arkose, Augen Gnaisse, Basalt, Charnockite, Diabase, Diamictite, Enderbite, Gabbro, Gnaisse, Granite, Granitoids, Granodiorite, Hornfels, K inzigite, Komatiite, Laterite, Metachert, Migmatite, Monzogranite, Olivine Gabbro, Orthoamphibolite, Syenite, S yenogranite Tonalite, Trondhjemite, among others) Low Alluvium, Sand, Clay, Gravel, Pellite, Lignite, other sediments, Peat and Tuff Occurrence unlikely The studies showed that 78,4% of the cavities are situated in areas with degrees of potentiality of they occur basically ln carbonatic rocks (sedimentary and/or metamorphic) and in the banded iro n formations (metamorphic). Classes of (sedimentary) and quartzites (metamorphic) held 12,8% of the cavities, and only 8,7% of the total thus possible to produce the map of potentialities of caves in Brazil, offering to the country an estimate of its potential in terms of speleological heritage (Figure 5). Fig. 5 Map of potentiality of occurrence of caves in Brasil, by Jansen et al ( 2012)

PAGE 38

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 36 5. THE PRESENCE OF THE SPELEOLOGICAL HERITAGE IN THE PROPOSALS OF BRAZILIAN GEOPARKS In late 2012, the Servio Geolgico do Brasil/CPRM (Brazilian Geological Service) nhaus; Silva, 2012a Geoparks of Brazil: proposals) which presents a meaningful set of information about 17 geopark proposals spread throughout the country. Beside among their authors university researchers and members of other institutions. Some external proposals were invited by CPRM to participate in the book, and are also included. Besides the chapters describing the proposals, there are also two initial Bra sil na criao de Geoparques e na Conservao SCHOBBENHAUS & SILVA 2012b The role of the Geological Service of Brazil in the creation of Geoparks and in the Rede Global de Geoparq BRILHA 2012 The Global Network of National Geoparks). As mentioned in our Introduction, the aim of this paper is to present the speleological heritage present in these 17 different geopark proposals, pointing out their respective charact eristics (rock types, degree of conservation, abundance or rarity, among others). The 17 proposals include the description of 362 geosites, with an average of 21 geosites per proposal. A total of 12 kinds of geological interests (Astroblem, Geomorphologica l, History of Mining, Igneous, Metallogenetic, Mineralogical, Paleoenvironmental, Paleontological, Petrological, Stratigraphic, Tectonic, and, of course, Speleological) are represented, plus the Archaeological, Historical Cultural, and Scenic Beauty intere sts. Among the geosites, 54 are related to speleological heritage, represented by caves and other natural underground cavities, thus corresponding to an average of 3 speleological geosites per proposal. Table 5 shows the total number of geosites and the nu mber of those related to speleological heritage for each proposal, while Figure 6 presents, in graph form, the total number of geosites for each of the 17 proposals. Focusing specifically on the number of geosites related to speleological heritage, the Geo parque Serra da Capivara (PI) is the one with the largest quantity of them: 21; next comes Geoparque Bodoquena Pantanal (MS) with 12 geosites, and in the third place Geoparque Morro do Chapu (BA) with 5 geosites (Figure 7). In terms of percentage of geosi tes related to speleological heritage compared to the total number of geosites, the Geoparque Serra da Capivara (PI) proposal maintains its lead, with 57% (of its 37 geosites, 21 are related to speleological heritage); next comes Geoparque Bodoquena Pantan al (MS) with 27% (45 geosites, being 12 related to speleological heritage); in third place comes the Geoparque Cachoeira do Amazonas (AM) proposal, with 25% (out of a total of 8 geosites, 2 are related to speleological heritage) (Figure 8). Table 5 Numb er of Geosites and Number of Geosites of Speleological Heritage in the 17 proposals. In parentheses, the percent value of the latter in respect to the former. Geopark Proposal Number of Geosites Number of Geosites of Speleological Heritage 1. Cachoeira do Amazonas (AM) 08 02 (25%) 2. Morro do Chapu (BA) 24 05 (21%) 3. Pireneus (GO) 20 00 (00%) 4. Astroblema de Araguainha Ponte Branca (GO/MT) 15 01 (07%) 5. Quadriltero Ferrfero (MG) 19 01 (05%) 6. Bodoquena Pantanal (MS) 45 12 (27%) 7. Chapada dos Guimares (MT) 16 03 (19%) 8. Fernando de Noronha (PE) 26 00 (00%) 9. Serid (RN) 25 02 (08%) 10. Quarta Colnia (RS) 20 01 (05%) 11. Caminhos dos Cnions do Sul (RS/SC) 20 03 (15%) 12. Serra da Capivara (PI) 37 21 (57%) 13. Ciclo do Ouro, Guarulhos (SP) 14 00 (00%) 14. Uberaba Terra dos Dinossauros do Brasil (MG) 06 00 (00%) 15. Campos Gerais (PR) 14 00 (00%) 16. Litoral Sul de Pernambuco (PE) 23 00 (00%) 17. Costes e Lagunas do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (RJ) 30 03 (10%) Total 362 54 (15%)

PAGE 39

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 37 Fig. 6 The proposals of geoparks and their respective number of geosites. Overall, 362 geosites were described, yielding an average of 21 geosites per proposal. The Geoparque Bodoquena Pantanal (MS) proposal is the one with the largest number of geosites (45), whereas the Geoparque Uberaba Terra dos Dinossauros do Brasil (MG) proposal has the smallest number, 6. Fig. 7 The proposals of geoparks and their respective number of geosites related to speleological heritage. There are 54 geosites with this characteristic, yielding an average of 3 geosites related to speleological heritage per proposal. The 3 proposals with largest number of such geosites are Serra da Capivara (PI) with 21 geosites, Bodoquena Pantanal (MS) with 12 and Morro do Chapu (BA) wit h 5.

PAGE 40

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 38 Fig. 8 The proposals of geoparks and their respective percentagens of geosites related to speleological heritage. Out of a total of 362 geosites, 54, or 15%, are related to speleological heritage. The 3 proposals with the largest percentages of g eosites related to speleological heritage are Serra da Capivara (PI) with 57% (21 geosites), Bodoquena Pantanal (MS) with 27% (12 geosites) and Cachoeira do Amazonas (AM) 25% (2 geosites). In most cases a word in the name given to the geosite indicates t he presence of an item of the speleological heritage, or is related to it (Table 6); in some cases, however, the name of the geosite does not indicate that relationship. In such cases, it is necessary to read the description of the geosite or to check its characteristics in one of the tables herein, in order to establish its scientific value. In lithological terms, it is easy to identify the predominance of sedimentary siliciclastic rocks (siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates, with a major participation of sandstones) and carbonatic rocks (limestones) (Figure 9). In a lesser scale, metamorphic carbonatic rocks (marbles), metamorphic rocks of initially igneous origin (orthogneisses), and igneous rocks (granites) are also present. Tables 6 and 7 show which lithotypes are associated to each proposal of geopark (and its respective geosites). They allow us to verify that the Geoparque Serra da Capivara (PI) proposal is the one with the largest variety of geological units hosting natural underground cavities, n amely: sandstones of the Cabeas Formation of the Canind Group; siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates of the Ip Formation of the Serra Grande Group; and limestones of the Barra Bonita Formation of the Casa Nova Group. A second proposal with a rich var iety of lithologies is Bodoquena Pantanal (MS), with sandstones of the Aquidauana Formation of the Itarar Group and limestones of the Cerradinho and Bocaina Formations, both of the Corumb Group. Some proposals have just one lithological unit hosting the natural underground cavities: Cachoeira do Amazonas (AM), sandstones; Astroblema de Araguainha Ponte Branca (GO/MT), sandstones; Quarta Colnia (RS), sandstones; and Quadriltero Ferrfero (MG), limestones. Of the 54 geosites presenting natural cavities, 29 are associated to sedimentary siliciclastic rocks (being 1 to siltstones, 27 to sandstones and 1 to conglomerates); these represent 54% of the total number of geosites. Carbonatic rocks (limestone and marbles), host 21 geosites, representing 38% of the total number. The remaining 8% are associated to rocks of the crystalline basement (orthogneisses and granites), which together add up to 4 geosites with speleological interest (Figure 9 ).

PAGE 41

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 39 Table 6. Names of geosites related to speleological heritage in t he 11 proposals of national geoparks in which there is (are) one or more natural underground cavity(ies). Geopark Proposal Name of Geosite = type of rock to which it is associated 1. Cachoeira do Amazonas (AM) Geosite 03 Cachoeira da Iracema = sandstone Geosite 08 Gruta do Maroaga = sandstone 2. Morro do Chapu (BA) Geosite 07 Buraco Possidnio = limestone Geosite 08 Gruta Barroco = limestone Geosite 09 Buraco do Alecrim = limestone Geosite 13 Gruta do Cristal = limestone Geosite 21 Gruta d os Brejes = limestone 4. Astroblema de Araguainha Ponte Branca (GO/MT) Geosite 09 Caverna da Gota Santa = sandstone 5. Quadriltero Ferrfero (MG) Geosite 18 Gruta Nossa Senhora da Lapa = limestone 6. Bodoquena Pantanal (MS) Geosite 11 Gruta do Lago Azul = limestone Geosite 12 Gruta Nossa Senhora Aparecida = limestone Geosite 13 Gruta So Miguel = limestone Geosite 14 Abismo Anhumas = limestone Geosite 15 Grutas do Mimoso = limestone Geosite 16 Lagoa Misteriosa = limestone Geosite 17 Buraco das Araras = sandstone Geosite 34 Buraco das Abelhas = limestone Geosite 35 Gruta do Urubu Rei = limestone Geosite 41 Nascentes e Grutas Ceita Cor = limestone Geosite 42 Buraco do Japons/dos Fsseis = limestone Geosite 43 Gruta e Nascent e do Rio Formoso = limestone 7. Chapada dos Guimares (MT) Geosite 03 Casa de Pedra = sandstone Geosite 14 Caverna Aroe Jari = sandstone Geosite 15 Caverna Aroe Jari Lagoa Azul = sandstone 9. Serid (RN) Geosite 01 Serra Verde = granite Geosite 13 Gruta da Caridade = marble 10. Quarta Colnia (RS) Geosite 08 Gruta do ndio = sandstone 11. Caminhos dos Cnions do Sul (RS/SC) Geosite 01 Furnas de Sombrio = sandstone Geosite 04 Furnas ndios Xocleng = sandstone Geosite 06 Morro dos Conv entos = sandstone 12. Serra da Capivara (PI) Geosite 05 Toca do Stio do Meio = siltstone Geosite 08 Toca da Entrada do Paja = sandstone Geosite 09 Toca do Paja = sandstone Geosite 10 Toca do Barro e Toca do Inferno = conglomerate Geosite 11 T oca da Entrada do Baixo da Vaca = sandstone Geosite 12 Trilha do Boqueiro e Toca do Paraguaio = sandstone Geosite 17 Toca do Caboclinho = sandstone Geosite 18 Toca do Vento, Capim, Dedo e Castial = sandstone Geosite 19 Toca do Cabloco da Serra B ranca = sandstone Geosite 20 Toca da Extrema = sandstone Geosite 21 Toca da Passagem = sandstone Geosite 22 Toca do Olho Dgua da Serra Branca = sandstone Geosite 23 Toca da Mangueira do Joo Paulo = sandstone Geosite 25 Toca do Estevo ou da On a = sandstone Geosite 26 Circuito da Pedra Cada/Toca da Inveno = sandstone Geosite 27 Toca do Alexandre = sandstone Geosite 28 Toca da Ema do Stio do Brs I = sandstone Geosite 29 Toca da Roa do Stio do Brs I = sandstone Geosite 30 Toca da Janela da Barra do Antonio = limestone Geosite 31 Serrote do Tenente Luiz = limestone Geosite 32 Toca dos Piles = limestone 17. Costes e Lagunas do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (RJ) Geosite 01 Costo de Ponta Negra = orthogneisse Geosite 03 Promon trio Igreja de N.S. de Nazar = orthogneisse Geosite 07 Ilha do Cabo Frio = granite

PAGE 42

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 40 Fig 9 Number of geosites with geological interest associated to different rock types in the geopark proposals (total of 54 geosites inventoried). The predominance of geosites in siliciclastic rocks (conglomerates + sandstones + siltstones), with 29 geosites, representing 54% of the total, is clearly visible. Table 7. Identification of the lithological units for each geopark proposal. Geopark Proposal Lithologies 1. Cachoeira do Amazonas (AM) Sandstones of the Nhamund Formation of the Trombetas Group. 2. Morro do Chapu (BA) Limestones of the Salitre Formation of the Una Group. Siltstones and limestones of the Caboclo Formation of the Chapada Diamantina Group. 4 Astroblema de Araguainha Ponte Branca (GO/MT) Sandstones of the Aquidauana Formation of the Itarar Group. 5. Quadriltero Ferrfero (MG) Limestones of the Gandarela Formation of the Itabira Group. 6. Bodoquena Pantanal (MS) Sandstones of the Aquidauan a Formation of the Itarar Group. Limestones of the Cerradinho e Bocaina Formations of the Corumb Group. 7. Chapada dos Guimares (MT) Sandstones of the Furnas Formation of the Paran Group. Sandstones of the Alto Garas Formation of the Rio Iva Group. 9. Serid (RN) Granites of the Dona Ins Intrusive Suite. Marbles of the Jucurutu Formation of the Serid Group. 10. Quarta Colnia (RS) Sandstones of the Serra Geral Formation of the So Bento Group. 11. Caminhos dos Cnions do Sul (RS/SC) Sandstones o f the Botucatu Formation of the So Bento Group. Sandstones of the Rio do Rastro Formation of the Passa Dois Group. 12. Serra da Capivara (PI) Sandstones of the Cabeas Formation of the Canind Group. Silstones, sandstones and conglomerates of the Ip For mation of the Serra Grande Group. Limestones of the Barra Bonita Formation of the Casa Nova Group 17. Costes e Lagunas do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (RJ) Granites of the Alcaline Complex. Orthogneisses of the Regio dos Lagos Complexo. 6. FINAL REMARKS The importance of a Geopark project, which allows the association of conservation and use of geologically significant sites (geosites) to the socio economical and cultural development of the population of its territory is, in many countries, a well establ ished fact. The Geopark fosters the deployment of various lines of environmental education which include the physical basis (the geodiversity) and point out the close association between biodiversity and geodiversity, the latter supporting the former. Braz il has a rich geodiversity, and could not let pass this opportunity to become engaged in this new trend. In fact, a number of federal, state and municipal organisms, plus universities and other institutions are already promoting a series of actions aimed a t the establishment of geoparks in its territory. Besides CPRM Servio Geolgico do Brasil, some examples are the Universidade Estadual

PAGE 43

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 41 de Ponta Grossa and Minrios do Paran Mineropar; Prefeitura de Guarulhos, So Paulo; and Servio Geolgico do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Diretoria de Recursos Minerais. The geosites in the geopark proposals address different interests: stratigraphic, geomorphological, tectonic, paleoenvironmental, metallogenetic, paleontological, igneous, mineralogical and speleological. Focusing on this last interest, an analysis shows that out of the 17 proposals, at least 11 of them have one or more geosite(s) related to speleological heritage. Among those, a few stand out, like the Serra da Capivara/PI (with 21 geosites related to spe leological heritage, in a total of 37 geosites), Bodoquena Pantanal/MS (12 in a total of 45) and Morro do Chapu/BA (5 in a total of 24). Percentagewise, Serra da Capivara/PI is the leader, with 57% of geosites with speleological interest, followed by Bodo quena Pantanal/MS with 27%, and in third position comes Cachoeira do Amazonas/AM, with 25%. Of the total of 362 geosites listed in the 17 geopark proposals, about 15% are related to speleological interest. This is a low percentage, brought about mainly by the fact that six proposals Pireneus/GO; Fernando de Noronha/PE; Ciclo do Ouro, Guarulhos/SP; Uberaba Terra dos Dinossauros do Brasil (MG); Campos Gerais/PR e Litoral Sul de Pernambuco/PE do not have any geosites of this kind. Overall, with 54 geosites of speleological interest in 17 proposals, the average comes to a little more than 3 geosites related to speleological heritage per proposal, a low value if the enormous potential that Brazil has in this kind of heritage is taken into account. Regarding t he lithological type to which these cavities are associated, in the 17 proposals, and limiting the analysis to those 54 geosites related to speleological heritage, 29, or 54% of them are related to sedimentary siliciclastic rocks (mainly sandstones); 21, o r 38% are related to carbonatic rocks (limestones and marbles), and the remaining 4, or 8%, to the crystalline basement (orthogneisses and granites). It must be pointed out that the speleological potential presented in these geopark proposals, according to the Brazilian law, must be initially protected by strategic actions for conservation. Only after these actions are implemented, can these areas be used for tourism and educational activities BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES AULER, A.; ZOGBI, L. 2005. Espeleo logia: noes bsicas. 1a. ed., So Paulo: Redespeleo Brasil, 104 p. BRILHA, J. A. 2012b. Rede Global de Geoparques Nacionais: um instrumento para a promoo internacional da geoconservao. In SCHOBBENHAUS, C.; SI LVA C.R. Geoparques do Brasil: propostas CPRM Servio Geolgico do Brasil, Vol. 1, p.29 38. Available at http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/media/GEOPARQUESdoBRASIL_propostas.pdf accessed 25 May 2013 CECAV/ICM Bio. 2011. III Curso de Espeleologia e Licenciamento Ambiental Braslia: CECAV. Available at : http://www.icmbio.gov.br/c ecav/images/download/Apostila%20Curso%20de%20Espeleologia%20e% 20Licenciamento%20Ambiental.pdf accessed 25 May 2013. JANSEN, D.C.; CAVALCANTI, L.F.; LAMBLM, H.S. 2012. Mapa de potencialidade de ocorrncia de cavernas no Brasil, na escala 1:2.500.000. Rev ista Brasileira de Espeleologia v.2, n.1, p.42 57. MANTESSO NETO, V.; RIBEIRO, R.R.; GARCIA, M.G.M.; DEL LAMA, E.A.; THEODOROVICZ, A. 2013. Patrimnio geolgico no estado de So Paulo. Bol. Paranaense Geocincias vol. 70, p.53 76. Available at: http://ojs.c3sl.ufpr.br/ojs/index.php/geociencias/article/view/32741/21562 accessed 17 December 2013. MARTINI, G. 2010. Desenvolvimento regional: o papel dos geoparques. Pale stra. Salo do Turismo, 5, So Paulo, Available at: http://www.salao.turismo.gov.br/salao/nucleo_conhecimento/Apresentacoes_2010/ accessed 25 May 2013. MOREIRA, J.C. 2011. Geoturismo e Interpretao Ambiental. Ponta Grossa: Editora UEPG, 157p.

PAGE 44

Nascimento & Mantesso Neto . .. Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 42 SCHOBBENHAUS, C. 2006. Projeto Geoparques: proposta. Braslia: CPRM, 9 p., mapa. SCHOBBENHAUS, C & SILVA, C.R. 2010. O papel indutor do Servio Geolgico do Brasil na cria o de geoparques. Braslia: CPRM. Available at http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/media/schobbenhaus_Silva%20_2010.pdf accessed 25 May 2013. SCHOBBENHAUS, C.; SI LVA C.R. 20 12a. Geoparques do Brasil: propostas So Paulo: CPRM Servio Geolgico do Brasil. Vol. 1, 745p. Available at http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/media/GEOPARQUESdoBRASIL _propostas.pdf accessed 25 May 2013. SCHOBBENHAUS, C.; SI LVA C.R. 2012b. O papel do Servio Geolgico do Brasil na criao de geoparques e na conservao do geological heritage. In. SCHOBBENHAUS, C.; SI LVA C.R. Geoparques do Brasil: propostas CPRM S ervio Geolgico do Brasil, Vol. 1, p.11 28. Available at http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/media/GEOPARQUESdoBRASIL_propostas.pdf accessed 25 May 2013 UNESCO. Geoparks W orkshop. n/d. Available at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php URL_ID=22630&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html accessed 28 May 2013 Editorial flow / Flu xo editorial : Received / Recebido em: 25 jun .2013 Accepted / Aprovado em: 1 8 de c .2013 TOURISM AND KARST AREAS ( formely /formalmente: Pesquisas em Turismo e Paisagens Crsticas) Brazilian Speleological Society / Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia (SBE) www.cavernas.org.br/turismo.asp

PAGE 45

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 43 GEOTOURISM POTENTIAL OF UNDERGROUND SITES IN COSTA RICA POTENCIAL GEOTURSTICO DE LUGARES SUBTERRNEOS NA COSTA RICA Andrs Ulloa (1 ,2 ) & Carlos Goicoechea ( 1 ) ( 1) Grupo Espeleolgico Anthros (GEA ) San Jos Costa Rica (2) Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias Geolgicas, Universidad de Costa Rica (CICG) San Jos, Costa Rica E mail : carlos@anthros.org ; grupopangeas@gmail.com Abstract Although tourism is presen tly the main source of income of the Republic of Costa Rica, making an analysis of the offer and demand of the topic of "underground sites as tourist attractions", it is evident that in our country this activity is minimal, with percentage figures that are not even taken into account in the statistics. At government level, there's only one National Park whose focus is caves (Barra Honda); in this aspect, there's also very little and ambiguous legislation. At a private enterprise level, there are only five k arstic underground sites worthy of mention, of which only two can qualify as 'business operations'. The other 3 are underground sites to which occasionally and informal visits are launched, but it is still difficult to find references, even in the web Ke y Words : Caves; Underground tourist; Karst; Limestone; T unnels, Costa Rica Resumo Embora o turismo seja atualmente a principal fonte de renda da Repblica da Costa Rica, fazendo uma anlise da oferta e da demanda do tema de "lugares subterrneos como atra es tursticas", evidente para os autores que na Costa Rica esta atividade mnima, com percentuais que no so sequer tidos em conta nas estatsticas. No mbito governamental, s h um parque nacional cujo foco cavernas (Barra Honda). Neste aspecto, h tambm pouca legislao, e tambm ambgua. Ao nvel privado, h apenas cinco lugares subterrneos crsticos dignos de referncia, dos quais apenas dois podem ser qualificados como operaes comerciais. Os outros trs so lugares subterrneos com visita s ocasionais e informais, sobre as quais ainda difcil encontrar referncias, mesmo na rede mundial Palavras Chave : Cavernas; T urismo subterrneo; Carste; Calcrio; Tneis, Costa Rica 1. INTRODUCTION Costa Rica, despite its small land area (51,100 km 2 ) offers great biological and geological diversity, presenting attractions such as active volcanoes, sandy beaches, waterfalls, reefs, islands, caves and mine tunnels. Some of these attractions are quite exploited by tourism in general (i.e., volcanoes and caves), while others are potentially exploitable for rural tourism (i.e., mine tunnels). This article focuses on the underground tourist attractions (caves and tunnels) that are currently exploited or c ould be exploited in the future, which may have a high scenic, geological, historical or educational value. One of the main economic activities in Costa Rica is tourism, reaching 9,1% of the Gross National Product during 2012 (La Nacin, 2013). Tourists wh o come to Costa Rica are looking mainly for adventure, ecological and nature tourism. Although many of the country's tourist attractions have strong geological component (i.e., Pos, Iraz, Rincn de la Vieja volcanoes), it is considered that there is insu fficient information available as to geotourism in the country and very few studies have addressed these issues (Campos; Astorga, 2010; Ulloa et al., 2011; Bundschuh et al., 2007). The first National Park in Costa Rica ( Pos Volcano National Park ) was cre ated in 1971 and since then, gradually an extensive protection system has been established initially and fundamentally for the protection and conservation of the unique biodiversity that characterizes this small country. Afterwards, the option of making t he Parks available to tourism aroused an activity that, in this specific aspect, still continues to be a function of second instance. According to the National Institute for Biodiversity today approximately 25,1 % of the territory of Costa Rica consists of National Parks,

PAGE 46

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 44 Biological and/or Forest Reserves Wetlands and other forms of protection including two parks declared World Heritage" by UNESCO. Forty four percent ( 44%) of that total is in the hands of private enterprises especially in categories such as buffer zones forest reserves and refuges For its better management, 11 Protected Areas have been established, which break down to 162 Protected Areas (INBIO, 2013). 1.1. General geological aspects Costa Rica corresponds to an island arc caused by subduct ion, a phenomenon that occurs since the Upper Cretaceous. The recent volcanic arc has a NW SE axis, with active volcanoes from the North part of Costa Rica to the Turrialba volcano. Between Turrialba and Bar (in Panama) volcanoes exists a gap in the recen t volcanic activity; these area corresponds to the Talamanca Range. Also Tertiary volcanism is present (Aguacate Group, Sarapiqu Formation), that presents some ore, with presence mainly of gold and silver (figure 1). These mineralizations has been exploit ed (principally as underground mining) since colonial times (Ulloa, 1979). During the geological evolution, different episodes of carbonate deposition have presented in the forearc, intra arc and back arc basins, which led to the deposition of limestone f rom the Cretaceous to Recent (Figure 1), in which karst occurs (Ulloa et al., 2011). This geological diversity present in Costa Rica has led to the existence of several underground sites with geotourism potential. Undoubtedly, the most important are caves of karstic origin, but also some volcanic caves have been recognized (none currently exploited for tourism), as well as tunnels (mainly for mining), which have a geotourist and archeological potential. In Costa Rica, approximately 2000 km 2 correspond to ka rstic regions (Figure 1) and contain many caves that have been explored since the late 1960's by national and international speleological groups. Fig. 1 Map of Costa Rica showing the different limestone karst areas, cave sites, active volcanoes and gold mining areas. Modified from Denyer; Alvarado (2007), Ulloa et al. (2011).

PAGE 47

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 45 1.2. History of speleology in Costa Rica There are reports of known caves in Costa Rica since the early 17th Century, but it is only after the early 60's that exploration of t he caves of Costa Rica begins, with the arrival to the country of renowned French caver Robert Vergnes, who performed the first speleological recognition in Venado cave (a.k.a. Gabinarraca, Venado of San Carlos, Alajuela). During 1967, with the arrival of Catalan caver Juli Gonzlez Mateus, the Grupo Espeleolgico (GE) is founded, as part of the Mountaineers Club of Costa Rica. The first karst area that was explored in detail in the country was the Tempisque region (Ulloa et al., 2011), specifically the B arra Honda hills. Both national groups (The GE) and international (Cave Research Foundation, National Speleological Society) participated in these explorations, that led to the creation of the Barra Honda National Park in 1974 (Goicoechea et al., 2009). S tarting in the early 90's, there were important explorations in the south section of the country as well as in Barra Honda: Socit Suisse de Splologie (SSS), Gruppo Grotte Carlo Debeljak (GGCD) and others (Hapka et al., 1992). In 1995 the Anthros Speleo logical Group (GEA) is created, which has carried on extensive speleological research, is in charge of the National Cave Register (Speleobase) and has extended its activity to other Central American nations. The designation of the caves of Barra Honda as N ational Park marks the beginning of tourism in the caves in Costa Rica, at an enterprise level, with facilities that allow safe visiting for the tourists and for the site. Starting in 1976, cave tours are offered at Gabinarraca Cave (Venado), with a fairly simple infrastructure and gradually, all the others that will be referred to in this paper. 1.3. Summary of the mine tunnels in Costa Rica Costa Rica owes its name to the fact that when it was discovered in 1502 by Christopher Columbus, the natives wore many gold ornaments; that was associated by the Spaniards with a wealth that came from placer gold fields, possibly at Costa Rica's South Pacific region (Ulloa, 1979; Durango, 1961). According to Ulloa (1979), there were some mines near the Central Valley that were exploited by the Spanish. Ulloa also indicates that the first accidental discovery of mineral deposits of gold was by the Nicaraguan bishop Fray Nicols Garca, in the Montes del Aguacate, Alajuela. Afterwards several other mining spots were ope ned (mainly underground mining), in different parts of the country (Abangares, Guacimal, Miramar and Aguacate), primarily for gold extraction (Figure 1). Besides Gold, there are other mineral manifestations that have been studied that required tunneling, s uch as Manganese (steel manufacturing, exploited during World War I), Silver (near the Central Valley and Cartago), Lead and Zinc (Central region and Monteverde) and Copper (mainly in the Talamanca Range & foothills) (Ulloa, 1979; Castillo, 1997). This min ing activity led to the creation of several mine tunnels (for exploration and exploitation); according to Ulloa (1979), more than 186 mines and mine shafts were recorded by 1979. Most mining tunnels are in the Aguacate Mountains, Abangares, Miramar, Guacim al and some isolated ones around the Central Valley, Talamanca and Santa Rosa of Monteverde. 2. PRESENT SITUATION OF TOURISTIC CAVES IN KARST AREAS The main tourist activity in subterranean sites of Costa Rica corresponds to tourist caves. These are dist ributed throughout the country, in different karst areas (Figure 1). In this section we discuss all the natural sites having tourism in Costa Rica, detailing each one of them, and in a summary. Table 1 shows the main tourist caves of Costa Rica by karst re gion. Table 1. Major tourist caves of Costa Rica. Karst region Place Tourist caves Province Tempisque Barra Honda National Park. Terciopelo and La Cuevita Guanacaste Venado Venado of San Carlos. Gabinarraca Alajuela Central Pacific Damas of Parrita. D amas and Puntarenas Central Pacific Piedras Blancas of Prez Zeledn. Olla Quemada San Jos Southern region Ciudad Neily Gran Galera and Corredores Puntarenas Central Valley Fossil Land, Patarr. Abismo Oscuro San Jos

PAGE 48

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 46 2.1. Barra Honda National Par k The Barra Honda National Park (2,295 hectares) is located in the province of Guanacaste. It was created in September of 1974 for the protection of the karst land and corresponds to the only region that has a karst protection status. The park presents som e karst features as mogotes, karren, travertine waterfalls, sinkholes, springs and more than 50 caves (Wells, 1974; Mora, 1981; NSS, 1989 ; Ulloa, 2009; Ulloa et al., 2011). This karst area is located in the Barra Honda Formation, and consists of a carbonat e platform (Mora, 1981, Calvo & Bolz, 1987) with Upper Paleocene age. Only 29 caves (58%) have been properly cataloged and surveyed. Caves present mainly vertical passages (deepest cave is 125 m); because of this reason, they are difficult to offer as a to urism activity. The Park has two touristic caves: Terciopelo and La Cuevita. Terciopelo cave (Figure 2) was discovered by the Grupo Espeleolgico (the GE.CMCR) on February 23 1969, as part of an exploratory cycle initiated by the Group in 1967, which las ted until 1974. In 1973, these hills and the immediate surroundings were studied by the Cave Research Foundation (CRF) and in 1982, the National Speleological Society (NSS) continued with the work. La Cuevita was discovered by the GE in 1971. It is located in the central and western part of the plateau of the hill. Terciopelo Cave is the principal tourist cave in the park. It is a small cave (41 m depth, 92 m length; Figure 2). This cave has a vertical shaft, enabled by a rigid ladder (installed by the Gru po Espeleolgico Anthros GEA in 2004) to facilitate the descent into the cave. The GE also conditioned properly the internal tour trails, which included installing another small internal staircase (Quesada et al., 2006). Climbing equipment is needed (pro vided), as well as an Official Guide and the Park's Service permission (in advance). The groups are around 10 visitors and the tour lasts about an hour; the attractions are speleothems, the vertical shaft and a small chamber, as well as observing the cave fauna. La Cuevita (the Little Cave) is a very small cave (5 m depth, 17.2 m length). Consists of a single room handsomely decorated, suitable for the visitation of children and 'slim' persons, because its entrance is quite narrow, even after it was extende d a bit. As in all of the caves in the Park, the visitors need to enter in the company of an official guide. Fig 2 Map showing the re conditioning in Terciopelo cave (GEA, 2003). The use of this path, allows the visitors to fully appreciate its bea uty, without causing major damage.

PAGE 49

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 47 Barra Honda National Park also offers hiking trails through the tropical dry forest (mostly secondary) and spectacular views of the Tempisque Valley and the Gulf of Nicoya. There are cabins and camping area with drinkin g water and sanitation. Climate is warm and dry from December through April and then hot and humid for the rest of the year. Any time of year, it can be expected to see howler monkeys ( Congos ), deer, raccoons, peccaries, marten, agoutis and anteaters. Also to observe are 'Rimstone dams' on the East side of the Barra Honda hill, surrounded by secondary forest. The Barra Honda National Park is part of the Tempisque Conservation Area, is open from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and the entry fee is $ 10 per person (Fo reign visitors). 2.2. Venado of San Carlos The town of Venado is located in the northern central region of Costa Rica, 180 km from San Jos. Near to this area are located other geological attractions like Arenal Volcano, hot springs, waterfalls, rivers an d lakes. This zone has a karst area of approximately 21 km 2 and a total of 39 caves have been recognized in it (Speleobase, GEA, 2013). The limestone belongs to the Venado Formation, is stratified and associated with a carbonate sand bar system (Obando, 19 86; Calvo & Bolz, 1987). This formation has an age of Middle to Upper Miocene (Malavassi & Madrigal, 1970; Sem Gupta et al., in Obando, 1986). Some karst features are conic karst, springs, sinkholes, dry rivers, blind valleys and caves systems (Ulloa et al ., 2011). In this region the main economic activities in the area include dairy farming and the production of sugar cane, pineapple, oranges and tubercles. Cave tourism is one of the main attractions; one can visit Gabinarraca Cave or as it is popularly kn own, Venado Cave. This cave seems to have been known by the Guatuso aborigines that inhabited the area; however, so far no evidence has been found associated as to them visiting or using the cave. The cave was re discovered around 1948 and its technical ex ploration started in 1968, by the Grupo Espeleolgico This cave was also explored in the 80's by geologists looking for oil and coal in the area, by the NSS on an expedition in 1991 and by Grupo Espeleolgico Anthros cavers, starting in 1996 till the pres ent day. Gabinarraca cave is the biggest cave of Costa Rica (2741 m length and 41 m of height difference). It is a cave with five entrances, with passages that have an interlocking pattern, with dry and wet sections. It has at least three vertical levels, the lower generally corresponds to the wet sections (Figure 3). The main attractions are speleothems (stalactites, stalagmites, columns, flowstone, curtains, etc), large colonies of bats, underground fish, amphibians and insects, such as spiders and cricke ts. The average temperature inside the cave is 22 C. Tour operations were formally launched in 1976, reaching in 1996 a peak close to 500 visitors per week. Derived from a problem with some tourists becoming infected with Histoplasmosis in October 1998 (61 children and 14 adults), the cave was closed for a couple of months. From that date on, the number of visitors dropped to about 500 visitors per month. Presently, the owners provide and recommend the use of paper masks. The site counts with adequate i nfrastructure, such as toilets, showers and a large saloon that serves as lounge and restaurant (meal services have to be previously requested). The Administration usually keeps 2 or 3 permanent guides, but in case of tours with many participants (reservat ions required), they summon additional guides. The duration of the tours is approximately 2 hours, with a maximum of 10 to 12 individuals. Regular tours do not cover the entire cave, but a just a selected portion. Signs indicating where the exits are have been posted, in case of an emergency evacuation. As part of the entry fee a clinical type mask is included, to cover nose and mouth, in order to avoid possible infection by Histoplasmosis. Its use is optional. All visitors, at the conclusion of the tour, a re advised to take a shower and change clothes. The schedule is every day from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Camping is allowed on the property. There are also several informal restaurants in the town of Venado, just 2 km away. 2.3. Central Pacific: Damas and Olla Qu emada caves The Central Pacific karst region (Figure 1) presents 57 km 2 of limestone, in which so far eight caves have been recognized (Ulloa et al., 2011). In this area, the layers of limestone are not very extensive and the main karst manifestations are sinkholes, springs and caves. The limestone has been defined as Middle Eocene in age, according to Malavassi (1961). Two tourist caves are the ones of our concern: Damas and Olla Quemada.

PAGE 50

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 48 Fig 3 Map of Gabinarraca Cave, indicating in color codes the passages that are open to tourism. The 3D image shows the shape of the cave, related to the surface features. Modified from (GEA, 2007). Damas cave is located 16 km northwest of the Quepos (touristic town) and 9 km to the north of the costanera road (CR 34). It became known in recent times, circa 1925. In 1960, the first cave map was drawn, using only a compass and tape (Contours not shown). During October 2006, GEA cavers and a member of the NSS surveyed the cave in detail. This cave presents 286.4 m in length and 21.6 m of depth. The cave has 3 entrances. Damas Cave (Figure 4) is named after the Damas River, which runs just outside the cavity, on its NW flank. No water circulates inside, but there are some sections with mud and puddles. This cave is horizontal and relatively easy, but has some crawlways that are quite narrow. It is the home of thousands of bats; a species caught was identified as Saccopterix sp. There are many spiders, crickets, cockroaches and other troglobite insects that live perma nently in it. Until the end of 2006, the cave was shown in tours to organized groups of visitors, offered by the owners of a small private reserve (356 hectares). The full day tour included horseback riding and other activities, such as trekking and bird w atching. Some nearby outdoor river pools allow for a refreshing swim (ESCAPE VILLAS, 2013). Presently, the farm seems to have new owners that allow visiting.

PAGE 51

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 49 Fig 4 Map of Damas Cave (GEA, 2006). Olla Quemada cave is situated in the limestone hills that rise south of the small town of Piedras Blancas de Brujo, on the south bank of the Savegre River, about 37 linear km WNW of the port of Quepos, an important tourist destination. Piedras Blancas can be accessed only by hiking or a horse ride; there ar e three possible routes: Cerro Nara, el Brujo and La Chaqueta ; all require hiking through the tropical forest. A local guide is needed to reach the cave and the final route up to the cave is a rustic trail, in which even horses have difficulty going up. Th is cave has been known to scouts and locals since around 1985, but was re discovered by some members of the Costa Rican Speleological Association (AEC) in September 12, 1987. Carlos Goicoechea drew the first 'sketch' of this cave. In August 2009 the cave w as visited by Keith Christenson, of the NSS, who located it with a GPS and provided some modifications to the initial sketch map. During 2010, GEA performed another survey and completed the exploration of the entire cave (Figure 5). A total depth of 57 m w as reached, besides completing the map of the 346 m of its length. Olla Quemada cave does not exhibit a profusion of formations, except in the Hall of Columns and there are some passages with an important amount of sediments. The main entrance is inclined and opens 1.40 m above the ground, at the base of a muddy wall. It has 4 meter wide and 1.40 m high, surrounded by jungle. Entrance Nr 2 is a sinkhole about 2 m in diameter that drops 12 meters to the cave's floor. After this entrance opens Room Nr 1 on t he left side (Esperanza Room, aka the Column's Room), which ends in 2 chimneys that lead vertically to the outside. Following a fairly straight line, the visitor continues along the main passage, up to 10 m high, passing on the left side by Room Nr 2 (Don Lulo's Room) and then on forward to Room Nr 3. Here starts a narrow dirt floor gallery, with a low ceiling (2 m high), which leads to Room Nr 4 (The Dome Room), up to 10 m high. At point 'C' (on the map), on the right side, starts a tight fracture, at the end of which opens 'Andy's Crawlway', only 0.40 m high. This catwalk becomes vertical, shaping into 3 short consecutive tight pits (5, 4 and 8 m) that sort of "corkscrew" down to a point where one can not go on any further. Tourist tours correspond to th e main passage. There is also much guano throughout the cave and bats, spiders, crickets and similar insects. The cave is located in an area where the primary forest has been rather

PAGE 52

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 50 intervened by agriculture and livestock practices developed by residents o f neighboring communities. That could account for the eroded material. This cave is in a private property, owned by Neftal Granados Elizondo, a resident of Piedras Blancas of Savegre. This whole area is beginning to organize for the proper reception of to urism. COOPESAVEGRE (a Cooperative) has outlined a comprehensive plan entitled Agro ecotourism as a source for the improvement of the revenue to the inhabitants of the Savegre River Watershed There are many lodging options, varying from tent camps to ho stels, with optional food service. Tours for foreigners are advertised in the Web (The Costa Rica online, 2013) 2.4. Southern Region: Grand Gallery and Corredores caves This region is the one that presents more karst surface (185 km 2 ) and caves (156); lo cated in the Sothern Region of Costa Rica, it presents many limestone outcrops along the Fila Costea Range (Ulloa et al., 2011). These limestone beds correspond in age mainly to Middle to Upper Eocene, according to Malavassi (1961) and a few to the Oligoc ene limestone (Yuan, 1984). The main karst features in the area correspond to sinkholes, dry rivers, blind valleys, karren, karst springs and travertine waterfalls. There are two tourist caves: Grand Gallery and Corredores. Both are located on the SW flan k of the Fila de Cal (in Fila Costea Range), in the environs of Ciudad Neily. The Grand Gallery cave is the only one that offers organized tours. Corredores cave is visited by the annual speleological course of Grupo Espeleolgico Anthros, and some occasi onal visits by locals and occasional foreign tourists. Fig 5 Map of "Olla Quemada" cave, drafted by GEA and the NSS between March 2007 and June 2010 (GEA, 2010).

PAGE 53

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 51 Grand Gallery cave is located in the base of a cliff, inside a large sinkhole and pre sent 3 access points. The cave was locally known, but was re discovered by Gordon McCracken and Carlos Goicoechea in 1989. The farm where it is located belonged to a Panamanian nicknamed "Chiricano" (Jorge Vidal), but he sold it some years ago to Alvis Mor a Salas. This man built a large house near the cavity and is starting to offer it as a "show cave". For now, there is already a good path open to the entrance. This cave has 148 m length and 26,4 m depth, according to the NSS map (Figure 6). There is no ru nning water inside the cave presently, but it is speculated that in the past the water of the Quebrada Seca (Dry Creek) flowed into this cave (Peacock; Hempel, 1993). The tours offered in Grand Gallery cave include visiting the nearby Quebrada Seca sink an d optionally, the entrance to a cave that is located at the sink site, named Macameca. During the visit, a good description of both the flora and fauna that characterizes the region is provided by a professional in tourism. It can also be reached by means of a 26 m rappel from the top of the cliff atop the cave, an activity provided with an extra expenditure. The business that manages the cave operates a web site where there are information on topics such as wildlife and other appeals included in the tour s, as well as accommodation and food facilities in the neighboring Ciudad Neily (Cavernas Guayab, 2013). These tours have duration of 5 to 6 hours, the cost ranges from $ 20 (minimum 2 people) to $ 50 (single person). It is required to fill in and sign a liability release form by the tour operator. 2.5. Abismo Oscuro cave (Dark Abyss) This facility is situated at Quebrada Honda of Patarr, about 10 km South of San Jos (30 minutes drive). It is within the Fossil Land Complex on the farm of Otto von Schroe ter. This region only has 6 km 2 of limestone outcrop and there are reports of only six caves (Ulloa et al., 2011). This is a bioclastic limestone, with abundant fossils (principally Pecten sp.) and of Miocene age. In general, there are some incipient karst features, like small caves (Ulloa et al., 2011). Fossils abound throughout the park, but especially on a large wall that is showcased to the tourist, where they can dig one tourist cave, named Abismo Oscur o (Dark Abyss), also known as Captain Tula's Cave and / or Patarr Pit. Fig 6 Profile and plant map of Grand Gallery Cave. Modified from Peacock; Hempel (1993).

PAGE 54

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 52 Dark Abyss cave is small (69.5 m length and 24.1 m depth). This pit was probably disc overed by a laborer of the von Schroeter farm, on an unspecified date. As early as 1968, there were speculations about 'chasms' and caves in this area. It appears that journalists from TV Channel 6 (REPRETEL, "The Explorer"), back in 2000, wanted to film a nd photograph the cave. This led to a power plant being introduced inside the cavity. The obvious results were air contamination and all of them had to be evacuated in an emergency. The Asociacin Espeleolgica Costarricense (AEC) apparently visited the si te in 2002, but without issuing a report or sketch. GEA explored and surveyed it on July 2010 (Figure 7), and since then it is used as a practice site added to the caving courses that are taught. Proprietor is Mr. Otto von Schroeter (and family). Fossil L and keeps the place clean and has suspended the extraction of limestone in the area where the cave is located. There is entirely no water inside the cave, except that which enters during rainfalls. Air circulation inside the cave isn't ideal, gases seem t o pile up and stagnate, but not to the point of being critical. The venture's owners have installed three metal ladders, so no rope work is necessary, unless one wants to avoid the use of them and have fun on rope. The site is a tourist operation since Oct ober 2001 and has a web page site (Fossilland, 2013). Among the attractions, it offers abseiling (rappel), caving, canopy for children, mountain bike, ATV, paintball, geological tours, climbing, camping and hiking. The Park is open Monday through Saturday, with previous reservation. On Sundays it operates from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The fares range from $ 11 to $ 67, depending on the amount of people and the number of attractions booked. Fast foods services have also been implemented. 2.6. Other tourism potenti al karst areas There are some caves that are close to presently operating tourist places that have occasional visitation, which could well be used entrepreneurially for such purposes, according to its localization. La Capilla cave opens in Portete, close to the Port of Limn area; presently there's an on going development of it as a modern port, with heightened tourism opportunities. Although historically it is mentioned since 'the 70's', it was not until 1994 that the Centre d'Etude du Karst inspected it (Guilli et al., 1994), but according to their description it was collapsed after the Limn earthquake, and has low tourism potential. Fig 7 Plant and profile of the 'Dark Abyss', located in the "Fossil Land Tourist Complex", in Quebrada Honda of D esamparados, San Jos (GEA, 2010).

PAGE 55

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 53 Malpas is a rocky and sandy beach, located on lower western flank of the Nicoya Peninsula and frequented mainly by surfers. This is a small area with karstic signs (5 km 2 ) and according to Calvo (1987) the limestone i s of Middle Upper Eocene age. Anthros Speleological Group (GEA) has located, explored and surveyed some small sized caves: Pen cave (a 16.6 meter long 'V' shaped cave, with a sand & pebbles floor), Pochote 115 cave (34.2 m long and 5 m depth), La Grande cave (The largest, 112 m long and 18 m deep, located inland); a beach rock shelter is also present. This group of caves or grottos, located within a 200 by 250 meters area which lies between the Pacific Ocean and some small limestone hills that rise next t o it, are a local attraction and are sometimes shown to tourists. There is no understructure at all, but they are located on a Protected Land Area ( Refugio de Vida Silvestre Cueva de Los Murcilagos ), which is part of the Cabo Blanco Absolute Natural Reser ve. The largest ("La Grande",) is perhaps the only one worth while a visit of this type, since it consists of a larger 20 by 15 meter central room, out of which originate 3 galleries, the largest about 22 m long. It is fairly decorated, but has suffered a bit of vandalism. 3. OTHER NON KARSTIC UNDERGROUND SITES WITH TOURISTIC POTENTIAL 3.1. Mine tunnels in Costa Rica As discussed earlier, mining extraction of metals led to many mine tunnels being dug in different mine districts along Costa Rica. Among thos e tunnels, some are abandoned and others are still exploited, principally for artisanal mining (small scale miners and coligalleros" ). As a result of this activity, in the highest production areas were left a large amount of tunnels and/or perforations, w hich reached important dimensions in both the horizontal and the vertical aspects. A few have been conditioned as tourism resources, in which the attractive of the perforations and other charms of the sector are combined, such as rivers, forests, swimming holes & pools, horse riding, ATV rentals, museums, etc. Incipient examples of this are happening in several places. Where the Union Mine operated, in Desmonte of San Mateo (Alajuela), a small fee is charged for visiting 150 meters of partially illuminated and rustic mining tunnels, combined with the sale of meals and the opportunity to take a dip in the mountain stream that runs just alongside the tunnel. Parking and souvenir stores are available. In the city of Abangares (Guanacaste) is the Eco Museum of the Abangares Mines which displays large amounts of the machinery used in the extraction and transport of gold material. Right there was the largest operation center of the Abangares Gold Fields Company. 3.2. Topolandia Tunnels, San Pedro of Prez Zeled n The information available so far is limited. It's located on a 25 minutes drive from downtown San Isidro of Prez Zeledn (Province of San Jos), on the Inter American Highway (CA 2). Upon reaching this town, it's 1 km to the northeast from the intersec tion of the secondary road that leads into San Pedro, adjacent to the Bailey bridge over the San Pedro River. "Topolandia" consists of artificial tunnels in weathered alluvial fans, some with chambers up to 15 m deep. In several artificially made and inter connected tunnels (Figure 8), the owner of the property has established a museum, exhibition hall, conference room and other facilities. Open all year round, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Fees: $ 4 adults and $ 2 children. It advertises 'controlled temperature' (betwee n 18 and 24 C), mineralized drinking water from 2 wells (15 m deep pond), sculptures, stone beds, bathrooms and outside recreational areas. The tour lasts for 1 to 2 hours (Jara, 2013) Figure 8. Aspect of part of the facilities at "Topolandia", seen from across the access road (Jara, 2013). 4. DISCUSSION In Costa Rica the use of caves for tourism purposes is a fairly recent activity It began in 1974, with the declaration of the Barra Honda hills ( Nicoya, Guanacaste) as a National Park, in order to protect the 50 caves discovered to that date. Even before this, some caves in different parts of the country were visited locally during holidays and

PAGE 56

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 54 special occasions. Around 1976 starts the offering of tours at the Venado Cave, in San Carlos of Alajuela and around 2002, Fossil Land Recreational Park' opens, in Quebrada Honda of Desamparados ( San Jos). Late in 2010, Grand Gallery Cave, in the southern zone of the country, joins the tourism offer. More recently, informal tours to Olla Quemada Cave (Save gre River San Jos ) began to be carried out, but without any special organization Other caves, like Damas Cave, in Parrita and Corredores Cave in the county of the same name ( Both in Puntarenas province ), are occasionally visited by tourists both forei gn and national but there is no operational structure. Therefore it can be said that although tourism is nowadays the largest source of national income the share corresponding to cave related tourism is quite low representing an almost negligible par t of the total. A comparison of Costa Rica's tourist caves is presented in table 2. Even though, in the aspect of 'using caves as a means of promoting tourism', the undertaking should come from the private sector, Grupo Espeleolgico Anthros (GEA) a non p rofit organization is visualizing the option of proposing to the proper government officials that several specific karst areas be declared as "protected land". This project, nevertheless, is in the preliminary stages. There is a special interest in protec ting the caves around Ciudad Neily, because there are some important karst systems, such as Quebrada Seca, Carma and La Bruja/Corredores, which have important springs. Presently, Carma cave is a source of drinking water and is under partial administration by the local municipality and the AYA (National Water Administration Institute). This area covers an extensive basin, where several large caves open and has a hydrological connection with the next 'proposed' area, which drains into the Corredores River: t he fault line segment where the Quebrada Seca area caves are located, such as Grand Gallery and Macameca. This project should also comprise the "Bruja / Rectngulo / Tururn / Corredores System" (Corredores county, southern part of the province of Puntaren as). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work couldn't have been properly accomplished without the dedicated assistance of fellow cavers Ferdinando Didonna, Gustavo Quesada and the totality of the associates of Grupo Espeleolgico Anthros (GEA), dedicated since 1996 t o the study of the caves & karst of Costa Rica and Central America. A special acknowledgment to Gustavo Quesada for compiling the information of table 1 Table 2 Comparison of characteristics of the studied caves. Data Gabinarraca Gran Galera Abismo Os curo Olla Quemada Terciopelo La Cuevita (Grotto) Visitors per guide 1 guide for up to 15 visitors. 1 guide for up to 10 visitors. 1 3 guides per group. 1 guide for up to 10 visitors. 1 guide for up to 10 visitors. 1 guide for up to 10 visitors. Artifici al light No No No No Yes Yes Safety gear Helmet, helmet fixed light and rubber boots Helmet and light. Helmet and a handheld flashlight. No gear at all is provided. Flashlight used to be loaned. Helmet, harness, belay rope & first aid kit (Carried by the Guide). Helmet & first aid kit (Carried by the Guide). Approx. number of visitors Presently: 500 by month. In 1996 97: 500 per week (Aprox.). N.A. 4600 persons p/ year (2012 data). 100 persons per year. 3600 visitors per year. Around 120 visitors pe r year. Tour duration 1 to 2 hours 45 minutes to 1 hour 25 minutes 2 hours 1 hour and 30 minutes 45 minutes Source Owners and experienced local guide. Local guide with experience. Fossil Land Adventure Park. Local guide with experience. National Park Adm inistrator National Park Administrator

PAGE 57

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 55 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES BUNDSCHUH, J.; BIRKLE, P.; FINCH, R.C.; DAY, M.J.; ROMERO, J.; PANIAGUA, S.; ALVARADO, G.E.; BHATTACHARAYA, P.; TIPPMANN, K.; CHAVES, D. Geology related tourism for sustainable develo pment. In: J. BUNDSCHUH; G.E. ALVARADO. Central America: Geology, Resources and Hazards: New York, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 2, p.1015 1098, 2007. CALVO, C. Las calizas nerticas de la vertiente Pacfica del norte de Costa Rica y sur de Nicaragua: pocas y sistemas asociados con la apertura y evolucin del margen convergente de la Amrica Central meridional. 1987. 165 p. Tesis (Licensiatura en geologa), Universidad de Costa Rica. CALVO, C.; BOLZ, A. La secuencia de Venado, un estuario Lagunar del Mioceno M edio, San Carlos, Costa Rica. Rev. Geolgica Amer. Central, 6: p. 1 24, 1987. CAMPOS, L.; ASTORGA, A. Gua Geoturstica del Nor oeste de Costa Rica. Univ. de Costa Rica (Versin digital), 2010. CASTILLO, R. Recursos minerales de Costa Rica, gnesis, distri bucin y potencial. Universidad de Costa Rica, 1997. 220 p. CAVERNAS GUAYAB. Conociendo las cavernas. CAVERNAS GUAYAB, 2013. Available in: < cavernasdelsur.ning.com >. Accessed in 01 jun. 2013. DENYER, P.; A LVARADO, G., Mapa Geolgico de Costa Rica. Escala 1:450 000. Librera Francesa S. A., 2007. DURANG O, O. Estudio espectrogrfico y geoqumico de los artefactos encontrados en las tumbas de los indios de Costa Rica: Informes, Dpto. Geologa, Minas y Petrleo N 7, 44p, 1961. ESCAPE VILLAS. Amazing Caves in Costa Rica Offer True Caving Experiences. ESCAPE VILLAS, 2013. Available in : < www.villascostarica.com/blog/2011/03/caving i n costa rica >. Accessed in 01 jun. 2013. FOSSILLAND. Fossilland Costa Rica: nature geology and adventure. FOSSILLAND, 2013. Available in: < www.fossillandcr.com >. Accessed in 03 jun. 2013. GEA. GRUPO ESPELEOL"G ICO ANTHROS. Plano de la cueva Terciopelo. San Jos, GEA, 2003. 1 plano. GEA. GRUPO ESPELEOL"GICO ANTHROS. Plano de la caverna Gabinarraca. San Jos, GEA, 2007. 1 plano. GEA. GRUPO ESPELEOL"GICO ANTHROS. Plano de la cueva de Damas. San Jos, GEA, 200 6. 1 plano. GEA. GRUPO ESPELEOL"GICO ANTHROS. Plano de la cueva Olla Quemada. San Jos, GEA, 2010. 1 plano. GEA. GRUPO ESPELEOL"GICO ANTHROS. Plano de la cueva Abismo Oscuro. San Jos, GEA, 2010. 1 plano. GILLI, E., DELANGE, P., & LARRE, P. Reconnai ssance sur la Neotectonique dans les Karsts du Costa Rica. GOICOECHEA, C.; QUESADA, G.; ULLOA, A. Evolution of speleology in Costa Rica. 15 th International Congress of Speleology. Kerville, Texas, US A. 3: 1985., 2009. HAPKA R., BRASEY J., GOICOECHEA C. & JEANIN P. I.: Explorations dans le Karst Tropicaux du Costa Rica. Cavernes 1, SSS, Suiza, 1992.

PAGE 58

Ulloa & Goic oechea G eotourism potential of underground sites in Costa Rica Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 56 INBIO. Conservacin in situ: reas silvestres protegidas. INBIO, 2013. Available in: < www.inbio.ac.cr/es/biod/estrategia/Paginas/esfuerzos_conservar01.html > Accessed in 01 jun. 2013. JARA, J.D. Adntrese en los laberintos de Topolndia. PEREZ ZELED"N, 2013. Availab le in: < www.perezzeledon.net/1428/adentrese en los laberintos de topolandia >. Accessed in 01 jun. 2013. LA NACI"N. Turismo de Costa Rica alcanza indicadores que ten a antes de la crisis mundial del 2009. Available in: < www.nacion.com/2013 04 09/Economia/turismo de costa rica alcanza indicadores que tenia antes de la crisis mundial del 2009.aspx > Accessed in 03 jun. 2013. MALAVASSI, E. Some Costa Rican larger foraminiferal localities. J. Paleont. 35: 498 501, 1961. MALAVASSI, V.E. & MADRIGAL, R. Reconocimiento geolgi co de la Zona Norte de Costa Rica. Inf. Tec. y Notas Geol. (38): San Jos, Costa Rica. 1970. 1 18 p. MORA CASTRO, S. Barra Honda. Editorial UNED, 1981. 29 p. NSS (NATIONAL SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY): Caves & Karst of the Barra Honda National. Park, Costa Rica. NSS, 1989. OBANDO, L. G., Estratigrafa de la Formacin Venado y rocas sobreyacientes (Mioceno Reciente) Prov. de Alajuela, Costa Rica. Rev. Geol. Amer. Central 5. 1986. 73 104 p. PEACOCK, N.; HEMPEL, J. Studies in the rio Corredores basin. NSS journal o f caves and karst, 55: 5 31. 1993. QUESADA, G., Baldizn, I., PORRAS, J.J., GRANT, I., LE"N, S., VILLALOBOS, J. Estudio de Capacidad de Carga para la Caverna Terciopelo en el Parque Nacional Barra Honda. San Jos: Grupo Espeleolgico Anthros, 2006. 43 p. THE COSTA RICA ONLINE. Trek Cuenca del Savegre. THE COSTA RICA ONLINE, 2013. Available in: < thecostaricaonline.com/en/nuestras rutas/turismo rural/trek cu enca del savegre >. A ccessed in 01 jun. 2013. ULLOA, F., Historia minera de Costa Rica: Informe interno, Direccin de geologa Minas y Petrleo, 1979, 50 p. ULLOA, A. Caves of Costa Rica (Central America) and their geologic origin. 15th International Cong ress of Speleology. Kerrville, Texas, USA. 3:1930 1935, 2009. ULLOA, A., AGUILAR, T., GOICOECHEA C. & RAMREZ R. Descripcin, clasificacin y aspectos geolgicos de las zonas krsticas de Costa Rica. Revista Geolgica de Amrica Central, 45: p. 53 74, 2011 WELLS, S. Geological Reconaissance of the Barra Honda Karst. Department of geology, University of Cincinnati, USA, 1974, 29 p. Editorial flow / Fluxo editorial : Received / Recebido em: 19 ma y .2013 Accepted / Aprovado em: 27 se p .2013 TOURISM AND KARST AREAS ( formely /formalmente: Pesquisas em Turismo e Paisagens Crsticas) Brazilian Speleological Society / Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia (SBE) www.cavernas.org.br/turismo.asp

PAGE 59

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 57 CONSUMER BASED CAVE TRAVEL AND TOURISM MARKET CHARACTERISTICS IN WEST JAVA, INDONESIA CARACTERSTICAS DO MERCADO CONSUMIDOR DE ESPELEOTURISMO EM WEST JAVA, INDONSIA Eva Rachmawati & Arzyana Sunkar Department of Forest Resources Conservation & Ecotourism Faculty of Forestry Bogor Agricultural University Bogor, Indonesia E mail : evarachmawati@gmail.com ; arzyana@yahoo.com Abstract Caves as destinations for geotou rism, were some of the first documented geologic features that had become the object of tourism. While cave tourism development in Indonesia is still in its infancy, in line with the increasing popularity of geotourism and ecotourism, it has great prospect s. The main objective of this study was to identify the current consumer based market conditions for cave travel and tourism in West Java of Indonesia focussing on the motives and the characteristics of the visitors that include geographic, socio demograph ic, behavioural, and psychographic characteristics. The sample population comprised visitors who have visited caves within the Districts of Tasikmalaya and Ciamis where most of caves in West Java were on three main motivations, specifically recreation, adventure seeking and religious purposes. Results of the study indicated that cave visitors of West Java were basically called visitors since none spent overnight at the site. They mostly originated from districts and cities that were in proximity to the caves, unmarried youth to young adult males with monthly income of less than USD 100, whom enjoyed travelling with friends, and showed great interests for intellectual benefits of caves. The caves were mo stly visited during holidays, and only the adventure seeking and cultural cave visitors stayed for more than 3 hours. The visitors had limited knowledge of the caves, although their intellectual needs proved to be the main contribution to visit caves Key Words : C ave travel ; C ave tourism ; C ave visitors ; M arket segments Resumo Cavernas esto entre as primeiras feies geolgicas documentadas como atrativos para o geoturismo. O espeleoturismo na Indonsia ainda est em seu estgio inicial, alinhado com a cr escente popularidade do geoturismo e ecoturismo, trazendo grandes perspectivas. O principal objetivo deste estudo foi identificar as condies atuais de mercado baseadas em consumo, para viagens de espeleoturismo em West Java da Indonsia, centrado sobre o s motivos e as caractersticas dos visitantes (scio demogrficas, comportamentais e psicogrficas geogrficas). A amostra foi composta de visitantes que visitaram cavernas dentro dos Distritos de Tasikmalaya e Ciamis, onde a maioria das cavernas em West J ava esto localizadas. Caractersticas dos visitantes foram agrupadas com base em trs motivaes principais, especificamente recreao, busca de aventura e fins religiosos. Os resultados do estudo indicaram que os espeleoturistas de Java Ocidental so, ba sicamente, excursionistas, uma vez que no pernoitam no local. A maioria deles proveniente de distritos e cidades que esto na proximidade das cavernas, sendo jovens solteiros e jovens adultos do sexo masculino, com renda mensal de menos de US$ 100, que gostam de viajar com os amigos, e mostraram grande interesse em obter conhecimentos sobre o ambiente das cavernas. As cavernas foram mais visitadas durante as frias, e s os visitantes de aventura e com interesses na cultura permaneceram por mais de 3 hor as. Os visitantes possuam conhecimento limitado das cavernas, e suas necessidades de busca de conhecimentos foram compreendidas como a principal motivao para o espeleoturismo Palavras Chave : Viagens em cavernas ; E speleoturismo ; E speleoturistas ; S egment os de mercado 1. INTRODUCTION Geotourism is defined by Newsome; Dowling a form of natural area tourism that specifically focuses on geology and landscape. It promotes tourism to geosites and the conservation of geo diversity and understanding of earth sciences through appreciation Cave is a significant component of

PAGE 60

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 58 geodiversity (Gray, 2004) and is one of the first documented geologic feature that has become the object of tourism (Forti, 2011). In fact, some authors consider that visiting show caves is the oldest form of geotourism (Bourne et al., 2008). Various articles on cave tourism have already been written with much emphasis on the environmental impacts of tourism in caves such as by Cigna (1993) Huppert et al. (1993), Cigna; Burri (2000) and Aley (2004). To date, there have been few studies that focus on cave visitors. Yet, consumer plays important roles in tourism planning and marketing activities. One known study of cave tourists was conducted by Kim et al. (2008) in Hwansun Cave of South Korea where they found that cave tourism has gained popularity in recent years. Cave is a special feature within a landscape use in tourism and human rec reation, thus form the Of all the different karst types, tropical karst forms are the most distinctive and these are widespread in Southeast Asian countries including Indonesia. Co nsidering that karst is well developed in tropical region, Indonesia apparently has huge potential to develop cave tourism. Development of cave tourism in Indonesia is still in its infancy although Indonesian caves have long association with spiritual huma n activities such as through the findings of many cave paintings and current uses of caves as holy places for the pilgrims. With the rising of current tourism trend from mass tourism concept to quality tourism concept, caves offer attractions to be develop ed for recreation tourism as well as special interest tourism. Unfortunately, it is evident that many people do not respond well and give negative feedback such as that caves is a place of darkness, wet, often muddy, smelly and full of creepy animals. Thes e images often pull the people away from visiting caves. Pull factors in recreation area, are attributes of an area that reflect an individual to stay away from the recreational area (Mohamed; Othman, 2012). Um; Crompton (1990) concluded that image and a ttitude dimensions of a place are very critical in making up a destination choice. In similar line, Lancaster (1966) suggests that consumers are rather influenced by their perceptions in choosing goods. Place attachment is an important indication of touris affective identification and dependence toward a destination (Cheng et al., 2012). Place is therefore one of the most important key element in tourism marketing A place of interest can be developed into a tourist destination that attracts people with specific characteristics. Hence, understanding the needs and wants of visitors is the starting point for tourism marketing. However, there is heterogeneity in the purchasing patterns of the consumer living in urban, semi urban, and rural areas that place importance on market segments (Kasali, 2005). It is therefore central to identify markets characteristics based on visitors motivations. Such market characteristics will provide references for the promotion and marketing of cave tourism, as it is one of th e main problems in the development of geotourism in Indonesia ( Kemenbudpar, 2010). 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Area of Study and Study Population Karst areas in Java Indonesia are densely populated and threatened by limestone conversion and many other human activities. G eotourism is seen as an alternative means of reducing negative impacts on these karst landscapes. The Indonesian karst classification based on the Ministerial Decree of Energy and Mining Resources No. 1456 of 2000 on Karst Management Guidelines, has classi fied karst into three classes, namely Class I, II and III: 1. Class I karst area is intended for conservation where mining is absolutely prohibited. Class I karst areas can only be used for (1) the development of ecotourism based on nature, ecosystems, and or culture, (2) research and development of science and (3) development of water resources that are not for commercial use. 2. Class II karst areas can be mined under strict conditions. Class II karst areas can be used as an area for (1) the development of ecotourism based on nature, ecosystems, and or culture, (2) research and development of science, (3) development of water resources, (4) development of agriculture and animal husbandry on a limited basis; and (5) excavation and mining under a very strict c onditions. 3. Class III karst area can be used for the activities referred to the other two classes above and may also be used for other activities. Only the Class III karst areas can be mined. This study is focused on karst regions in West Java of Indonesia West Java karst areas are distributed in 11 districts where Tasikmalaya and Ciamis are the districts with the largest karst coverage as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 also indicates that the two districts were mostly comprised of Class I karst regions, whi ch placed significant importance on the development of cave tourism especially for conservation purposes.

PAGE 61

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 59 Therefore, the two districts formed the locations of the study. Both developed and undeveloped caves in both districts were visited 2.2 Data Collection The research is descriptive and explorative. The descriptive character of the research is a consequence of trying to gain insight into cave visitors market demand based on similar characteristics. The research also has an explorative character because it needs and motivations to conduct cave tourism. These characteristics were shown as variables comprising data collected for this research (Table 1). Data were collected from September December 2012. 2.3 Survey sample One method that can be used to classify and acquire tourist demand segmentation is a priori segmentation method In a priori segmentation, the type and number of segments is determined prior to data collection (Wind, 1978 in Kazbare et al., 2010). Setiadi (2003) stat es that a priori segmentation is important to be conducted when we want to throw a product into the market while there is no similar product in the market that can be used as a reference in designing marketing program. Fig. 1 Distribution of Karst Are as in the Province of West Java and Location of Study Table 1 Data Collected and Methods No. Parameters Variables Data collection method/technique 1 demographic characteristics Origin, age, gender, education, occupation, income and mari tal status Questionnaire 2 Preferences and pattern of visits Purpose of visit, benefits sought, activities, travel companions, expenditures, time, duration and type of visits. Questionnaire 3 satisfaction, and expectation Percept ions about caves, cave tourism, satisfaction, willingness to revisit, and expectations Questionnaire 4 Use of caves Caves for pilgrims, caves with religious historical values, show caves Literature study, interview

PAGE 62

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 60 A priori segmentation approach in thi s study was used to identify cave visitors segments. Market segmentation is the process by which people with similar needs, demands and characteristics are grouped together to provide greater precision in serving and communication with its chosen consumer. Based on a research by Prastiwi (2012), it West Java were based on recreation, adventure and religious purposes. Unlike other research on cave tourism which very often resulted in the cluster or typology of visitors/tourists such as that of Kim et al. (2008), this research started by taking the already existed typology (clustering) by Prastiwi (2012) and look into the visitors characteristics within each cluster. Therefore, the visitors were divided into t hree segments, namely for the purpose of recreation, religion and adventure. These would be termed recreation, cultural and adventure seeker cave visitors. The survey design involved a cluster sampling method. The respondents for this research comprised of cave visitors within the Districts of Tasikmalaya and Ciamis that visited the developed and undeveloped caves. Developed/show caves were selected through literature reviews on caves that have met the requirements of a developed site, i.e ., have managers ticketing and built facilities. The developed caves were then divided into caves with mass tourism and caves with religious historical values. The undeveloped caves, on the other hand, were selected based on direct interviews with the Caving Communities within the two districts. Caves used as pilgrimage sites were not considered as part of this research, since the presence of researcher would be regarded as disturbance to the pilgrims. Within each cluster, 30 respondents were selected randomly. To evaluat e personal characteristics of the visitors and to find out their motives of visiting caves, questionnaires were used. The questionnaire had three separate parts, of which the first is designed to evaluate the socio demographic characteristics of the cave v isitors. The second part behavio u r and the thir d part was design to evaluate the perceptions and attitudes toward cave and cave tourism (Table 1). 2.4 Data P rocessing and Analysis The next step was to process and analyze data through the following steps: 1. Editing examines the collected raw data for their accuracy. The completed questionnaire is checked for overall accuracy, completeness and general usability; 2. C oding were given in field notes, observations, and data from documentation and answers given by the respondents, to categorized data under broad headings; 3. Tabulating, this is the stage of entering data on certain tables and arrange the figures to be easily analyzed. It is simply counting the number of responses in various data categories. The analysis used in this research is descriptive qualitative analysis to describe the characteristics of the visitors in question and using a priori segmentation approach for segmenting visitors based on purpose of visits. Qualitative analysis in this study is used to analyze the data obtained from the results of the questionnaire. This analysis is expected to provide an overview of the characteristics of the actual demand for cave tourism as well as the management of cave tourism objects. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Cave Tourism Market Segments A considerable amount of literature has been published on tourist motivation in recent decades and it is ubiquitous in tourism stud ies (Singh, 2008). However, it is apparent that previous tourism studies pay scant attention to the issue of why people travel to certain geosites. Yet, literature reviews revealed that motivation theories and studies play a vital role in developing differ ent types of tourism demand. Without motivation in tourism, demand will not exist (Sharpley, 2006). (1943 ) motivation is the driving force behind all behaviour and in tourism it is reflected in both travel choice an expectations which in turn determine the perception of experiences. Motivation is therefore a factor in satisfaction formation (Gnoth, 1997). In the case of cave tourism, motivations were affected by the needs that one p et al. (2006), people visit caves out of aesthetic emotional, recreational, educative and sometimes medical reasons, whereas Prastiwi (2012) concluded that cave visitors comprised of recreational, cultural and adventure seeker cave visitors. Based on motivation factors, Kim et al. (2008) clustered cave tourists in Hwansun Cave of South Korea as those seeking escape, knowledge, novelty or socialization.

PAGE 63

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 61 Visitors can be split into groups based on the place of origin, whic h arguably represents the most common market approach in tourism and socio demographic variables where a destination may attract people with specific socio demographic characteristics (Dolnicar; Kemp, 2009). Overall, the socio demographic characteristics o f cave visitors in West Java are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Socio demographic Characteristics of Cave Visitors in West Java No. Variables R C A Total R % C % A % Total% N = 30 N = 30 N = 30 N = 90 1 Age Group 12 18 0 1 10 13 0 3 33 12 19 21 10 1 10 39 33 3 33 23 22 35 20 11 10 11 67 37 33 46 36 59 0 17 0 7 0 57 0 19 2 Gender Women 16 13 3 32 53 43 10 36 Men 14 17 27 58 47 57 90 64 3 Origin City of Tasikmalaya 0 1 23 24 0 3 77 27 Ciamis 2 11 0 13 7 37 0 14 City of Banjar 2 16 0 18 7 53 0 20 Garut 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 Bandung 19 0 5 24 63 0 17 27 Cimahi 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 Sumedang 1 0 1 2 3 0 3 2 Kuningan 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 Jakarta 2 2 0 4 7 7 0 4 Tangerang 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 Jogjakarta 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 4 Education Elementary 1 2 0 3 3 7 0 3 Junior high school 1 7 1 9 3 23 3 10 High school 20 11 17 48 67 37 57 53 University 8 10 12 30 27 33 40 33 5 Occupation Students 26 1 21 48 87 3 70 53 Private 0 3 4 7 0 10 13 8 Self employed 3 4 5 12 10 13 17 13 Civil servants 1 11 0 12 3 37 0 13 Housewives 0 7 0 7 0 23 0 8 Farmers 0 2 0 2 0 7 0 2 Others 0 2 0 2 0 7 0 2 6 Monthly income < USD 100 27 10 22 59 90 33 73 66 USD 100 USD 200 2 8 4 14 7 27 13 16 USD 201 USD 500 1 12 4 17 3 40 13 19 7 Marital Status Unmarried 27 6 29 62 90 20 97 69 Married with no children 2 2 0 4 7 7 0 4 Married with children 1 21 1 23 3 70 3 26 Single mother 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 Note : R = recreat ion; C = cultural; A = adventure

PAGE 64

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 62 3.1.1. Geographic variable 3.1.1.1. Place of origin Visitors to the caves were originated from various cities and provinces (Table 2); to be specific from 11 cities and districts in 4 different provinces, namely Tangerang, Jakarta, West Java (Kuningan, Sumedang, Cimahi, Bandung, Garut, city of Banjar, Ciamis, city of Tasikmalaya) and Jogjakarta. Table 2 indicated that most of the visitors seeking adventure seeker originated from the City of Tasikmalaya. These adventure cave visitors wer e generally associated with caving community who deliberately came to look for challenges. This was due to the existence of Caver Community based in the City of Tasikmalaya who spent their leisure time by conducting challenging activities in the caves and outreach and caving training programmes. Another category of cave visitors were those with religious purposes who were dominated by those originated from Eastern Priangan Region (Ciamis, Tasikmalaya City a nd Banjar) apart from Jakarta. The Eastern Priangan communities were very well known as religious communities. Within the District and City of Tasikmalaya itself, as m any as 853 religious boarding schools were established within the region with hundreds of thousands of students (Tamam, 2009). The proximity of this region to the locations of the caves also resulted in less travel time hence did not require much effort and expenses to be incurred. This is in line with the statement by Widyaningrum (2010) that prospective visitor domicile and accessibility to a destination site would determine the hustle and frequency of visits to such sites. Unlike the previous two types of special interest visitors, the number of visits for cave visitors with recreational p urposes was dominated by cave visitors originated from Bandung. Bandung is the biggest metropolitan city in West Java with a density of 14,255 people per km 2 The high population density has been the push factors to conduct recreational activities away fro m the hustle of a crowded city. Push factors according to Mohamed; Othman (2012) are associated with visitors and their environments that predispose the individual to visit a recreational area. The caves that were mostly visited by such mass visitors are m ostly located on natural surroundings, quiet, unpolluted and scenic surrounding, hence able to provide refreshing atmosphere for those who wanted relief from everyday stress. 3.1.2. Socio demographic variables Demographic segmentation consists of dividing the market into groups based on demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status, education level, employment status and income. Whereas geographic segmentation looks at where people from, demographics looks at a number of aspects of who people were. Demographic variables are important to market segmentation for hospitality marketing (Aks z, 2013). 3.1.2.1. Age Group 59 years old which could be classified into youths (12 18), young adults (19 21), mature adults (22 35 ) and middle aged adults (36 59) (Table 2). Youth to young adults dominated cave visitors with recreational purposes and middle aged adults dominated cave visitors with cultural purposes, while no specific age group seemed to dominate visitors with adventu re seeking purpose, although Table 2 suggested that none of the middle aged visitors visited caves for adventure seeking purposes. Nurchasanah (2005) mentions that age indirectly effected the decision for recreation. Furthermore, Sumarwan (2004) states t hat various age structures will result in various forms of products or services they consumed. If the middle aged visitors chose cave tourism for cultural purposes to satisfy their spiritual needs, the young to mature adults were more likely to visit caves for recreational purposes and adventure seeking to relieve boredom and escape from daily work days loads. 3.1.2.2. Gender Cave visitors were predominantly males (58%). The cultural and adventure seeking cave visitors were dominated by male with 57% and 90% respec tively. On the contrary, cave visitors with recreational purposes was slightly dominated by female visitors (53%) (Table 2). Cave tourism for cultural and adventure purposes on the other hand is categorized as special interest tourism. It is a form of tr avel where visitors visited a place because he/she had an interest or a specific purpose toward an object or activity that could be conducted within the location or the destination (Kemenbudpar, 2004). In cave tourism for cultural purposes, visitors came s olely for the historical value that is attached to the caves and for

PAGE 65

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 63 worship. Caves for cultural purposes were often caves with certain historical and or religious values, such as the Safarwadi Cave, which around the 17th century AD, was the residence of S heikh Abdul Muhyi, a Muslim scholar and missionary who came from East Java. Cave visitors seeking adventures, generally came to experience challenging and adrenaline boosting activities in nature. Unlike the cultural cave tourism, adventure seeking cave to urism took place in caves with difficult level of terrain that required special skills and equipments to conduct exploration. Such exploration required the visitors to be able to move actively like climb, bend, crawl, creep, lying face down, lying face up, swim and even dive (Belantara Indonesia 2012). Hence, such type of cave tourism is more attractive to men who instinctively like to explore their masculinity such as adventure, competition, self actualization and challenging (Cohen, 1972). Cave tourism fo r recreational purpose is considered as a mass tourism, where visitors carried out activities during their leisure time. In a recreational activity, there was no specific goal to be achieved and mostly conducted just for fun (Kemenbudpar, 2004). This type of cave tourism did not require special skills or prime physical condition since generally the terrain is easy to be passed by various groups with a variety of age groups. Such activities very much related to female based activities as stated by Mehmetoglu (2007) who identifies that women preferred activities associated with pleasure seeking (entertainment and fun), non physical, and cultural. Therefore, composition of female visitors in cave tourism for recreational purposes was slightly higher than that o f male visitors. 3.1.2.3. Marital status Status is one of the factors affecting tourism demand because someone's status is closely linked to family responsibilities that determine the size of the income set aside for tourism activities. The greater the disposable income, the more likely a person will travel (Yoeti, 2008). The majority of recreational cave visitors (90%) and adventure cave visitors (97%) had unmarried status. On the contrary the majority of cultural cave visitors are married with children (Table 2). The cultural cave tourist often use family gatherings to visit caves having historical value, thus very often they travelled in with families. Recreational and adventure seeking cave tourism activities implied fun, self actualization and leisure pursuits, which were synonymous with unmarried status. In contrast, cave tourism for cultural purposes went beyond pleasure seeking that was more toward finding peace of mind and getting closer to the Creator. Results in Table 2 indicated that the absence of a husb and for a single mother formed the pull factor. This is in line with the research result by McCreedy et al. (1992) that showed the fact the absence of a husband delays travel for single mother and that they are not as well off as their married counterparts 3.1.2.4. Education The level of education of the cave visitors was relatively diverse as shown in Table 2 from elementary school to university. Majority of the cave visitors had high school (48) and university backgrounds (30%), followed by junior high (9%) and elementary school (3%). Visitors with junior high degree were housewives and farmers, while visitors with higher education degree were generally employees, both civilian and private. The adventure seeker cave visitors were dominated by visitors with hig her education background, such as high school and university. This was related to the fact that they belong to the caving community and that at these psychological development stages of age, high school (1 5 18) and university (19 21), they still like to be free. 3.1.2.5. Employment status The majority of cave visitors were students which formed as much as 48%. They dominated the recreational and adventure seeker visitors. Widyaningrum (2010) states that school and university students have longer leisure time, une mployed, nor have dependents, hence they would likely to choose natural areas which provide low cost tourism activities but something to bring out their self pride. Show caves in Indonesia basically offer relatively affordable ticket, for example in Pananj ung Pangandaran the entrance fee was only USD 7. Furthermore, most of the adventure caves were still unmanaged hence no admission fees were required. Consequently, many students chose recreational and adventure seeking cave tourism. Self employed and civil servants cave visitors formed the next segments based on percentage. The self employed had relatively free and flexible day jobs and working hours. Qomariah (2009) states that self employed visitors dominance is due to cost and leisure factors that encour age the desire to fill their

PAGE 66

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 64 spare time by conducting activities in nature. Whereas the civil servants proved to be mostly engaged with cultural cave tourism activities. Cultural cave visitors were dominated by civil servants and housewives (Table 2). They usually visited the caves with family, work colleagues and religious community gathering so that their activities were relaxing and provided peace of mind. As mentioned previously, the majority of cultural cave visitors were mature to middle age adults gr oups. At these age classes, a person's showed greater attention to religion and sometimes their interests and attentions towards the religion were based on personal and social needs. According to Deaton (2009), it is almost universal that the elderly and women are more religious, and they are more likely to be married, to have supportive families and friends. 3.1.2.6. Monthly income Monthly income was closely related to occupation. The monthly income for the visitors ranged from
PAGE 67

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 65 Table 3 Behavioral Characteristics of Cave Visitors in West Java No Variables R C A Total R % C % A % Total % N = 30 N = 30 N = 30 N = 90 1 Motivation Recreation 30 30 33 33 Culture 30 30 33 33 Adventure 30 30 33 33 2 Benefits Spiritual 0 3 0 3 0 10 0 3 Physical 7 2 2 11 23 7 7 12 Intellectual 22 24 26 72 73 80 87 80 Personal 1 0 2 3 3 0 7 3 Prestige 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 3 Activities Marv 0 2 2 4 0 7 7 4 Pray 0 11 0 11 0 37 0 12 Enjoying cave attractions 18 14 21 53 60 47 70 59 Wildlife watching 3 2 3 8 10 7 10 9 Photography 9 0 4 13 30 0 13 14 Others 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 4 Travel companions Friends 27 1 8 30 75 90 60 100 83 Families 3 12 0 15 10 40 0 17 5 Expenditures < USD 100 22 13 19 54 73 43 63 60 USD 100 USD 200 6 9 5 20 20 30 17 22 USD 201 USD 500 2 7 2 11 7 23 7 12 USD 501 Rp 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > USD 1.000 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 Abstain 0 0 4 4 0 0 13 4 6 Time of visit Long holidays 18 6 10 34 60 20 33 38 Weekend 1 13 12 26 3 43 40 29 Weekday 11 6 3 20 37 20 10 22 Others 0 5 5 10 0 17 17 11 7 Duration of visit < 1 hour 6 9 0 15 20 30 0 17 1 hour 5 3 3 11 17 10 10 12 2 hours 19 5 4 28 63 17 13 31 3 hours 0 2 10 12 0 7 33 13 > 3 hours 0 11 13 24 0 37 43 27 Overnight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Type of Visit First timer 21 19 7 47 70 63 23 52 Repeater 9 11 23 43 30 37 77 48 Note : R = recreation; C = cultural; A = adventure The majority of respondents felt that caves offered a high value and benefits experiences for them especially as places to observe and be close to nature (72%), relieve from stress (11 %), social space (3%), peaceful & quiet (3%), and prestige (1%) (Table 3). The visitors felt that their visits to the cave could improve their knowledge and provided insight into the history, condition, and culture of the places they visit. Spiritual bene fits were felt only by cultural cave visitors conducting religious activities while physical benefits were obtained the most by recreational cave visitors.

PAGE 68

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 66 3.1.3.4. Activities Cave seeing was the most common activity undertaken by the visitors (Table 3). Other a ctivities undertaken by the cave visitors, among others, include photography, cave fauna observation, worship, or simply marvel God's creation. The beauty and uniqueness of form, texture, and colour of the cave ornaments attracted the visitors. This has re sulted in the most activities conducted by visitors with recreational purpose. The beauty and uniqueness of cave ornaments were the main attractions for this type of cave visitors. Some caves had historical religious values, such as Safarwadi Cave that was instrumental in the spread of Islam in East Priangan. People believed that by visiting the caves, they will acquire blessings and intercession of the clergy who was instrumental in spreading Islam in East Priangan. Hence their activities in the cave focus ed more on worship, such as pray. Such activity was only conducted by the cultural cave visitors. On the contrary, none of the cultural cave visitors were into photography. 3.1.3.5. Time of visit Peak season in cave tourism in West Java occurred during holidays, especially long holidays such as school holidays. The volume of visits during the holidays reached up to 34%, while on weekend reached 26%, weekdays 20%, and other times 10%. Table 3 indicated that show caves were mostly visited during holidays and advent ure cave and religious cave were more crowded during weekends (Saturday Sunday). Recreational cave visitors were mainly students who generally had more free time in the holidays, resulted in many more visits during holidays. This is in line with the opinio n of Qomariah (2009) who states that school holidays were frequently used by the students to get together and do activities with their friends, while weekends were more widely used for family gatherings and recreation. So the short term weekend can be used to travel with friends or family. 3.1.3.6. Duration of trip Durations of cave trips were quite varied. The majority of recreational visitors spent 2 hours to enjoy caves, while the m ajority of adventure and cultural cave visitors spent over 3 hours in the caves ( Table 3). The length of time it takes the visitor to be in the cave is closely related to the activities carried out in the cave. Recreational cave visitors came to the area solely for fun. Visitors came to see the beauty and uniqueness of the scenery in the caves. Having satisfied with what they saw, they would immediately leave the area, forming relatively short visits. The cultural cave visitors were indeed deliberately came for worship. So the time of their visits were relatively much longer than visit ors who are just merely come for fun. The adventure visitors come to seek adventure and thrilling experiences in caves which were rarely explored by other visitors, thus spending more time than the recreational visitors. 3.1.3.7. Types of visit Based on their type of visits, the cave visitors could be classified as first timer and repeater. The proportion of first timers and repeaters were not so much different with 52% being first timers. Korah (1995) states that the frequency or pattern of visits to natural attra ctions is influenced by the quality of experience, taking the appeal and component facilities offered by a natural attraction. If visitors are satisfied, then the quality of the journey can be said to be good so they tend to want to come back to the attrac tion. Most of the adventure cave visitors were repeaters (Table 3). They came from caving clubs/associations that had an interest to spend free time by conducting challenging activities with friends. Such community is actively conducting outreach and train ing programs to the youth around the town of Tasikmalaya. Such activities led to many repeaters for adventure cave visitors. First timer among adventure cave visitors were usually a new member of the caver community who were still in junior high school Rec reation and religious pilgrim cave visitors were mainly first timers. They often came after hearing about the place from a friend or media. The cultural cave tourists often came back if they get satisfaction after first visits, such as obtaining calmness a nd inner peace. 3.1.4. Psychographic variables Psychographic segmentation divides the market into groups based in personality characteristics. It is based on the assumption that the types of products and brands an individual purchases will reflect that persons c haracteristics and patterns of living. Psychographic segmentation of the cave tourists in West Java (Table 4) focused on attitudes, values and beliefs of consumers.

PAGE 69

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 67 Table 4 Psychological Characteristics of Cave Visitors in West Java No. Variables R C A Total R % C % A % Total % N = 30 N = 30 N = 30 N = 90 1 Perception on caves 17 9 11 37 57 30 37 41 Dark 3 0 4 7 10 0 13 8 Scary and mysterious 0 10 0 10 0 33 0 11 Historical and scientific 3 5 4 12 10 17 13 13 Must be protected 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 2 Challenging 0 1 1 2 0 3 3 2 Attractive and unique 0 1 2 3 0 3 7 3 Place to socialize 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 Scenic and natural 7 4 5 16 23 13 17 18 2 Likes about cave 5 8 1 14 17 27 3 16 Cave ornaments 18 8 13 39 60 27 43 43 History & myth 3 2 0 5 10 7 0 6 Species 2 0 1 3 7 0 3 3 Cave atmosphere 2 5 2 9 7 17 7 10 Strengthen friendship 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 2 Able to see light again 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 2 Challenging 0 0 7 7 0 0 23 8 Darkness 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 2 Water dr oplets 0 7 0 7 0 23 0 8 3 Dislikes about caves None 10 3 10 23 33 10 33 26 Difficult access 0 1 1 2 0 3 3 2 Dark, humid and stuffy 3 7 2 12 10 23 7 13 Vandalism 0 0 3 3 0 0 10 3 Smelled 0 1 8 9 0 3 27 10 Slippery 0 9 1 10 0 30 3 11 Dirty and full of rubbish 4 4 2 10 13 13 7 11 Lack of facilities 3 0 0 3 10 0 0 3 Misuse of cave 2 3 0 5 7 10 0 6 Difficult passages 6 1 1 8 20 3 3 9 Others 2 1 2 5 7 3 7 6 Note : R = recreation; C = cultural; A = adventure 3.1.4.1. Motivational factors Visitors had extremely diverse opinions about caves from positive to negative perceptions. Positive perceptions include aesthetic, natural, historical, and sources of knowledge while negative perceptions include creepy, mystical, and dark. The recreationa l cave tourists thought of caves as beautiful and natural (23%), has historical value and are source of knowledge (10%). However, the majority of visitors (57%) could not reveal their perceptions, since they were mostly dominated by first timers. The cultu ral cave visitors had negative perceptions about caves, such as creepy and mysterious (33%). Such negative perception could arise from the guide's explanations that only convey the mystical side of the cave without giving scientific explanation of the proc ess of formation of the caves. Nevertheless, some other visitors had

PAGE 70

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 68 positive perception, which were related to historical and source of knowledge (17%) as well as aesthetic and naturalness (13%). Meanwhile, the majority of adventure seeking cave visitors (60%) had positive perceptions of the cave. Since they belong to caving community, they generally had acquired knowledge about the cave so that they no longer see the caves as a creepy and mysterious, but as a source of knowledge which required the caves t o be preserved. 3.1.4.2. Attitudes toward cave: likes and dislikes Visits to tourism sites would leave impressions for visitors, both positive and negative impressions. Positive impression arose because of the things that were considered interesting or liked by vi sitors (push factors). Whereas negative of things he/she did not like or felt discomfort from the area (pull factors). Although as many as 14% visitors could not relate their feelings towards caves, resu lts in Table 4 indicated that respondents had a great satisfaction towards the beauty of cave ornaments (39%) as well as influenced by the atmosphere in the cave (9%), water droplets (7%), and the challenges that exist (7%). It is clear that cave ornaments formed the main attraction of a cave. The micro condition of cave that is associated with water such as wet and water droplets had given some cooling and refreshing feeling, where in previous research, they are two psychological benefits of water that inf luence people to visit a recreational area (Chiesura, 2004 in Mohamed; Othman, 2012). Table 4 revealed that only the cultural cave tourists that liked the droplets of water, since water in the cave believed to give blessings to those who drink it. Furthe rmore, the sound of the droplets and movement of water have given soothing feeling for peace and quiet, related to the spiritual benefits that they sought. Likewise, only the adventure seeking cave visitors are the ones who liked the existing challenges an d the darkness of the caves. These were related to their background which were cavers and that the majority were males who had more interests and passions in the things that are adventurous and challenging. Things that have been the pull factors related to cave tourism were mostly related with the natural condition of caves such as darkness, humid and stuffy conditions in the caves (12%), slippery conditions in the cave (10%), area hygiene such as loads of garbage (10%), the smell of bat droppings (9%), etc (Table 4). What was interesting was the fact that out of all the dislikes that the respondents shown towards caves, a great majority said there was nothing to dislikes. Out of the expectation, Table 4 showed that the cultural cave visitors were the ones that mostly complaint about the conditions of the caves, that they were wet dark, hot, and stuffy (23%) and slippery (30%). Considering that caves are used for holy places and religious activities, it was expected that the cultural cave visitors were the o ne who should be able to accept the natural condition of the caves. However, at Safarwadi Cave, which is a cave with religious value, no visitor management efforts were implemented. Therefore, sometimes crowding occurred especially during holidays. Very of ten, these visitors travelled with families and within a group size that could not be called small, hence conditions inside the cave were always crowded resulted in stuffy feeling. On the contrary, the recreational cave tourists were the ones that least dissatisfied with the natural condition of the caves although mobility in the caves became their main interest as they were the ones that mostly disappointed with the difficult cave passages. Visitors felt disappointed that they must struggle down the narr ow and rocky passages. Whereas their motivation to visit the caves were basically to seek pleasures and eliminated physical fatigue due to daily routines. The adventure seeking cave visitors mostly did not like the smell of bat droppings and only they who showed great interest in preserving the cave, where out of all the cave visitors, only this type that were worried about vandalism found in the caves. This makes sense since this type of visitors was generally individuals who appreciate nature. Caving act ivities they performed were always based on caving ethics. Thus, they were not very fond of and against the destruction of cave ornaments (vandalism). 4. CONCLUSIONS This study provided insights into the consumer based variables that influenced choi ce for cave tourism in West Java of Indonesia. This research presents a framework for simultaneously evaluating multiple travel choices and empirically identifies factors that appear to influence visitors' decision to participate in cave tourism. Empirical results showed that upper income visitors did not select cave as a tourism destination, while proximity to the location of caves positively influenced the decision to participate in cave tourism. It can be concluded that the factors that influenced or pus hed the visitors to visit caves were

PAGE 71

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 69 associated with the cave elements related to attractiveness, microclimate and challenges. The values and benefits that the visitors sought such as peaceful and quietness, relieve from stress and get close to nature were also associated with their feeling of satisfaction. As for pull factors that influenced the satisfaction towards caves were clearly the unsafe and not well maintained surroundings which were giving negative impacts to the satisfaction. The visitors had limited knowledge of the caves as most were first timer suggesting they were mostly not interested to come back to the site although their intellectual needs proved to be the main contribution to visit caves. The caves were mostly visit ed during holidays, and only the adventure seeking and cultural cave visitors stayed for more than 3 hours. Results of the study indicated that cave visitors of West Java basically can only be called visitors since none spent overnight at the site. The cav e visitors were mostly originated from districts and cities that were in proximity to the caves, where they are mostly comprised of unmarried youth to young adult males with monthly income of less than USD 100, whom enjoyed travelling with friends, and sho wed great interests for intellectual benefits of caves. Such consumer based characteristic revealed that cave tourism in Indonesia is not well developed and still uninterested for many, since the majority of the visitors came from proximity areas. The regi onal government need to consider these study results to take cave tourism into a higher level that would attract other visitors and tourists from further areas. Care should also be taken with regard to the sensitivity nature of caves for recreational touri sm. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are due to the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture and Bogor Agricultural University who made this research possible by awarding this research with funding through competitive grants (DIPA IPB Number: 14/13.24.4?SPK PUS /IPB/2012 dated March 1, 2012. Our gratitude to all those who had assisted in this research especially the Cave Interest Group and Ecotourism Interest Group of the Forest Resources Conservation and Ecotourism Students Association. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFEREN CES AKSZ, E.O. The importance of behavioral segmentation variables in tourism consumer research: an < http://bildir i.anadolu.edu.tr/papers/bildirimakale/499_383i21.doc >. Accessed: 27 April. 2013. A LEY T. Tourist caves: algae and lampenflora. In: GUNN,J. (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science New York: Taylor and Francis Routledge, 2004. p. 733 734. BE LANTARA INDONESIA. Tentang susur goa. 2012. Available in: < http://www.belantaraindonesia.org/2010/09/tentang susur gua.html >. Accessed: 22 April 2012. N ; ; Management models and development of show caves as touris t destinations in Croatia. Acta Carsologica v.35, n.2, p.13 21 2006 BOURNE, S ; SPATE, A ; HAMILTON SMITH, E. PRO CEEDINGS OF THE FIRST GLOBAL CONFERENCE OF GEOTOURISM. 2008 p.97 102. CHENG, T ; WU, H.C ; HUANG, L The influence of place attachment on the relationship between destination attractiveness and environmentally responsible behavior for island tourism in Pen ghu, Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism v.21, n.8, p 1 22 2013. CIGNA, A.A Environmental management of tourist caves: the examples of grotto di castellana and grotto grande del vento, Italy. Enviromental G eology v.21, n.3 p. 173 180 1993. C IGNA, A .A ; BURRI, E. Development, management and economy of show caves. International Journal of Speleology v. 29, n.1, p.1 27, 2000. COHEN, E. Towards a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research v.39, n. 1 p.164 182, 1972.

PAGE 72

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 70 DEATON, A. Aging, religion and health. Princeton University, 2009. Available in: < http://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/Religion_and_Health_All_August09.pdf >. Accessed: 14 May 201 3. DOLNICAR, S; KEMP, B. Tourism segmentation by consumer based variables. In: KOZAK, M.; DECROP, S. (Eds). Handbook of Tourist Behavior: Theory & Practice New York: Routledge, 20 09. p.177 194. D OWLING, R ; NEWSOME, D. Geotourism a global activity. In: DOWLING, R.K.; NEWSOME, D. (Eds.) Global Geotourism Perspectives Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Limited, 2010. p.1 17 FORTI, P. Caves: the most important geotouristic features in the world. 3 rd international conference on geotourism. 2011. Available in: < http://www.gcthosting.com/mot/new_site/presentation/2%20Paolo%20forti%20Geoparchicarsi ci.pdf >. Accessed:17 April 2013. GNOTH, J Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of T ourism R esearch v.24, n.2 p. 283 304 1997. G RAY M. Geodiversity : Valuing and C onserving A biotic N ature. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 2004 434 p HAMM J.V. Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African American, Asian Development Psychology v.36, n.2, p.209 219, 2000. HUPPERT, G ; BURRI, E ; FORTI, P ; CIGNA A Effects of tourist development on caves and karst. Catena Supplement v.25, p. 251 268, 1993. KASALI, R. Membidik P asar Indonesia ( S eg m entasi, T argeting dan P ositioning) Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Umum, 2005. 645 p. KAZBARE, L; VAN TRIJP H.C.M; ESKIL DSEN, J.K.. A p riori and p ost h oc s egmentation in the d esign of h ealthy e ating c ampaigns. Journal of Marketing Communications v.16, n.1 2, p. 21 45 2010 KEMENBUDPAR KEMENTERIAN KEBUDAYA AN DAN PARIWISATA Kajian ilmiah pengembangan geowisata. Jakarta: Kemenbudpar, 2010. VI 3 p KEMENBUDPAR KEMENTERIAN KEBUDAYA AN DAN PARIWISATA. Peraturan Menteri Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata Nomor: KM.67 / UM.001 /MKP/ 2004 tentang Pedoman umum pengembangan pariwisata di pulau pulau kecil Jakarta: Republik of Indonesia, 2004. 27 p KIM, S.S ; KIM, M. ; PARK, J ; GUO, Y. segmentation of their behaviours. Asia Pacific J ournal of T ourism R esearch v.13, n. 3, p.299 318 2008 KORAH, L.H. Analisis belanja w isatawan dan pengaruhnya terhadap aktivitas ekonomi masyarakat (studi kasus Manado Minahasa) 1995. 1 08 p. Thesis (Master in Science) Institut Pertanian Bogor Universitas Sam Ratulangi. Manado. LANCASTER, K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of P olitical E conomy v.74 n.2, p 132 157 1966. MASLOW, A.H. A theory of human motivation. Classics in the history of psychology. 1943. Available in: < http://downloads.joomlacode.org/trackeritem/5/8/7/58799/AbrahamH.Maslow ATheoryOfHumanMotivation.pdf >. Accessed: 20 August 2013. Notes. 19 92. Available in: < http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne160/gtr_ne160_177.pdf >. Accessed: 14 May 2013.

PAGE 73

Rachmawati & Sunkar C onsumer based cave travel and tourism market... Campinas, SeTur/SBE. Tourism and Karst Areas 6 ( 1 ), 201 3 71 M EHMETOGLU ,M. Typologising n ature b ased t ourists by a ctivity t heoreti cal and p ractical i mplications. Tourism Management v.28,n.3 p. 651 660, 2007. recreational area. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences v.49, p 175 182 201 2. N URCHASANAH, S. Kajian b iofisik, w isatawan, dan m asyarakat di s ekitar l okawisata b aturaden Kabupaten Banyumas 2005 181 p. T h esis (Master in Science), I nstitut P ertanian B ogor Bogor PARTHANA, I.G.S. Studi peranan ekowisata terhadap pendapatan domesti k sekitar Kawasan Wisata Taman Nasional Bali Barat 1995 67 p. Thesis (Undergraduate in Forest Resources Conservation and Ecotouri s m ) Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University Bogor PRASTIWI, E.M. P ermintaan dan segmentasi pengunjung wisata goa di K abupaten C iamis dan T asikmalaya 2012. 132 p. Thesis (Undergraduate in Forest Resources Conservation and Ecotouri s m ) Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University Bogor QOMARIAH, L Pengembangan ekowisata berbasis masyarakat di Taman N asional Meru Betiri (Studi k asus Blok Rajegwesi SPTN I Sarongan) 2009 Thesis (Undergraduate in Forest Resources Conservation and Ecotouri s m ) Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University Bogor S ETIADI, N J. Perilaku K onsumen : K onsep dan I mplikasi Untuk S trategi dan P enelitian P emasaran. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group 2003. 438 p SHARPLEY, R. Travel and T ourism London: SAGE, 2006 240 p S INGH, L.K. Fundamental of T ourism a nd T ravel New Delhi: Isha Books 2008 358 p. S UMARWAN U. Perilaku K onsumen, T eori dan P enerapannya dalam P emasaran Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia 2004. 368 p TAMAM A M. Tasik a ntara s antri, g ay dan b abi. 2009. Available in: < http://asmat arabiyyatuna.blogspot.com/2009/05/tasik antara santri gay dan babi.html >. Accessed : 25 August 2012 UM, S ; CROMPTON, J.L. Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research v.17, n.3 p 432 448 1990. WIDYANIG RUM, A. Analisis persepsi dan segmentasi pengunjung terhadap kawasan wisata alam di Taman Nasional Gunung Gede Pangrango 2010 160 p. Thesis of Business Management Studies Program Graduate School) Bogor Agricultural University Bogor YOETI, O.A. Peren canaan S trategis P emasaran D aerah T ujuan W isata Jakarta: PT Pradnya Paramita, 2008. 209 p Editorial flow / Fluxo editorial : Received / Recebido em: 1 8 ma y .2013 Accepted / Aprovado em: 30 sep .2013 TOURISM AND KARST AREAS ( formely /formalmente: Pesquisas em Turismo e Paisagens Crsticas) Brazilian Speleological Society / Sociedade Brasileira de Espeleologia (SBE) www.cavernas.org.br/turismo.asp