1 s2.0 S2577444121000460 Main - 2

International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 509–525
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks

journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/
international-journal-of-geoheritage-and-parks/
Can innovative tourism benefit the local community: The analysis

about establishing a geopark in Abu Roash area, Cairo, Egypt
Kholoud M. AbdelMaksoud a,⁎, Mahmoud Emam b, Wael Al Metwaly c, Farouk Sayed d, John Berry e
a
Natural Resources department, Faculty of African postgraduate Studies, Cairo University, Egypt
b
History department, Faculty of African postgraduate Studies, Cairo University, Egypt
c
Geography department, Faculty of African postgraduate Studies, Cairo University, Egypt
d
Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt
e
John Berry Associates 0: (512) 452-8068, Texas, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Egypt, one of the “cradles of civilization”, boasts a history spanning thousands of years, and a
Received 10 June 2021 richness of archaeological and geosites, unmatched by many other countries in the world.
Received in revised form 9 October 2021 Abu Roash is located within Greater Cairo, 9 km north of the Great Pyramids of Giza. In the
Accepted 21 November 2021
present work worked out to establish a Geopark in the studied area, the main question of
Available online 1 December 2021
the study is can the area be a Geopark with local community support? A detailed field work
was done in the study and enables the authors to put a detailed map for the future Geopark
Keywords: could be established in the area, The study also attempted, by means of a questionnaire, to as-
Geopark
sess the knowledge and attitudes of different stakeholders with regards to the geoheritage and
Geosites
the establishment of a geopark. The data compiled were intended to help formulate a strategy
Geoheritage
Archaeological sites towards the design and promotion of what would be the first geopark in metropolitan Cairo.
Geotourism We believe that this geopark would offer geoeducational opportunities to the scientific com-
Abu Roash munity and to the general public at large, and would help expand geotourism in Egypt. Geo-
tourism in Abu Roash can easily be coupled with tours of ancient Egyptian sites in the same
area. This would provide significant economic benefits to residents of Abu Roash City.
© 2021 Beijing Normal University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi
Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Geotourism is a relatively recent concept (Table 1) in which travellers get the opportunity to learn about Earth's natural resources
and ways of preserving them. According to the definition of the National Geographic Society, geotourists are well-educated travellers
who travel in order to increase their knowledge of geological, cultural and natural sciences (Allan, 2013). In the case of a metropolitan
geopark such as Abu Roash, the term “geotourist” should be taken to include all the schoolchildren and university students who will
use this site as part of their curriculum, and the site should be developed with this use perhaps uppermost in mind (Fig. 1.)
Ideally, geotourism should incorporate principles of sustainability. UNESCO has stated that “national geopark initiatives which
seek UNESCO's assistance should [set out to] integrate the preservation of significant examples of geological heritage in a strategy
⁎ Corresponding author at: Cairo university street, Cairo university, Faculty of African postgraduate studies, Natural resources department, Giza, Cairo, Egypt.
E-mail addresses: kholoud.mali@staff.edu.cu.eg (K.M. AbdelMaksoud), mahmoud.emam@cu.edu.eg (M. Emam), almetwaly@cu.edu.eg (W. Al Metwaly),
fsm00@fayoum.edu.eg (F. Sayed).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.11.009
2577-4441/© 2021 Beijing Normal University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K.M. AbdelMaksoud, M. Emam, W. Al Metwaly et al. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 509–525
Table 1
Definitions of concepts surrounding geotourism (Lazzari & Aloia, 2014).
Concept Definition (provisional) References
Geoheritage Geologic features with significant scientific, educational, cultural, or http://www.geo.mtu.edu/KeweenawGeoheritage/

aesthetic value. KeweenawGeoheritage/What.html
Geosite Areas with textbook geologic features and landscapes, distinctive rock http://www.geo.mtu.edu/KeweenawGeoheritage/
or mineral types, unique or unusual fossils, or other geologic KeweenawGeoheritage/What.html
characteristics thatare significant to education and research.
Geotourism Tourism that sustains or enhances the distinctive geographical character https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maps/geotourism/
of a place: its environment, heritage, aesthetics, culture, and the
well-being of its residents.
Geopark Single, unified geographical areas where sites and landscapes of http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/
international geological significance are managed with a holistic environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/
concept of protection, education and sustainable development. frequently-asked-questions/what-is-a-unesco-global-geopark/
Geodiversity “the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/
geomorphological (landforms, topography, physical processes), soil and obo-9780199363445/obo-9780199363445-0022.xml
hydrological features. It includes their assemblages, structures, systems
and contributions to landscapes” (Gray, 2013, p.12).
Geo-conservation Maintainance of the diversity of geological, geomorphological and soil Sharples, Chris, 1995. Geoconserv-ation in forest
features, systems and processes. management-principles and procedures. Tasforests Vol. 7, p.37
Geo-value The assessed scientific and cultural value, in monetary terms or in
comparison to other sites, of a Geosite
Fig. 1. (a) Chalky limestone.

(b) titled beds with variation in litho- structure.
510
Fig. 1 (continued).
for regional sustainable socio-economic and cultural development, safeguarding the environment”. The protection and sustainable
development of geological heritage and geodiversity through geopark initiatives should contribute to the fulfillment of the objec-
tives of the Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the Twenty-First Century, also known as Agenda 21, which was
adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, Rio de Janeiro, 1992) and which was
reaffirmed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa. The Geoparks Initiative adds
a new dimension to the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage by highlighting the potential
for interaction between socio-economic and cultural development and conservation of the natural environment.
To help promote the many aforementioned objectives, UNESCO has increased its support of the funding of geoparks in Europe.
In 2001, it formally established a partnership with the European Geoparks Network (EGN). As a result, the EGN now coordinates
membership of the Global Geoparks Network (GGN) within Europe. UNESCO recommends the creation of related regional net-
works that would reflect local conditions elsewhere in the world. Networking among geoparks is an important component of
the GGN. UNESCO encourages many forms of cooperation, especially in the fields of education, management, tourism, sustainable
development, and regional planning among GGN members.
Despite the richness and diversity of the geological and geomorphic resources in Africa and the Middle East, few studies have
so far actually investigated the different dimensions of geoheritage, geodiversity and geotourism in these regions. A Geoheritage
Inventory for Africa and the Middle East is currently underway, but is still in its early stages (Errami et al., 2013).
511
In order to improve the situation regarding geoheritage in both Africa and the Middle East, the African Association of Women
in Geosciences (AAWG) created the African Geoparks Network (AGN) during the preparatory meeting of its fifth conference en-
titled “Women and Geosciences for Peace” held in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire (the Ivory Coast) in May 2009 (Errami, 2009, 2013).
Geoparks help increase the visitor's knowledge of geology and have helped improve local economies as well. They, in essence,
act as outdoor museums of natural history (Farsani, Coelho, Costa, & Amrikazemi, 2014). Some guidebooks currently describe Abu
Roash as “one of the oldest archaeological sites that is rarely ever visited because there is really not very much to see”(Travel
Egypt, 2020). We aimed through our work to explore both the geological and archaeological significance of this site and to deter-
mine how to alter these misconceptions regarding its ‘geotouristic’ potential.
1.2. The geological importance of the Abu Roash area
In NE Egypt the upper Cretaceous rocks lie on highly deformed and subsequently eroded Neoproterozoic basement, which was
extended during Tethyan Rifting by NE-SW and ENE-WSW normal faulting that led to the formation of extensional basins elon-
gated in those directions (Moustafa, 2019). From mid-Cretaceous time through Early Tertiary time extension continued but was
oriented NW-SE. It was during this interval that sedimentation began in Abu Roash.
The exposed lithostratigraphic sequence of the Abu Roash area includes Cretaceous, Eocene, Oligocene, and Quaternary rock
units. The area lies within the western end of the Syrian Arc foldbelt, which extends from northern Egypt to Syria (Abdel
Khalek, El Sharkawi, Darwish, Hagras, & Sehim, 1989; Krenkel, 1924). Compression began in Santonian time and continued
until Miocene time, and thus overlaps much of the interval during which the rocks outcropping in Abu Roash were deposited.
(Abdel-Gawad, Saber, El Shazly, & Salama, 2011; Abu Khadrah, Helba, Abdel-Gawad and Badawy, 2005; Barettino, Wimbledon,
& Gallego, 2000; Bruno et al., 2014). (Fig. 2 andbd2). Most folds within the Geopark area are thought to be of late Cretaceous
to early Eocene age, and the folding resulted in a pre-Middle Eocene unconformity. The orientations of fold-associated faults
show that the long axis of the stress ellipse was oriented NE-SW, as shown in the strain ellipse (Fig. 3). In the Abu Roash area
a series of anticlines and synclines are clearly recognisable. The folds range from 100 m to 0.5 km in width, and from 300 m
to 2.5 km in length. They are cut by longitudinal and reverse faults (Panizza & Piacente, 1993). Some folds are open and form
Fig. 2. (a) Overturned syncline fold.
512
Fig. 2 (b) Overturned syncline fold.
symmetrical structures, whereas others are rather complicated. In addition to the folds, there are domal structures (the El-Hassan
and the El Ghigiga domes) (Fig. 3). Some of these were drilled for petroleum and none was found (Abu Khadrah, Helba, Abdel-
Gawad and Badawy, 2005). The rocks above the early Eocene unconformity are not affected by the folding, and thus the later part
of the regional Syrian Arc event is not seen at Abu Roash.
In the present work the authors tried to establish a Geopark in the study area, the main question of the study is can the area
be a Geopark with local community support?
The detailed field work for the study enables the authors to put a detailed map for the future Geopark established in the area,
also the questioner done with different stakeholders answers the main question of the study.
1.3. The archaeological importance of the Abu Roash area
Abu Roash is the northernmost part of the Memphite Necropolis region, about 9 km north of the Giza Plateau (Wilkinson,
2000). Many important archaeological finds have been made here, including the oldest Egyptian funerary boats, Old Kingdom
elite tombs, and the pyramid complexes of Djedefre, and Deir Nayha. Abu Roash is located in the middle of an area that houses
relics from the Early Dynastic period (c. 3000–2686 BCE), and from the Roman and Coptic Christian (30 BCE-395 CE) periods of
Egyptian history.
1.3.1. Oldest Egyptian funerary boat

Yann Tristant, professor of archaeology at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, directed an excavation team at the elite
cemeteries of Abu Roash, where the French Egyptologist Pierre Montet had noticed a wooden floor in 1914 (Fig. 4). Tristant's
work led him to a pit bounded by brick walls that housed the oldest boat found in Egypt; a 20-ft-long vessel dating to
(2950 BCE). The boat was recently moved to the restoration laboratory of the new Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) in Giza. Care-
ful restoration of the boat will be conducted before it is displayed in the GEM (Powell, 2012; Tristant, 2012).
1.3.2. Elite tombs

Southwest of the modern village are a large number of tombs (Fig. 5) of ancient Egyptian nobles, dating mostly from the first
and second as well as the fourth and fifth Dynasties. The design of the earliest tombs and the high quality of some of the artifacts
found in them signified that their owners were probably of high status, suggesting that Abu Roash was an administrative centre
long before the time of Djedefre (Edwards, 2005; Tristant & Smythe, 2011). (Tristant & Smythe, 2011) noted that despite its
513
Fig. 2 (c) (a) Acteonella fossils (b) Flint concretionss, Flint Series; (c) X.bedded S·S, Sandstone series.
514
Fig. 2 (d) (a) Rudistae bank, Rudistae Series, Abu Roash Village; (b) Reverese fault at G.Abu Roash between Acteonella Series to left hand and flint Series to right hand;
(c) Flint bands, flint Series.
Fig. 3. Al Hassana dome.
515
Fig. 4. The oldest Egyptian funerary boat (©Tristant, 2012).
importance, the cemetery site of Abu Roash has not been fully investigated. It has been ignored in modern publications, and for all
intents and purposes it has been forgotten. This is an unacceptable situation when we consider the archaeological potential of the
site.
1.3.3. Pyramid complex of Djedefre

“Two kilometres west of the village of Abu Roash, within the white limestone hills west of the Nile is the pyramid complex of
the fourth dynasty king Djedefre (or Re-djedef) (2528-2520 BC), the son and successor of Khufu (Cheops)” (Edwards, 2005).
Some scholars (Wilkinson, 2000), (Bunson, 2014; Verner, 2001) stipulated that this pyramid complex was never completed, citing
the relatively short reign of Djedefre. However, the presence of granite blocks that were used to “coat” the pyramid suggest that it
was completed. Its current state may be attributed to the continuous quarrying from the pyramid over the centuries, resulting in
the loss of all the polished stones that had been originally used (Edwards, 2005).
Fig. 5. The location of the necropolis in the south-west of the modern village.
516
Fig. 6. The remains of red polish granite for overlaid the pyramid.
Note: For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.
All that remains of the superstructure of Djedefre pyramid is a flat-topped edifice with an area of about 98 m2 and a height of
about 12 m (Fig. 6). At the bottom of a 10 m by 23 m vertical shaft was the burial chamber and at least one antechamber (now
unroofed). These were probably built of granite, with access afforded through a northern entrance corridor (Fig. 7). The length of
the corridor stood at about 49 m, with a slope ranging from 26° to 28°. The flat roof was probably constructed of slabs of granite
and the thick walls of local stone. The floor was paved with limestone (Edwards, 2005).
Despite its current state, the study of the pyramid complex of Djedefre has yielded a wealth of archaeological findings of sig-
nificance. The unique design of the oval sarcophagus (evident by its remains) and the size of the trench leading to the entrance
corridor to the pyramid point to a unique building plan for this mortuary temple, unlike any other plan for other known Egyptian
temples (Fig. 8). In addition, the causeway, which measured about 1500 m in length and 14 m in width and led from the Wadi
Qaren area to the pyramid, is believed to be without parallel (Edwards, 2005). Additionally, many artifacts have been found dur-
ing the excavations, including,a painted limestone female sphinx, thought to be the oldest such sphinx found in a royal tomb
(Porter, Moss, 1974, 2–3). In addition, personal objects of Pharaoh'Aha (Menes, 2920 BCE) and Den (c. 2800 BCE) of the First Dy-
nasty were discovered at the site.
Outside the pyramid on the south side was a pit that housed a wooden boat (Fig. 9). The pit measured more than 37 m long
and 9 m deep at its greatest depth. A newly discovered mud-brick pyramid on the site has been dated to the Old Kingdom. It is
thought to have belonged to Djedefre's wife.
2. Methodology
The present work involved two stages. In the first stage, field work was conducted in order to detect, monitor, analyse and
interpret data pertaining to the geo-value of the Abu Roash area and the challenges that might be faced towards its preservation
and the establishment of a geopark. To aid in the analysis and interpretation, maps were subsequently plotted using GIS. The na-
ture of the geological features visible were documented with photographs: the features included examples of cross-bedding,
graded bedding, chert layers, overturned folds, thrusted folds, rudistid banks, normal faults and wrench faults, as well as of ar-
chaeological features and examples of the current threats to the integrity of the area.
The second stage of the project involved drawing up and testing a survey questionnaire, and then conducting a survey of the
stakeholders in the studied area using this questionnaire as the measurement tool.
517
Fig. 7. Showing the sloping corridor to the pyramid, the northern entrance.
3. Results
3.1. Proposed design of the geopark
From the start of this study, our goals in establishing a geopark at Abu Rawash paralleled those detailed by the AGN. These
included but were not limited to: “(i) Identifying geosites; (ii) making an inventory of geosites of outstanding value in Africa and
the Middle East; (iii) creating and maintaining dynamic GIS data bases; (iv) promoting and increasing the awareness amongst policy
makers and the general public in Africa and the Middle East, in particular local communities, about the necessity for the protection of
and benefits incurred in the utilisation of geological heritage through the creation of geoparks for local socio-economic sustainable de-
velopment; and (v) building the capacity of the local population in the field of geoheritage and geo-conservation.” (Errami et al., 2015).
The field work shows that the area of study are of plenty of geological and archaeological sites, these sites are of aesthetic,
educational and scientific value as shown in the figures and the literature, which make the area of great interest to be a Geopark
through establishing a proposed maps to illustrate the journey of the tourists while visiting the area.
The following maps were created:
• Map 1 shows the outline, location and size of the geopark as proposed by this study. The proposed area contains the protected
Alhassan structural dome and all geologic and archaeological features mentioned above.
• Map 2 shows in detail the locations of the geologic and archaeological features within the proposed geopark.
• Map 3 has proposed the design of the geopark, showing the location of the entrance to the geopark and the proposed path that
would be taken by tourists. We propose the establishment of a small museum at the entrance to the geopark. Such a museum
would serve to present the history and the importance of the park. Map 3 also indicates the location of a proposed camping
area, to be set at enough distance from all geosites to insure their protection. As proposed, the trip inside the Geopark would
end at the exit gate after a complete tour of all geosites as illustrated on Map 3.
All facilities near the proposed geopark are illustrated on the maps, as well as the location of the nearby Great Pyramids.
518
Fig. 8. Showing the walls, boat pit, the remains of funerary temple, and the pyramid.
3.2. Stakeholders' response towards establishing of Abu Roash Geopark
To explore the degree to which the establishment of the proposed geopark would be supported by all possible stakeholders, a
survey using a multifaceted questionnaire was conducted. The questionnaire was designed to measure the knowledge, percep-
tions and attitudes of these stakeholders. Stakeholders targeted by the survey encompassed the local residents, possible tourists
as well as key decision makers (Members of Parliament as well as executives from the Ministry of the Environment).
Two hundred and fifty questionnaires were completed; 50 by residents; 150 by tourists and 50 by some key decision makers.
The sociodemographic profiles of these various respondents are shown in Table 2 Responses of the different stakeholders are de-
tailed in Table 3.
Upon analysing the responses to the ‘knowledge’ section of the questionnaire, it was found that 60% of each category of stake-
holders had the knowledge necessary to be part of the success of a geopark.
In the ‘perception’ part of the questionnaire, there was some variation between the responses of different groups of stake-
holders. Local residents indicated higher levels of acceptance of the idea of establishing the geopark if it were to lead to increases
in their incomes. This tie between acceptance of the park and economic benefits is predictable. Economically benefiting from the
park would turn residents into ‘community guards’ and protectors of the park. Responses to the perception part of the question-
naire by tourists and key decision makers indicated unwavering support for the idea of the geopark.
In their responses to the ‘attitude’ section, residents indicated that they would mostly have no desire to visit nor to recom-
mend the pace to someone else. To the contrary responses by tourists and decision makers indicated a high degree of enthusiasm
with regards to visiting and promoting the geopark.
4. Discussion
The geological heritage of Egypt is not only tied strongly to its archaeological and cultural heritage, but this link may contrib-
ute substantially to both geoconservation and geotourism in this country. Egypt is dominated by natural (desert) environments
and also hosts some urban geological heritage that can be exploited efficiently for the purposes of urban geotourism (Sallam,
El-Samee, Bobrysheva, Yashalova, & Ruban, 2020).
This study aimed to survey and detail the specific features of the geological heritage of the Abu Roash area. The geoheritage
value of Abu Roash has been previously evaluated as being of regional importance (Abdel-Maksoud & Abdel-Maksoud, 2017
519
Fig. 9. Showing inside the pyramids.
and Abdel Maksoud et al., 2018). Because of the geoheritage value detailed in this study, we believe that the entire area
encompassing the proposed geopark should be declared a governmentally sanctioned park and managed as such.
Through the present work the results of the field work and the questioner showed that the area should be a geopark to make
a Geoconservation for the geological and archaeological sites.
The findings of this study highlight the importance of an effective geotourism development strategy that is in line with the
needs and wants of all stakeholders so that they can benefit from it. In addition, it could be stated that an embedded decision
maker is a flexible and contextually sensitive approach to the concept of geoheritage legislation to reach a common ground.
An effective geopark project should aim to develop trust between all stakeholders through knowledge sharing and communi-
cation. Residents should be made to feel that their local community is an integral part of the process of geotourism and that it is
in itself a key reason for tourists to visit the area. Plans to benefit the local community, including proper compensation and em-
ployment, would result in the empowerment and deeper involvement of resident stakeholders. This empowerment of resident
stakeholders lies in the sense that they would have of control over the management of the Geopark.
One cannot understate the importance of delineating proper rules and regulations for the management of the proposed geo-
park. Such rules and regulations should ensure the preservation of the landscape and geo-diversity of the area. Furthermore, these
rules and regulations should ensure the proper documentation and exhibition of the unique rock outcrops and geological pro-
cesses of the proposed park.
520
Map 1. Location map for the proposed area.
Finally, all economic activities involving the park should be directed towards the conservation, documentation and explanation
of its geoheritage value, and the preservation of that heritage value for the enjoyment and education of generations yet to come,
whether they be residents of Abu Roash, citizens of Egypt, or visitors from across the world. Well-run parks of this kind have a
real and enormous value, but one that is hard to quantify, in that they tend not just to increase the environmental awareness
of local residents and to create new jobs in the professional service of tourism, but also provide the kinds of experience that
steer young people towards investment in their own education and the pursuit of a career in science. Revenues from the park
should therefore be directed in part towards improving the quality of local education as well as towards conducting work-
shops/campaigns that would provide local residents with a deeper understanding of the uniqueness of the area they inhabit.
Knowledge of the surrounding geological environment, and especially of how it gave their own distant ancestors the means to
great achievements would bring more involvement of these residents with proper conservation and enhancement of the geolog-
ical resources, and would also help potentiate the region's cultural, natural and social resources.
Finally authors recommend to submit this proposal for establishing the Geopark to the investment sector to have a full eco-
nomic study for the project.
521
Map 2. Site locations for the proposed tourism trip.
Map 3. The proposed design for the geopark.
522
Table 2
Survey social-demographic profiles of stakeholders response (N = 250).
Demographic N %
Gender
Male 125 50
Female 120 48
Undefined 5 2
Education
None 10 4
High School 140 56
University degree and Post Graduate(MSc and PhD) 100 40
Age
15–25 33 13.8
25–35 70 28
35–60 120 48
60–80 27 10.2
Occupation
Students 60 24
Employees 130 52
Unemployed 30 12
Others 30 12
Table 3
Response of stakeholders towards the converting the AbuRoash area to geopark.
Stakeholder categories of Response (N = 250)
Question Residents (N = 50) % Tourists (N = 150) % Decision Maker

(N = 50) %
Knowledge Yes No Not sure Yes No Not sure Yes No Not Sure
Do you know the importance of Geologic and Archaeological feature in the area 60 10 30 74.5 15.8 9.8 80 20 –
Do you know that there is a Pyramid in this area 80 – 20 58.2 26.6 15.2 50 20 30
Do you know that the area contain a protected geosite 40 50 10 69.7 23.2 7 90 – 10
Perceptions
I think that converting the area into geopark will conserve the features. 50 50 – 87.6 3 7 80 10 10
I think establishing a Geopark will develop the area 60 20 20 89.6 5 5 75 5 20
I think that this proposed Geopark will attract tourists 70 10 20 87 4 9 80 – 20
I think this geopark will increase the residents income 75.5 14.7 9.8 85 7 8 75 5 20
If there will be a legislation to protect the Geoheritage I'll share in it – – – – – – 93 3 4
Attitude
If the area is converted to Geopark, I'll visit it 10 90 – 95 – 5 85 5 10
If the area is converted to Geopark,I would like to know more about it. 10 80 10 97 – 3 80 15 5
If the area is converted to Geopark, I'll recommend it to my friends. 5 90 5 80 14 6 82 13 5
Do you think that should be a separate legislation for places like AbuRoash area – – – – – – 97 – 3
Can you share in listing an legislation to protect the geo heritage sites. – – – – – – 100 0 0
Credit author statement
Kholoud, M. AbdelMaksoud: Conceptualization, original draft.

Mahmoud, Emam: Resources (Archaeological work).
Wael, ALMetwaly: Methodology (GIS work and map generation).
Farouk Sayed: Resources (Geological description, field work).
John Berry: Review & Editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
523
Appendix A
Questionnaire to measure the knowledge, perception and attitude towards converting AbuRoash area to Geopark, Cairo- Egypt.
This questionnaire was taken from stakeholders.
Part I
Gender Male Female Undefined

Education None High school University degree and post graduate
Age 15–25 25–35 35–60 60–80
Occupation Students Employees Unemployed others
Part II
Yes No Not sure
1- Do you know the importance of Geologic and Archaeological feature in the area
2- Do you know that there is a Pyramid in this area
3- Do you know that the area contain a protected geosite
4- I think that converting the area into geopark will conserve the features.
5- I think establishing a Geopark will develop the area
6- I think that this proposed Geopark will attract tourists
7- I think this geopark will increase the residents income
8- If there will be a legislation to protect the Geoheritage I'll share in it
9- If the area is converted to Geopark, I'll visit it
10- If the area is converted to Geopark,I would like to know more about it.
11- If the area is converted to Geopark, I'll recommend it to my friends.
Part III (for decision maker only)
Yes No Not sure
Do you think that should be a separate legislation for places like AbuRoash area
Can you share in listing an legislation to protect the geo heritage sites.
References
Abdel Khalek, M. L., El Sharkawi, M. A., Darwish, M., Hagras, M., & Sehim, A. (1989). Structural history of Abu Roash district, Western Desert, Egypt. Journal of African
Earth Sciences, 9(3–4), 435–443.
Abdel-Gawad, G. I., Saber, S. G., El Shazly, S. H., & Salama, Y. F. (2011). Turonian Rudist facies from Abu Roash area, north western desert, Egypt. Journal of African Earth
Sciences, 59(2011), 359–372.
Abdel-Maksoud, M. A., & Abdel-Maksoud, K. M. (2017). Appraisement of the geologic features as a geo-heritage in Abu-Rawash Area, Cairo- Egypt. Malaysian Journal
Geosciences (MJG), 1(2), 24–28.
AbdelMaksoud, K. M., Al-Metwaly, W. M., Ruban, D. A., & Yashalova, N. N. (2018). Geological heritage under strong urbanization pressure: El- Mokattam and Abu
Roash as examples from Cairo, Egypt. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 141(2018), 86–93.
Progradational peritidal depositional pattern of the Turonian clastics (Sandstone series) of the Abu Roash Formation, Abu Roash area, Giza, Egypt. Abu Khadrah, A. M.,
Helba, A. A., Abdel-Gawad, G. I., & Badawy, H. S. M. (Eds.). (2005). Fourth International Conference on the Geology of Africa. 2. (pp. 639–654). Asiut University.
Allan, M. (2013). Geotourism: The potential of geotourism development in the united Arab of emirates. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Emerg-
ing Research Paradigms in Business and Social Sciences, Dubai, UAE.
Barettino, D., Wimbledon, W. A. P., & Gallego, E. (Eds.). (2000). Patrimonio Geológico: Conservación y gestión [Geological heritage: Conservation and management].
Madrid: Istituto Geológico y Minero de España.
Bruno, D. E., Crowley, B. E., Gutak, J. M., Moroni, A., Nazarenko, O. V., Oheim, K. B., & Zorina, S. O. (2014). Paleogeography as geological heritage: Developing geosite
classification. Earth-Science Reviews, 138, 300–312.
Bunson, M. (2014). Encyclopaedia of ancient Egypt. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing.
Edwards, I. E. S. (2005). Abu Rawash. In K. A. Bard (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt (pp. 88–91). London: Routledge.
Duun, J. (2020). The pyramid lepsius number one at Abu Rowash. Retrieved from http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/lepsius1.htm.
Errami, E. (2009). Pre-congress meeting of the fifth conference of the African Association of Women in geosciences entitled “women and geosciences for peace”.
Episodes, 32(3), 210–211.
Errami, E. (2013). African Association of Women in geosciences “AAWG”: Past achievements and future challenges. In R. M. Pichezzi, & L. Pichezzi (Eds.), Il Ruolo
Femminile Nelle Science Della Terra: Esperienze a confronto eprospettive future ISPRA, Atti (pp. 27–30). Roma: ISPRA.
Errami, E., Ennih, N., Bendaoud, A., Bouzidi, O., Chabou, M. C., Andrianaivo, L., & Hassine, M. (2013). Inventaire du géopatrimoine en Afrique: état des lieux et perspec-
tives. In G. Egoroff, A. Cornée, P. De Wever, & A. Lalanne (Eds.), Actes du colloque « Géopatrimoine, un lustre d’inventaire en France ». 13. (pp. 128–139). Paris: French
Geological Society.
Errami, E., Schneider, G., Ennih, N., Randrianaly, H. N., Bendaoud, A., Noubhani, A., & Al-Wosabi, M. (2015). Geoheritage and geoparks in Africa and the Middle-East:
Challenges and perspectives. In E. Errami, M. Brocx, & V. Semeniuk (Eds.), From geoheritage to geoparks (pp. 3–23). Cham: Springer.
Farsani, N. T., Coelho, C. O., Costa, C. M., & Amrikazemi, A. (2014). Geo-knowledge management and geoconservation via geoparks and geotourism. Geoheritage, 6(3),
185–192.
524
Gray, M. (2013). Geodiversity. Valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 2, 495. England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Krenkel, E. (1924). Der Syrische Bogen. Cetrable. Min., 9, 274–281 10, 301-313.
Lazzari M., & Aloia A. (2014). Geoparks, Geoheritage and Geotourism. Opportunities and Tools in Sustainable Development of the Territory. Special Issue of the
GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 13(1), 8–9.
Moustafa, A. R. (2019). Mesozoic-Cenozoic deformation of Egypt. In Z. Hamimi, A. El-Barkooky, F. J. Martínez, H. Fritz, & E. -R. Y. Abd (Eds.), The geology of Egypt.
Regional Geology Reviews. (pp. 253–294). Cham: Springer.
Panizza, M., & Piacente, S. (1993). Geomorphological asset evaluation. Z Geomorph NF, 87, 13–18.
Powell, E. A. (2012). ‘Oldest Egyptian Funerary Boat’, Archaeology: A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/EigPrB.
Sallam, E. S., El-Samee, M. A. A., Bobrysheva, O. R., Yashalova, N. N., & Ruban, D. A. (2020). Geological heritage of Luxor and its vicinities, Egypt: A new assessment and
geotourism perspectives. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13(2), 76.
Tristant, Y. (2012). ‘La region memphiteà l’aube de l’époque pharaonique: Abou Rawash’Rapport d’activité IFAO [Memphis in the early Pharaonic era: A report on the ac-
tivities of Abu lavash]. Delta: IFAO, 37–46.
Tristant, Y., & Smythe, J. (2011). New excavations for an old cemetery. Preliminary results of the Abu Roash project on the M cemetery (1st dynasty). In R. F. Friedman,
& P. N. Fiske (Eds.), Egypt at its origins 3. OLA 205. (pp. 313–322). Leuven: Peeters Publishers Leuven.
Verner, M. (2001). In S. Rendall (Ed.), The pyramids: The mystery culture, and science of Egypt’s great monuments. New York: Grove press.
Wilkinson, R. H. (2000). The complete temples of ancient Egypt. New York: Thames and Hudson.
525

1 s2.0 S2577444121000460 Main - 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2577444121000460 Main - 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 509–525

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks

Can innovative tourism beneﬁt the local community: The analysis

Concept Deﬁnition (provisional) References

Geoheritage Geologic features with signiﬁcant scientiﬁc, educational, cultural, or http://www.geo.mtu.edu/KeweenawGeoheritage/

Fig. 1. (a) Chalky limestone.

1.2. The geological importance of the Abu Roash area

Fig. 2. (a) Overturned syncline fold.

Fig. 2 (b) Overturned syncline fold.

1.3. The archaeological importance of the Abu Roash area

1.3.1. Oldest Egyptian funerary boat

1.3.2. Elite tombs

Fig. 3. Al Hassana dome.

Fig. 4. The oldest Egyptian funerary boat (©Tristant, 2012).

1.3.3. Pyramid complex of Djedefre

3.1. Proposed design of the geopark

3.2. Stakeholders' response towards establishing of Abu Roash Geopark

Fig. 9. Showing inside the pyramids.

Map 1. Location map for the proposed area.

Map 2. Site locations for the proposed tourism trip.

Map 3. The proposed design for the geopark.

Stakeholder categories of Response (N = 250)

Question Residents (N = 50) % Tourists (N = 150) % Decision Maker

Credit author statement

Kholoud, M. AbdelMaksoud: Conceptualization, original draft.

Declaration of Competing Interest

Gender Male Female Undeﬁned

Yes No Not sure

Part III (for decision maker only)

Yes No Not sure

You might also like