Full text

Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
Digital Elevation Profile: A Complex Tool for the Spatial
Analysis of Hiking Trails
Laura TÎRLĂ1, Elena MATEI, Roxana CUCULICI, Iuliana
VIJULIE, Gabriela MANEA
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Romania
Abstract: One of the current attributions of mountain geomorphology is to
provide information for tourism purposes, such as the spatial analysis of hiking
trails. Therefore, geomorphic tools are indispensable for terrain analyses.
Elevation profile is one of the most adequate tools for assessing the
morphometric patterns of the hiking trails. In this study we tested several
applications in order to manage raw data, create profile graphs and obtain the
morphometric parameters of five hiking trails in the Căpățânii Mountains
(South Carpathians, Romania). Different data complexity was explored:
distance, elevation, cumulative gain or loss, slope etc. Furthermore, a
comparative morphometric analysis was performed in order to emphasize the
multiple possibilities provided by the elevation profile. Results show that GPS
Visualizer, Geocontext and in some manner Google Earth are the most adequate
applications that provide high-quality elevation profiles and detailed data, with
multiple additional functions, according to user's needs. The applied tools and
techniques are very useful for mountain route planning, elaborating mountain
guides, enhancing knowledge about specific trails or routes, or assessing the
landscape and tourism value of a mountain area.
Key words: geomorphic tool, mountain route, morphometric parameter,
mountaineering, Carpathians.
1. Introduction
Broadly speaking, preparing a good quality mountain trip requires special
knowledge of topography, landforms, tourist skills and behaviour. Yet, the practical side
was largely neglected for a long period of time, or at least not made available to public
use of mountain trekkers or hikers. The technical approach has been usually an
attribute of mountain guides, sports coaches, experienced hikers, etc. Therefore, the
data are available in trekking or hiking manuals, mountain guidelines or legislative
papers (Cartotrekking, 2001; Kogayon, 2011; H.G. 77/2003).
Selecting the most appropriate route inside a mountain area often depends on the
ground accessibility and tourism purpose (i.e. scientific, recreation, photography,
education). Hence the importance of geomorphological mapping in outlining the
1
Corresponding author: Laura TÎRLĂ, E-mail :[email protected]
48
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
landform patterns is crucial (Evans, 2012; Smith et al., 2011). The analysis of landform
accessibility has been a constant concern in recent years (Chiou et al., 2010; Kwan et al.,
2003; Mihai & Șandric, 2004; Tóth & Dávid, 2010), including the particular hiking trails.
For example, (Clius et al., 2012) analyzed the landform accessibility for hiking trails in
the Ceahlău National Park (Eastern Carpathians, Romania). Other studies concerned the
assessment of time-scale erosion processes developed along hiking trails (Tomczyk &
Ewertowski, 2013). Recent efforts to involve the geomorphological tools in tourism
activities have resulted in the elaboration of geotourism map for several tourist areas in
Italy and Romania (Baias et al., 2010; Castaldini, 2008; Castaldini et al., 2009;
Comănescu & Dobre, 2012; Comănescu et al., 2013; Ilieş et al., 2011).
Besides all these, elevation profile is a often applied geomorphological tool which
emphasizes the topographic features of any given terrain (Giles, 1998). It is widely
applied in tectonic geomorphology (Bishop & Shroder, 2004; Bull, 2007; Burbank &
Anderson, 2012), glacial geomorphology and glaciology (Hubbard & Glasser, 2005),
limnology (Avouac et al., 1996), fluvial geomorphology (Hergarten et al., 2014; Whipple
et al., 2007), or teaching geomorphology and regional geography (Allen, 2008). It is also
useful in elaborating detailed mountain guidelines by describing the parameters of
hiking trails. The elevation profile provides precise information and data on trail’s
morphometry, which further serves to group them into difficulty levels. In mountain
areas, hiking routes are primarily under the control of topography. Topography is
defined by several morphometric parameters: elevation, slope, curvature, configuration
of stream and river valley network, depth of valley incision, etc. (Huggett & Cheesman,
2002).
In the current informational society, investigation of tourism offers is directly linked
to the use of multimedia sources. Modern techniques provide automatically-generated
elevation profiles, widely available from several free online or installed applications.
The present study aims to provide (in the context of several case studies) highlighting
models of the hiking trails features, from the perspective of the relationship between
morphometric parameters. We revealed the appropriate digital means and tools for the
spatial analysis of mountain (hiking) trails in order to identify the most suitable route
according to purpose (e.g. tourism, scientific research, medical). We focused on creating
the digital elevation profiles of several hiking trails and analysing the morphometric
data availability for each application we used. Detailed information about distance,
time, slope, elevation, etc. was considered in order to classify the available applications
in terms of data complexity. The resulted database could serve to plan mountain routes
by extracting the related topographic features.
49
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
2. The Tested Hiking Trails
The hiking trails we selected are located in the eastern part of Căpățânii Mountains
(South Carpathians, Romania), which cover an area of 766.14 km2. Geological diversity
is a typical feature of this mountain range which broadly influences the topography.
Metamorphic rocks (paragneiss and schist of the Sebeș-Lotru series) prevail on the
central Căpățânii Ridge (Lupu et al., 1978; Mutihac et al., 2004; Oncescu, 1965). The
Jurassic reef limestone is present on the NE-SW monoclinal ridge, highly faulted and
dissected by narrow steep valleys, named the Vânturarița-Buila Massif (Ardelean, 2010;
Badea et al., 1998). Massive, long and rounded ridges were sculpted on metamorphic
rocks, (Posea, 2005), whereas the limestone ridge consists in alternative sharp and
plateau-like sectors. Maximum elevations reach around 1900-2000 m on the peaks that
rise above the Paleogene erosion surface named Borăscu at 1800-1900 m (Velcea &
Roșu, 1982; Posea et al., 1974). The cross profile is asymmetric. The northern major
slope is very steep because it rims an important tectonic line (the Lotru fault);
therefore, the accessibility degree is very low (Badea et al., 1987). The southern slope is
much smoother and accessible, and hosts several important head basins. In the
subalpine level, the morpho-dynamic processes intensively developed on a thick
weathered layer (Onaca, 2005), resulting in numerous active montane gullies (Tîrlă,
2012).
The main five trails cross through areas of high morphometrical and
geomorphological diversity: rounded metamorphic ridges, sharp limestone ridge, lowelevated saddle, etc. River and stream downcutting is strong enough to provide a highlyelevated environment, suitable for such an analysis. Detailed information about these
hiking trails are provided by (Kogayon, 2011)2 .
3. Data, Software and Methods
3.1. Data
The elevation profiles are created on the basis of digital tracks which are being
recorded on a hand GPS device during the trip. In this case we used an eTrex Vista HCx
model with a maximum resolution of 3.5 m. The recorded tracks run along the trails
numbered 1-5 on the map in Figure 1. The corresponding hiking trails were labeled
during the 1960s and drawn on the tourist map of Căpățânii Mountains (Popescu,
1968). The raw data consists in a series of .gpx files which can be imported in the online
2
Also available at www.buila.ro (Retrieved 07-09-2009).
50
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
or installed applications in the required fields in order to generate the profile. Their
main features are briefly exposed in Table 1.
Figure 1. Location map of the hiking trails.
Table 1. The tested trails in the Căpățânii Mountains.
No. Trail
1
Șasa Valley – Gera Chalet
2
3
4
5
Symbol Mark
T1
Olănești Valley – Mt Folea – T2
Gera Chalet
Mt Stogu – Hădărău Saddle – T3
Gera Chalet
Costești Valley – Peak Buila
T4
Pahomie Hermitage – Peak
Buila
T5
51
Comments
Mostly along the forest road,
marked only on the ridge
trail section
Along the interfluve (it
crosses the saddle)
Mostly along the forest road;
marked only on the ridge
trail section
Very steep, runs uphill the
SE face
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
3.2. Software
A number of available applications were used in order to transfer and manage the
track data, and generate the elevation profiles afterwards:
a) Data transfer and management. Raw data can be initially obtained by using the
applications to transfer GPS elements (i.e. waypoints, tracks, or routes) from the device
to computer and then to manage them. Among the most commonly used software
packages there are Map Source (Garmin, 2010), DNR Garmin (DNR, 2014), EasyGPS
(TopoGrafix, 2014a) and ExpertGPS (TopoGrafix, 2014b). The attribute tables’ contains
raw data (e.g. geographical coordinates, time) which can be used for morphometric
analyses.
b) Elevation profile. Several online or installed applications were tested in order
to assess the provided elevation profile and supplementary data depending on the
intended purpose: Google Earth™ (Google, 2014), ExpertGPS (TopoGrafix, 2014b),
ArcMap™ v9.3-10.2.2 (ESRI, 2014), GPS Visualizer (Schneider, 2013), and Geocontext
(Pietruszka, 2010). Other applications or software packages also provide similar results:
Google Maps™ (Pawlowicz, 2007), Manifold® (Manifold Ltd., 2014), etc. We used only
the T3 trail for testing, and the results are shown in Figures 5-7.
3.3. Methods
We proposed a workflow chart which could be applied for graphical displaying
and morphometric analyses of hiking trails using the digital elevation profile (Figure 3).
One major data source is the attribute tables of the .gpx files, which are displayed
either on free (EasyGPS, DNR Garmin) or licensed applications (Mapsource, ExpertGPS).
Each waypoint on the track is defined by two geographical coordinates (latitude and
longitude). Another important parameter provided by the attribute table is the
proceeding time (the time at which each waypoint was recorded) or elapsed time (total
time). Geographical coordinates and elapsed time are two parameters which are usually
not shown on the elevation profile, but they are available in the attribute tables. We
extracted the elapsed time for each track by using the already mentioned applications.
The data for T3 trail are shown in Figure 2, and for all trails in Table 4.
52
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
Figure 2. Raw data (trail length, time, and coordinates) provided by GPS software.
53
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
Figure 3. General workflow chart for a proposed hiking trail analysis.
4. Results and Discussions
4.1. Displayed Modes of Graphs and Data
The various software packages provide either simple or complex data on the
elevation profile. The simplest results (graph, distance/length and elevation) are
provided by ArcGIS and GPS software (ExpertGPS and MapSource), which contain the
usual tools for creating general profiles.
In order to test the multiple functions and information provided by the analyzed
applications, we created elevation profiles for the T3 hiking trail (Vânturarița-Buila
Massif - Hădărău Saddle - Mount Gera - Gera Chalet). The results are shown in Figures 36 and Table 2.
Table 2. Types of data provided by the tested applications on T3 hiking trail. The
differences in the same type of data result in calculation errors.
Application
ArcMap
MapSource
Expert GPS
Google
Earth
GPS
Visualizer
Geocontext
Distance
(km)
Uphill
(km)
Downhill
(km)
∑↑
(m)
∑↓
(m)
Denivelation (m)
7.533
7.5
7.5
7.61
-
-
867
-388
-
16.0
1590
3:47:18
3:47:18
-
7.5349
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.30
4.9
2.4
848
-372
574
16.0
1,609
13:30:30
to
17:17:48
-
54
Average
Median
slope (°)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
In ArcMap, the elevation profile can be displayed after several steps followed in
order to convert the .gpx file to 2D file, then to 3D file using the Interpolate Shape
function of 3D Analyst extension. The usual elevation/distance range is displayed
alongside the graph. Other complementary data such as geographical coordinates and
waypoint-assigned times are provided by the DNR Garmin extension for ArcGIS (DNR,
2014), shown in Figure 2.
MapSource (Garmin, 2010) is a multi-function application which allows transferring
and managing raw data, then creating simple, but graphically-enhanced elevation
profiles (the elevation/distance type). The map is displayed only if the GPS device is
connected to computer. ExpertGPS (TopoGrafix, 2014b) has similar functions except for
the graph quality, having limited displaying options.
Google Earth provides complex graphical functions and data: satellite imagery with
detailed aerial photographs draped on a 3D surface (DEM). Besides the commonly
displayed distance and elevation, it provides cumulative gain and drop, denivelation and
slope, which are also available on separate sections or at each point.
GPS Visualizer is linked to Google Earth and its particular utility lies in displaying the
variations of the selected parameter (e.g. distance, elevation, time, cumulative gain,
cumulative loss, slope, etc.). Moreover, the graph palette varies according to parameter
data. Combining more than two parameters (e.g. time, distance, and elevation) is a more
useful technique (Figure 4C). The application allows displaying the correlation between
time and distance along the profile graph with color palette showing the corresponding
elevation at each point. The thresholds on the time curve represent the breaks; the
higher the threshold, the longer the break.
Other complete graphical and statistical information package is provided by
Geocontext-Profiler (Pietruszka, 2010), as we exemplified in Table 3 for all the tested
hiking trails. Its major utility lies in the linkage with Google Earth visual tools (satellite
imagery, aerial photographs and DEM).
Table 3. Trail parameters provided by Geocontext-Profiler online application (∑↑ cumulative gain; ∑↓ - cumulative drop).
Trail
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Length
(km)
5.67
4.22
7.30
6.97
4.00
Average
slope
(%)
18.8
10.3
16.0
16.6
29.5
Uphill
(km)
Downhill
(km)
4.1
0.72
4.9
5.47
3.11
1.3
3.3
2.4
1.5
0.88
∑↑
(m)
862
78
848
1,001
1,103
55
∑↓
(m)
-138
-624
-372
-161
-182
Denivelation
(m)
Median
(m)
733
550
574
840
946
1,566
1,614
1,609
1,245
1,273
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
Figure 3. Simple graphs and basic data of trail T3 displayed in: A. ArcMap/3D
Analyst extension; B. MapSource; and C. ExpertGPS.
56
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
Figure 4. Elevation and time profiles of trail T3 displayed in GPS Visualizer.
57
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
Figure 5. Elevation profiles and complex parameters of trail T3 displayed in
Geocontext-Profiler (A. entire trail; B. detailed graph and slope for the red inset) and
Google Earth (C).
58
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
Besides the previously discussed data, it calculates median, linear trend, uphill and
downhill distance. The slope tool shares similar functions with Google Earth.
Overall, the available morphometric parameters displayed alongside the resulting
graphs were centralized below in Table 4.
Table 4. Graph utilities and morphometric parameters of the elevation profile
displayed by various online or licensed applications.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
●
●
●
ArcViewer
●
●
●
ArcMap
●
●
●
●
MapSource
●
●
●
●
Expert GPS
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Google Earth
●
●
●
●
●
●
GPS Visualizer
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Geocontext
Numbers significance: (1) Application; (2) Map; (3) DEM; (4) Interconnections; (5) Distance, in km;
(6) Uphill, in km; (7) Downhill, in km; (8) Cumulative gain, in meters; (9) Cumulative drop, in
meters; (10) Denivelation, in meters; (11) Average slope, in degrees; (12) Median, in meters; (13)
Elapsed time.
According to data complexity, we grouped the resulted profiles into the following
four categories:
1. Simple profiles and summary raw data: ArcMap™ (Figure 3);
2. Simple profiles and complex raw data: MapSource, ExpertGPS (Figure 3);
3. Medium complexity profiles: Google Earth (Figure 6);
4. Complex profiles and data: GPS Visualizer and Geocontext (Figures 4 and 5).
DNR Garmin and EasyGPS were excluded because the graph function is missing, and
the elevation profiles cannot be created.
GPS Visualizer and Geocontext-Profiler are the two applications that we recommend
for advanced hiking trail analytics. The elevation profiles displayed by GPS Visualizer
assemble wide combination possibilities. One particular type of profile (time vs.
distance, with additional colors for elevation) is very useful to assess the elapsed time
for breaks: 10-minute breaks each hour walk (H.G. 77/2003). On the other hand,
Geocontext combines its own graphs and detailed data with Google Earth tools. Other
applications (e.g. MapSource and ExpertGPS) provide simple elevation profiles, but also
more complementary data such as geographical coordinates waypoint-assigned time
and elapsed time. The simplest overall results are provided by the ArcMap™ application.
However, simple results do not mean weak data, as limitations vary broadly depending
on the final purpose.
59
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
4.2. Comparative elevation profiles
The following example compares the effectiveness of two elevation profiles showing
the route configuration (features) towards the same target or ending point: Peak Buila
(1849 m). As one can notice, the denivelation is quite similar (970 m vs. 934 m), and
there is a small difference in the travel time (only 34ʼ) comparing to the large difference
in length (2.87 km). Therefore, the slope makes the difference in this case. If reverse
slope values, it results a much longer time to travel on T4 and shorter on T5 (Table 5).
Table 5. Comparative parameters of the T4 and T5 trails.
Distance
Denivelation
Average slope vs. Time
Trail
(km)
(m)
Real
Hypothetical
T4
7.32
970
16.6%
5h45ʼ
29.5%
8h53ʼ
T5
4.45
934
29.5%
5h11ʼ
16.6%
3h50ʼ
Figure 6. Comparative elevation profiles of the trails aiming at the same peak (Buila,
1885 m).
60
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
Thus, for a rapid ascension towards the peak, in this case T5 is recommended,
although it requires increased endurance and effort. The higher slope is compensated
by constancy, which determines the hiker to acquire quickly a steady rhythm. T4 is
suitable for recreation purposes, with alternating higher and lower slope route
segments and longer time to spend during the hike.
Comparison of two or several hiking trails is useful only if there is a possibility of
choosing only one route from several options in the same mountain area. In this way,
one could better use the available time, the body adapts better to terrain conditions and
eventually the traveling time shortens.
4.3. Whom is it addressed to?
A great advantage of these tools and techniques is that they are available not only to
specialists in mountaineering or geomorphology, but also – and this is mostly important
– to usual tourists, trekkers and hikers who can better plan their route in this way. To
support and promote the quality mountain tourism, access to multilateral information
on the accessibility (topographic features) - duration - visibility relationship may
facilitate the options for choosing a particular mountain route.
4.4. Public use and tourism education in mountain areas
The digital elevation profiles and additional morphometric data could also be
included in mountain guides and maps, contributing to enhancing the knowledge about
some particular routes. The information they provide (i.e. distance, elevation, slope, and
time) can be used to establish the difficulty levels for hiking trails. These levels are set
by the mountain law in every state - for example, the H.G. 77/2003 in Romania. The
mountain guides and manuals usually contain all the complementary details
(Cartotrekking, 2001). However, the information provided by the elevation profiles are
not sufficient to establish the difficulty degree of hiking trails. They must complete the
information about ground features additionally provided by the geomorphological
maps: stability, hill slope gradient, etc. For example, a low-slope trail (below 15) might
cross over a steep hill slope or even quasi-vertical walls. Under these conditions, we
propose that digital elevation profiles and derived data to be used along the geotourism
map (Comănescu & Dobre, 2012; Comănescu et al., 2013). Both are recent tools that we
consider very useful for a high-quality, modern investigation of hiking trails.
5. Conclusions
Elevation profile is a useful geomorphic tool for the morphometric analysis of hiking
trails in mountain areas. It provides the necessary data needed for an accurate, high-
61
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
quality route planning for various tourism purposes (e.g. recreation, scientific work,
education).
After exploring a number of various possibilities to create elevation profiles in the
digital environment, the results showed that the most suitable applications for the
extraction of complex information are GPS Visualizer and Geocontext-Profiler. In some
manner, Google Earth also provides advanced data. Although the statistical data is not
quite consistent, GPS Visualizer provides interesting parameter combinations in order
to create profile graphs (elevation or even time profiles) of the hiking trails. The
Geocontext-Profiler tool combines the Google Earth facilities with its own detailed
graphs and statistical data.
Comparative elevation profiles and the corresponding datasets are useful if we wish
to select only one route from several available for the same mountain area. In this case,
the most commonly analyzed parameters are: distance, time, cumulative gain, and slope.
The elevation profile is an important component to be investigated both numerically
and graphically in the spatial analysis of hiking trails, especially to establish the
difficulty degree and elaborate mountain guides and tourism maps. It would be useful to
be available for public use alongside the tourism or geotourism maps.
References
1. Allen, T. R., 2008. Digital Terrain Visualization and Virtual Globes for Teaching
Geomorphology. Journal of Geography, 106(6), 253-266. doi:
10.1080/00221340701863766.
2. Ardelean, M., 2010. Munții Piule-Iorgovanu. Studiu de geomorfologie. Teză de
doctorat. Universitatea ”Babeș-Bolyai”, Cluj-Napoca.
3. Avouac, J. P., Dobremez, J. F., Bourjot, L., 1996. Palaeoclimatic interpretation of a
topographic profile across middle Holocene regressive shorelines of Longmu Co
(Western Tibet). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 120 (1-2),
93-104. doi: 10.1016/0031-0182(96)88700-1.
4. Badea, L., Buza, M., Sandu, M., Rusenescu, C., 1987. Carpații Meridionali: Munții
Parâng-Cindrel. In D. Oancea, V. Velcea (Eds.), Geografia României: Carpații
Românești și Depresiunea Transilvaniei (Vol. 3, pp. 285-305). Editura Academiei
R.S.R., Bucharest.
5. Badea, L., Niculescu, G., Roată, S., Călin, D., Ploaie, G., 1998. Masivul VânturarițaBuila. Caracterizare geomorfologică. Buletinul Geografic, 2, 3-36.
6. Baias, S., Blaga, L., Dehoorne, O., Grama, V., Gozner, M., Herman, G., Ilieş, D.C., Ilieş,
A., Josan, I., Morar, C., 2010. Băile Felix-Băile 1 Mai-Betfia (judeţul Bihor), Harta
geoturistică. Editura Universității din Oradea, Oradea.
7. Bishop, M., Shroder, J. F., 2004. Geographic Information Science and Mountain
Geomorphology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York.
62
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
8. Bull, W. B., 2007. Tectonic Geomorphology of Mountains: A New Approach to
Paleoseismology. Wiley, Malden Oxford Carlton.
9. Burbank, D. W., Anderson, R. S., 2012. Tectonic Geomorphology. Wiley, Oxford
Chichester Hoboken.
10. Cartotrekking, 2001. Manuale di Trekking. Retrieved from
http://www.cartotrekking.com/files/-E-book.-.ITA-.MANUALE.DI.TREKKING.pdf
11. Castaldini, D., 2008. Maps and Multimedia Tool for the Environmental Tourism in
Protected Areas of the Modena Apennines (Northern Italy). GeoJournal of Tourism
and Geosites, 1 (1), 13-33.
12. Castaldini, D., Valdati, J., Ilieș, D.C., 2009. Geomorphological and Geotourist Maps of
the Upper Tagliole Valley (Modena Apennines, Northern Italy), Carta
geomorfologica e geo-turistica dell’alta Valle delle Tagliole (Appennino Modenese,
Italia settentrionale) Mem. Descr. Carta Geol. d’It. LXXXVII (pp. 29-38).
13. Chiou, C. R., Tsai, W. L., Leung, Y. F., 2010. A GIS-dynamic segmentation approach
to planning travel routes on forest trail networks in Central Taiwan. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 97, 221-228.
14. Clius, M., Teleucă, A., David, O., Moroșanu, A., 2012. Trail accessibility as a tool for
sustainable management of protected areas: Case study Ceahlău National Park,
Romania. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 14, 267-278. doi:
10.1016/j.proenv.2012.03.026.
15. Comănescu, L., Dobre, R., 2012. Harta geoturistică a Munţilor Bucegi (sectorul
Babele-Caraiman). Ars Docendi, București.
16. Comănescu, L., Nedelea, A., Dobre, R., 2013. The Geotouristic Map – between
theory and practical use. Case study - the central sector of the Bucegi Mountains
(Romania). GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 1 (11), 16-22.
17. DNR, 2014. DNR Garmin Extension (Version 5.4). Minnesota, USA: Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mis/gis/tools/arcview/extensions/DNRGarmin/DN
RGarmin.html.
18. ESRI, 2014. ArcGIS Resources: Creating a profile graph from 3D line features
Retrieved Sept. 9, 2014, from http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/
10.2/index.html#//00q80000006z000000.
19. Evans, I., 2012. Geomorphometry and landform mapping: What is a landform?
Geomorphology, 137, 94-106. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.09.029.
20. Garmin, 2010. Map Source (Version 6.16.3). Olathe, KS (USA): Garmin
International Ltd. Retrieved from
http://www.garmin.com/garmin/cms/lang/en/us/maps/tripplanningsoftware/
mapsource.
63
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
21. Giles, P. T., 1998. Geomorphological signatures: classification of aggregated slope
unit objects from digital elevation and remote sensing data. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 23 (7), 581-594. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)10969837(199807)23:7<581::AID-ESP863>3.0.CO;2-S.
22. Google, 2014. Google Earth. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/earth/.
23. Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 77 /2003 privind instituirea unor măsuri pentru
prevenirea accidentelor montane şi organizarea activităţii de salvare în munţi,
Anexa B. Monitorul Oficial nr. 91/13.02.2003, București.
24. Hergarten, S., Robl, J., Stüwe, K., 2014. Extracting topographic swath București
profiles across curved geomorphic features. Earth Surf. Dynam., 2, 97-104. doi:
10.5194/esurf-2-97-2014.
25. Hubbard, B., Glasser, N. F., 2005. Field Techniques in Glaciology and Glacial
Geomorphology. Wiley, Chichester.
26. Huggett, R., Cheesman, J. (Eds.), 2002. Topography and the Environment. Pearson
Education Ltd., Edinburgh Harlow Essex.
27. Ilieş, D. C., Ilieş, A., Herman, G., Baias, Ş., Morar, C., 2011. Geoturist map of the Băile
Felix- Băile 1 Mai- Betfia area (Bihor county, Romania). GeoJournal of Tourism and
Geosites, 2 (8), 219-226.
28. Kogayon, 2011. Parcul Național Buila-Vânturarița. Ghid turistic. Asociația Kogayon,
București.
29. Kwan, M. P., Murray, A. T., O'Kelly, M. E., Tiefelsdorf, E., 2003. Recent advances in
accessibility researces: Representation, methodology and applications.
Geographical Systems, 5, 129-138.
30. Manifold, 2014. Manifold® Surface Tools. Retrieved 9-09-2014, from
http://www.manifold.net/info/surface_tools.shtml.
31. Lupu, M., Popescu, B., Szasz, L., Hann, H., Gheucă, I., Dumitrică, P., Popescu, G., 1978.
Geological map 126a - Vânturarița (Olănești) sheet (L-35-97-A), scale 1:50,000.
32. Mihai, M., Șandric, I., 2004. Relief accessibility mapping and analysis in Middle
Mountain areas. A case study in the Postăvaru-Piatra Mare-Clăbucetele Predealului
Mts. (Curvature Carpathians). Studia Geomorphologica Carpatho-Balcanica, 38,
113-121.
33. Mutihac, V., Stratulat, M. I., Fechet, R. M., 2004. Geologia României. Editura
Didactică și Pedagogică, Bucharest.
34. Onaca, A., 2005. Considerations on the main potential morpho-dynamic processes
in Căpăţânii Mountians. Analele Universităţii de Vest din Timişoara - Geografie, 15,
31-46.
35. Oncescu, N. 1965. Geologia României. Technical Publishing House, Bucharest.
36. Pawlowicz, L., 2007. Elevation profile in Google Maps. Retrieved from
http://freegeographytools.com/2007/elevation-profile-in-google-maps.
64
Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses
Vol. 2. 1 (2014) 48-65
37. Pietruszka, K., 2010. Geocontext Profiler. Dabrowa Gornicza, Poland. Retrieved
from http://www.geocontext.org/publ/2010/04/profiler/en/.
38. Popescu, N., 1968. Munții Căpățânii și Coziei. Editura C.N.E.F.S., București.
39. Posea, G., 2005. Geomorfologia României: reliefuri, tipuri, geneză, evoluție,
regionare (2 ed.). Editura Fundației ”România de Mâine”, București.
40. Posea, G., Popescu, N., Ielenicz, M., 1974. Relieful României, Editura Științifică.
Bucharest.
41. Schneider, A., 2013. GPS Visualizer. Retrieved from http://www.gpsvisualizer.com
/profile_input.
42. Smith, M. J., Paron, P., Griffiths, J. S. (Eds.), 2011. Geomorphological Mapping:
Methods and Applications (Vol. 15). Elsevier, Oxford Amsterdam.
43. Tîrlă, L., 2012. Bazinul hidrografic Olănești - Studiu de geomorfologie. Editura
Universității din București, Bucharest.
44. Tomczyk, A. M., Ewertowski, M., 2013. Quantifying short-term surface changes on
recreational trails: The use of topographic surveys and ‘digital elevation models of
differences’ (DODs). Geomorphology, 183, 58-72. doi:
10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.005.
45. TopoGrafix, 2014a. EasyGPS (Version 5.18). TopoGrafix, Stow, MA. Retrieved from
http://www.easygps.com.
46. TopoGrafix, 2014b. ExpertGPS (Version 5.2). TopoGrafix, Stow, MA. Retrieved from
http://www.expertgps.com/default.asp.
47. Tóth, G., & Dávid, L., 2010. Tourism and accessibility: An integrated approach.
Applied Geography, 30, 666-677.
48. Velcea, V., Roșu, A., 1982. Geografia Carpaților și a Subcarpaților Românești.
Editura Didactică și Pedagogică, București.
49. Whipple, K., Wobus, C., Crosby, B., Kirby, E., Sheehan, D., 2007. New Tools for
Quantitative Geomorphology: Extraction and Interpretation of Stream Profiles
from Digital Topographic Data. Paper presented at the GSA Annual Meeting.
Boulder, CO.
65