Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni
Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni

Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni

2026 ÖZEL SAYI Cilt 69 Sayı 4
COVER
View as PDF
COPYRIGHT PAGE
View as PDF
CONTENTS
View as PDF
FOREWORD
View as PDF
Geological Heritage and Geotourism Potential of Adıyaman Province
Oğuz Mülayim
View as PDF

Abstract: This study aims to establish a geological heritage (geosite) inventory for Adıyaman Province and to evaluate the geotourism potential of this heritage. Within the scope of the study, geosites through out the province were systematically cataloged based on the ProGEO (1998) and Kazancı et al. (2015) classifications, their geographical distribution was mapped, and they were categorised according to their scientific, educational, and visual/aestheticvalues. Adıyaman is located on complex tectonic structures of the Bitlis-Zagros Orogeny, formed by the collision ofthe African, Arabian, and Eurasian plates. This geological history has led to the emergence of numerous geological heritage features with national and international importance. The findings reveal that despite its geographically small area, Adıyaman possesses extraordinary geodiversity. This rich accumulation of geological and natural assets indicates that the region holds significant, yet untapped, geotourism potential. In particular, integrating the identified geological heritage with the archaeological wealth of Mount Nemrut offers a strategic opportunity for sustainable regional development. However, anthropogenic threats such as quarrying, vandalism, and legal gaps endangerthis heritage. The study proposes comprehensive geo conservation and geotourism strategies against these threats, including site protection, buffer zone establishment, local employment, development of thematic georoutes, and the  establishment of a UNESCO global geopark. In conclusion, interdisciplinary cooperation, scientific research, andenhancing public awareness are crucial for the sustainable conservation of Adıyaman`s geological heritage and its transformation in to regional development through geotourism.

  • Adıyaman

  • natural heritage

  • geoconservation

  • geological heritage

  • geosite

  • geotourism

  • Aksu., R. ve Mülayim., O. (2015). Adıyaman veÇevresinin Jeolojisi Teknik Gezi Kılavuzu. TPAO2332, 1–107 (in Turkish).

  • Alkaç, O., Köroğlu, F. & Mülayim, O. (2024). Assessingthe Contribution of Clastic Sedimentary Rocks toGeosite Potential and Geoscience Education: AnExample of Coarse-grained Turbidite Sequences,Baskil (Elazığ, Türkiye). Geoheritage, 16, 109.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-01014-z

  • Brilha, J., Andrade, C., Azerêdo, A., Barriga, F. J. A.S., Cachão, M., Couto, H., Cunha, P. P, Crispim, J. A., Dantas, P., Duarte, L. V., Freitas, M. C.,Granja, M. H., Henriques, M. H., Henriques, P.,Lopes, L., Madeira, J., Matos, J. M. X., Noronha,F., Pais. J., Piçarra, J., Ramalho, M. M., Relvas,J. M. R. S., Ribeiro, A., Santos, A., Santos, V. &Terrinha, P. (2005). Definition of the Portugueseframeworks with international relevance asan input for the European geological heritagecharacterisation. Episodes, 28(3),177–186. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2005/v28i3/004

  • Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessmentof geosites and geodiversity sites: a review.Geoheritage, 8, 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3

  • Brilha, J. (2018). Geoheritage: Inventories andevaluation. Assessment, Protection, andManagement. Elsevier Inc.

  • Bruno, D. E., Crowley, B. E., Gutak, J. M., Moroni,A., Nazarenko, O. V., Oheim, K. B., Ruban,D.A., Tiess, G. & Zorina, S. O. (2014).Paleogeography as geological heritage:Developing geosite classification. Earth-ScienceReviews, 138, 300-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.06.005

  • Cater, J. M. L. & Tunbridge, I. P. (1992). Palaeozoictectonic history of SE Turkey. Journal ofPetroleum Geology, 15(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-5457.1992.tb00864.x

  • Cleal, C. J., Thomas, B. A, Bevins, R. E. & Wimbledon,W. A. P. (1999). Geosites–an internationalgeoconservation initiative. Geology Today 15(2),64–68

  • Dean, W. T., Martin, F., Monod, O., Günay, Y.,Kozlu, H. & Bozdoğan, N. (1997). Precambrian?and Cambrian stratigraphy of the Pembeğli-Tut inlier, southeastern Turkey. GeologicalMagazine, 134(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001675689700650X

  • Dilek, Y., Thy, P., Moores, E. M. & Ramsden, T.W. (1990). Tectonic evolution of the TroodosOphiolite within the Tethyan Framework.Tectonics, 9(4), 881-823. https://doi.org/10.1029/TC009i004p00811

  • Dixon, G. (1996). Geoconservation: An InternationalReview and Strategy for Tasmania. MiscellaneousReport (pp 1–101). Parks and Wildlife Service,Tasmania.

  • Dowling, R. K. & Newsome D. (2005). Geotourism.Elsevier.

  • Duman, T.Y., Emre, Ö. (2013). The East Anatolian Fault:geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics.In Robertson, A.H.F., Parlak, O. & Ünlügenç, U.C. (Eds.), Geological Development of Anatoliaand the Easternmost Mediterranean Region (pp.495–529). Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications 372.

  • Fourcade, E., Dercourt, J., Günay, Y., Azema, J., Kozlu,H., Bellier, J.P., Cordey, J.P., Cros, F., De Eever,P., Enay, P., Hernandez, R., Lauer, J. & Vrielynck,B, (1991). Stratigraphie et paléogéographie dela marge septentrionale de la platforme arabe auMesozoique (Turquie de Sud-East). Bulletin dela Société Géologique de France, 162(1), 27–41.https://doi.org/10.2113/gssgfbull.162.1.27

  • Golonka, J. (2004). Plate tectonic evolution of thesouthern margin of Eurasia in the Mesozoic andCenozoic. Tectonophysics, 381(1–4), 235–273.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2002.06.004

  • Gray, M. (2004). Geodiversity: Valuing and ConservingAbiotic Nature. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester,UK

  • Güven, A., Dinçer, A., Tuna, E.M. & Çoruh, T. (1991).Stratigraphic evolution of the Campanian–Paleocene autochthonous succession of theSoutheast Anatolia. Ozan Sungurlu SymposiumProceedings, pp. 238–261.

  • Henriques, M. H., Canales, M. L., García-Frank, A. &Gomez-Heras, M. (2019). Accessible geoparksin Iberia: a challenge to promote geotourismand education for sustainable development.Geoheritage, 11, 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0300-5

  • Henriques, M. H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J. & Mota,T.S. (2011). Geoconservation as an emerginggeoscience. Geoheritage, 3(2),117-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-011-0039-8

  • Herece, E. (2008). Atlas of East Anatolian Fault (EAF).General Directorate of Mineral Research andExploration, Special Publication Series 1–3.

  • Herrera-Franco, G., Mata-Perelló, J., Caicedo-Potosí,J. & Carrión-Mero, P. (2023). Vulnerability inGeosites: A Systematic Literature Review. In: LealFilho, W., Frankenberger, F. & Tortato, U. (Eds),Sustainability in Practice. World SustainabilitySeries. Springer, Cham.

  • Hose, T. A. (2005). Geotourism and interpretation. InDowling, R.K. & Newsome, D. (Eds), Geotourism.Elsevier

  • IUGS (2022). International Union of GeologicalSciences (2022). The First 100 IUGS GeologicalHeritage Sites (pp. 301). ISBN: 978-1-7923-99756. International Union of Geological SciencesPublication.

  • Kaya, T., Şen, Ş., Mayda, S., Saraç, G., Metaıs, G.(2012). Adıyaman dolaylarındaki (GüneydoğuTürkiye) Geç Miyosen memeli fosilleri.65.Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı. Bildiri özeti, 2-6Nisan/April 2012

  • Kazancı, N. (2010). Jeolojik Koruma; Kavram veTerimler. Jeolojik Mirası Koruma Derneği.

  • Kazancı, N. (2012). Geological background andthree vulnerable geosites of the Kızılcahamam–Çamlıdere Geopark project in Ankara, Turkey.Geoheritage 4(4), 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-0064-2

  • Kazancı, N., & Gençoğlu Korkmaz, G. (2023). Konyaİlinin Doğal Varlıkları ve Jeolojik Miras Potansiyeli / Natural Assets and Geological Heritage Potentialof Konya Province. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 66(3),403-420. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1321896

  • Kazancı, N., Şaroğlu, F. & Suludere, Y. (2015).Geological heritage and framework list of thegeosites in Turkey. Bulletin of the MineralResearch and Exploration, 151, 259-268. (inTurkish)

  • Köroğlu, F. & Mülayim, O. (2023). Geoconservationstrategies of Türkiye. Geoheritage, 15, Article 97.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00862-5

  • Köroğlu, F. (2025). Paleobiyolojik Jeosit Kavramı:Doğu Karadeniz’in K/Pg Jeositlerinde ReferansBir Çalışma, KD Türkiye. Türkiye JeolojiBülteni, 68(1), 33-84. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1570386

  • Köroğlu, F., Mülayim, O. & Alkaç, O. (2025). A proposalfor a new educational model: GeoconservationEducation (GEOEDU) model. InternationalJournal of Geoheritage and Parks, 13(1), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2024.10.001

  • Meriç, E., Oktay, F.Y. & Özer, S. (1985). Newobservations on the stratigraphical development ofthe Besni Formation to the northwest of Alidamı(KahtaAdıyaman). Jeoloji Mühendisliği, 25, 51–54 (in Turkish with English abstract).

  • Meriç, E. & Görmüş, M. (2001). The Genus Loftusia.Micropaleontology, 47, 1–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486146

  • Mikhailenko, A. V., Ruban, D. A. & Ermolaev, V. A.(2021). Accessibility of geoheritage sites—amethodological proposal. Heritage, 4(3), 1080–1091. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030060

  • Mülayim, O., Özkul, M., Nazik, A. & Tekin S. (202a5). Adıyaman’ın Jeolojik Mirası Çalıştayı WorkshopOn Geoheritage of Adıyaman Bildiri Özleri Kitabıve Saha Gezisi Rehberi Abstracts Book and FieldTrip Guidebook. TMMOB Jeoloji MühendisleriOdası (JMO) ISBN: 978-605-01-1464-5. p. 80.

  • Mülayim, O., Köroğlu, F. & Alkaç, O. (2025b).Volcanic Geoheritage and Geotourism Valuesof the Siverek Columnar Basalts, Şanlıurfa (SETürkiye). Geoheritage, 17 Article 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01154-w

  • Okay, A.I. & Tüysüz, O. (1999). Tethyan SuturesNorthern Turkey. In The Mediterranean Basins:Tertiary Extension Within The Alpine Orogen, 156.Geological Society, London, Special Publication,pp. 475–515.

  • Ólafsdóttir, R. & Tverijonaite, E. (2018). Geotourism:A Systematic Literature Review. Geosciences,8(7), Article 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8070234

  • Özer, S. & Mülayim, O. (2022). Geoconservation andgeotourism potential of vulnerable rudist fossilgeosites from SE Anatolia (Turkey). Geoheritage,14, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00650-7

  • Özkul, M., Gül, A., Semiz, B., Koralay, T., Topal, S.,Gökgöz, A., Özen, H., Erten, H., Hançer, M. veKumsar, H. (2025). Denizli İlinin (GB Türkiye)Jeoçeşitliliği ve Önemli Jeositleri / Geodiversityand Significant Geosites of the Denizli Province(SW Türkiye). Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 68(4), 145-188. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1559108

  • Patzak, M. & Eder, W. (1998). “UNESCO GEOPARK”.A new programme-a new UNESCO label.Geologica Balcanica, 28, 33-35. https://doi.org/10.52321/GeolBalc.28.3-4.33

  • Perinçek, D. (1979a). Geology of the Hazro-KorudağÇüngüs-Maden-Ergani-Hazar Elazığ-Malatyaregion. The Geology of Hazro-Korudağ-ÇüngüsMaden-Ergani Hazar-Elazığ-Malatya area.Special Publication of the Geological Society ofTurkey, pp. 1–33.

  • Perinçek, D. (1979b). Çelikhan-Sincik-Koçali(Adıyaman) bölgelerinin jeolojik incelemesi(Geological Investigation of the Region betweenÇelikhan-Sincik-Koçali (city of Adıyaman)),(Report, 1394). Turkish Petroleum Corporation, ,pp. 130 (in Turkish with English abstract).

  • ProGeo Group, (1998). A first attemt at a geositesframework for Europe- an lUGS initiativeto support recognition of World heritage andEuropean geodiversity. Geologica Balcanica 28,5-32. https://doi.org/10.52321/GeolBalc.28.3-4.5

  • Prosser, C. D., Murphy, M. & Larwood, J. G. (2006).Geological site conservation. In Geologicalconservation—a guide to good practice (pp. 15–36). English Nature.

  • Prosser, C. D., Díaz-Martínez, E. & Larwood, J.G. (2018). The Conservation of Geosites. InGeoheritage (pp. 193–212). Elsevier

  • Reynard, E. & Brilha, J. (Eds.), (2018). Geoheritage:Assessment, Protection, and Management.Elsevier, Amsterdam.

  • Rigo de Righi, M. & Cortesini, A. (1964). Gravitytectonics in foot hills structure belt of southeastAnatolia. American Association of PetroleumGeologists Bullettin, 48(12), 1911–1937. https://doi.org/10.1306/A66334D8-16C0-11D7-8645000102C1865D

  • Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O. & Ustaömer, T. O.(2013a). Late Palalaeozoic–Early Cenozoictectonic development of Southern Turkey and theeasternmost Mediterranean region: evidence fromthe inter-relations of continental and oceanic units.In Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O. & Ünlügenç, U.-C. (Eds.), Geological Development of the AnatolianContinent and the Eastern Mediterranean Region(pp. 9–48). Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications, 372.

  • Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O., Ustaömer, T., Taslı, K.,Inan, N., Dumitrica, P. & Karaoğlan, F. (2013b).Subduction, ophiolite genesis and collision historyof the Eurasian continental margin: new evidence from the Eastern Pontides, Turkey. GeodinamicaActa, 26, 230–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2013.877240










  • APA

  • AMA

  • Chicago

  • EndNote

  • IEEE

  • ISNAD

  • JAMA

  • MLA

  • Vancouver

  • Geological Heritage and Geotourism Potential of Kapıkaya Canyon (Adana, Karaisalı)
    Atike Nazik Mustafa Akyildiz Mehmet Tatar
    View as PDF

    Abstract: The Adana Basin is located between the Taurid Mountains to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to thesouth, the Ecemiş Fault to the west, and the Amanos Mountains to the east. The basin is an important geologicallaboratory with remarkable tectonic, stratigraphic, and morphological features, and contains numerous geologicalheritage elements. This study evaluated the geological heritage value and geotourism potential of Kapıkaya Canyon,one of the important geological and geomorphological formations of the Adana Basin. Kapıkaya Canyon is locatedon the Çakıt Stream of the Seyhan River, a major stream in Çukurova. The canyon is 72 kilometres from Adanaprovince and 5 kilometres from the district of Karaisalı. It is located between Yerköprü, a prominent karst featurewithin the study area that provides observable groundwater flow typical of karst systems in Turkey, and KapıkayaVillage in the Karaisalı district. The canyon has an elevation of 200 meters and a length of 7 kilometres. Along thecanyon route, Paleozoic and Mesozoic units, which form the basement of the Adana Basin, as well as Cenozoic units,are exposed. Subparallel faults oriented in a north–south direction are observed along the Çakıt Valley, placing the geological units in tectonic contact. Geostations containing sedimentary rocks, faults, folds, and fossils, importantfor geoscience education, were identified throughout the canyon. The canyon also boasts waterfalls and hydropowerplants. Its biodiversity is notable for its natural flora and fauna, including monumental trees. Castles, bridges,and inns are cultural assets in the canyon`s vicinity. Geotourism potential includes nature observation and hiking,mountaineering, rock climbing, paragliding, canyoning, camping, nature photography, and visiting cultural heritagesites. The canyon still has the status of a "Sensitive Area to be Strictly Protected".

  • geotourism

  • Adana

  • canyon

  • education

  • geological heritage

  • Geosite Potential and Geoheritage Assets of Uşak Province
    Gözde Zorlu Dündar Selahattin Polat
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Geosites encompass natural elements that represent geological / geomorphological events, processes,and features extending from the past to the present, including fossil assemblages, minerals, rocks, structuralcomponents, and landforms. They also include cultural elements such as ancient quarries, water channels, androck dwellings. Geological heritage (geoheritage) consists of geological-geomorphological formations that possesssignificant scientific, educational, and landscape value and must be preserved against natural / anthropogenicthreats through a sustainable approach.Within the borders of Uşak province, which has a surface area of approximately 5,341 km², there are natural andcultural geosites that have geoheritage value and represent significant potential for the development of geotourism.Elements with geosite potential in Uşak province, including faults, fault scarps, plant and vertebrate fossil deposits,skarn zones, and alteration zones, were identified. In addition, landforms identified during fieldwork—namelytravertines, travertine cones, dacite columns, fairy chimneys, canyon valleys, intra-valley bed depressions, badland topography, and erosion- and deposition-derived karstic forms—were examined, classified as geosites, and theirmorphological and geological characteristics were described. Uşak province hosts not only a diversity of geositesformed by natural processes but also a variety derived from cultural and historical heritage. In this context, culturalgeosites such as ancient water channels, ancient roads, ancient quarries, rock tombs, mounds (höyüks), tumuli, androck (cave) settlements were identified and their characteristics detailed.According to ProGEO`s geosite classification, the identification of a total of 64 geosites from seven differentclasses in the research area demonstrates that Uşak province possesses a rich natural and cultural heritage potentialfrom geological, geomorphological, and geoarchaeological perspectives.

  • Geoheritage

  • geosite

  • geotourism

  • geomorphology

  • Uşak

  • Delikkaya (Bakırcıoğlu, Yıldızeli, Sivas) Natural Travertine Bridge: A Geological Heritage to Preserve
    Bekir Levent Mesci
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Travertine formations represent a significant component of geological heritage due to their scientific,educational, aesthetic, and geotourism value. Globally, such structures are protected for their rarity and ecologicalimportance. In Türkiye, travertine deposits are widespread, with 16 distinct localities identified in Sivas and itssurroundings. However, extensive quarrying activities threaten the preservation of these natural features, leading torapid depletion and irreversible destruction.The Delikkaya travertine field (Yıldızeli–Sivas) is of particular importance, hosting four ridge-type travertines.Geochronological data indicate that formation commenced approximately 15.1 (±0.5) ka in the Upper Pleistoceneand was completed 11.4 (±0.7) ka later, corresponding to the Greenlandian stage. The NNW–SSE-trending ridgetype travertine includes a natural travertine bridge, formed through stream erosion and block disintegration, whichis large enough to permit passage both above and below.Preservation of the Delikkaya Travertine Bridge and its surrounding travertine field is essential to safeguardgeological heritage and to promote regional geotourism potential. Registration of this site as a geosite would not only ensure its protection for future generations but also contribute to scientific research, educational development,and sustainable tourism initiatives.

  • Cave

  • geological heritage

  • geosite

  • Sivas Delikkaya

  • travertine

  • travertine bridge

  • Geoheritage and Geomorphotourism Potential of the Surroundings of Lake Bolluk (Cihanbeyli-Konya Central Anadolu)
    Sultan Murat Uzun Nuriye Garipağaoğlu
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Geomorphotourism is a type of alternative tourism that utilizes the specific potential of areas / unitsthat differ in lithological and geomorphological formation, development processes, and morphological appearance,and whose relief is rare, unique, and intriguing. Türkiye, due to its geomorphological diversity, hosts numerousgeosites, geomorphosites, geoparks, geoheritage elements, and geomorphotourism resources. This study examinesgeomorphotourism potential of travertine cones and other geomorphological elements around Lake Bolluk, locatedsouth of Cihanbeyli (Konya) in the Central Anatolia Region. Geomorphosites in the study area were identified usingcartographic data, satellite imagery, orthophotos, and field observations. These elements were then evaluated in  terms of geomorphotourism potential using the Geomorphosite Assessment Criteria (GEC). Travertine cones, tufadeposits, dolines, travertine channels, micromounds, paludal deposits, Lake Bolluk and salt pans in the study areawere defined as geomorphosites. Travertine cones, formed under geomorphological, climatological, and edaphicconditions due to karstification, tectonism, mineral springs, and other factors, are concentrated particularly in thenorth and east of Lake Bolluk. The 64 cones vary in type, morphometric characteristics, morphological appearance,hydrographic status, and extent of damage. Travertine channels, tufa deposits, microhumps, and paludal depositsare considered rare geomorphosites formed by the same factors and processes in the region. According to theGEC analysis, travertine cones have the highest overall mean (0.61). Following the travertine cones in termsof geomorphotourism potential are travertine channels (0.56), dolines (0.55), tufa deposits (0.54), Lake Bolluk(0.54), microhumps and paludal deposits (0.48), and salt pans (0.46). The overall geomorphotourism mean for allgeomorphosites was 0.53, while the scientific value mean was 0.64, the secondary value mean was 0.51, and theusage potential mean was 0.44. The findings indicate that the study area has a high potential in terms of geologicaland geomorphological representation, aesthetics, and scientific dimensions, and that significant shortcomings,however, exist in areas such as promotion, services, and transportation. Planning is necessary to protect these raregeomorphosites and facilitate their inclusion in alternative tourism.

  • Geoheritage

  • geomorphosite

  • geomorphotourism

  • Lake Bolluk

  • travertine cones

  • View as PDF