The linkage of geological parameters to cultural diversity at Karangsambung-Karangbolong Geopark and surrounding area, Kebumen, Indonesia

Abstract

Geopark has three main components: geological, biological, and cultural diversity. Cultural and biological diversity in geoparks does not stand alone but must be related to geological diversity. This study aims to determine the relationship between seven geological criteria (lithology, mining materials, elevation, slope, landscape, river distance, and groundwater/geohydrology) on the formation of culture in the Megalithic, Hindu-Buddhist, Islamic, and Colonial eras in the Karangsambung-Karangbolong Geopark and surrounding area. The analytical method used is a scoring and weighting process using Analytical Hierarchy Processes (AHP). Based on AHP analysis, many relationships exist between culture formation and geological conditions. In the early stages of cultural formation during the Megalithic and Hindu-Buddhist eras, the influence of geological criteria was more dominant than that in the Islamic and Colonial eras. In the Megalithic era, groundwater had an effect of 32.38%, with the main sub-criteria being wide productive aquifers, while river distance had an impact of 28.31%, especially at river distances less than 50 m. The very well-suited area correlated with the geological condition and had the highest percentage (29.03%). In the Hindu-Buddhist era, groundwater conditions were influenced by 36.05%, mainly due to the wide productive aquifer as a sub-criterion, while the distance of the river had an effect of 25.78%, especially when the river's length was less than 50 m. The percentage of the very well-suited area was 27.47%. The elevation criteria had a 34.68% influence in the Islamic era, especially at elevations <5 m. Mining material criteria influenced 24.34%. The level of very well-suited areas was 14.45%. The geomorphology had the most significant influence (37.17%) in the Colonial era, especially in the fluvial and marine landscapes. Mining materials had the second influence (24.18%). The very good suitability area accounted for 25.54%.

Keywords

geopark / geodiversity / cultural diversity / inkage / geoculture / Kebumen

References

[1] Acharya P. K. (1933). Architecture of Manasara (p. 426). London: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://ignca.gov.in/Asi_data/22949.pdf.

[2] Ansori C. (2018). Geosite identification in Karangbolong high to support the development of Karangsambung-Karangbolong Geopark Candidate, Central Java. Global Colloquium on Geoscience and Engineering. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 118(1), 012014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/118/1/012014.

[3] Ansori C., Setiawan N., Warmada I. W., & Yogaswara H. (2022). Identification of geodiversity and evaluation of geosites to determine geopark themes of the Karangsambung Karangbolong National Geopark, Kebumen, Indonesia. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 10(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.01.001.

[4] Ansori C., Warmada I. W., Setiawan N. I., & Yogaswara H. (2023). Geospatial analysis of the distribution of the Megalithic to colonial cultural features at the Karangsambung-Karangbolong National Geopark, Kebumen, Indonesia, and its surrounding area. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 11(3), 407-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2023.06.002.

[5] Avenzora R. (2008). Penilaian potensi objek wisata : Aspek dan indikator penilaian [Assessment of the potential of tourist attractions: Aspects and assessment indica- tors]. Aceh: BRR NAD Nias.

[6] Boner A., & Sarma S. R. (1966). Silpaprakasa: Medieval Orissan Sanskrit text on temple architecture. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

[7] Brilha J. (2009). Geological heritage and geoconservation in Portugal. In C. N. deCarvalho, & J.Rodrigues (Eds.),New challenges with geotourism: Proceedings of the VIII European Geoparks Conference. Retrieved from https://europeangeoparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/New-Challenges-with-Geotourism.pdf.

[8] Brilha J. (2018). Geoheritage:Inventories and evaluation. In E.Reynard, & J.Brilha ( Geoheritage:Eds.), Assessment, protection and management(pp.69-86). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[9] Chen Y., Yu J., Shahbaz K., & Xevi E. (2009, July). A GIS-based sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights. Paper presented at the 18th World IMACS Congress and International Congress on Modelling and Simulation:Interfacing Modelling and Simulation with Mathematical and Computational Sciences, Cairns Convention Centre, Cairns, Australia.

[10] Eldrandaly K. (2013). Developing a GIs-based MCE site selection tool in ArcGIS using COM technology. International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 10(3), 268-274. Retrieved from https://iajit.org/PDF/vol.10,no.3/10-4234.pdf.

[11] Gray M. (2005). Geodiversity and geoconservation: What, why and how? George Wright Forum, 22(3), 4-12.

[12] Gray M. (2013). Geodiversity: Valuing and conserving abiotic nature (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

[13] Gray M. (2018). Geodiversity:The backbone of geoheritage and geoconservation. In E.Reynard, & J.Brilha ( Geoheritage:Eds.), Assessment, protection and management. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809531-7.00001-0.

[14] Haldoko L. A., Muhammad R., & Purwoko A. W. (2014). Karakteristik Batu Penyusun Candi Borobudur [The characteristics of the stones that make up Borobudur Tem- ple]. Jurnal Konservasi Cagar Budaya Borobudur, 8(1), 38-47.

[15] Indonesian Law No. 11 of 2010, concerning cultural heritage, supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5168 Indonesian Law No. 5 of 2017, concerning cultural advancement, supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6055. Kramrisch, S. ( 1946). The Hindu temple. Caltutta: University of Calcutta.

[16] Mundardjito (1993). Pertimbangan Ekologis dalam Penempatan situs Masa Hindu-Buda Di daerah Yogyakarta, Kajian Arkeologis Ruang Skala Waktu [Ecological consider- ations in the placement of Hindu-Buddhist sites in the Yogyakarta region: An archaeological study of spatial and temporal scale] (Doctoral dissertation). University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.

[17] Peursen V. (1988). Strategi Kebudayaan. Edisi Kedua, 238p, PT. Kanisius; Gunung Mulia, Yogyakarta-Jakarta [Cultural strategies:Kanisius Yogyakarta and Gunung Mulia Jakarta]. Retrieved from https://lib.ui.ac.id/detail.jsp?id=20316833.

[18] Prasetyo B. (2015). Megalitik, Fenomena yang Berkembang di Indonesia, Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan megalithic, a devel- oping phenomenon in Indonesia, National Archaeological Research Center, Ministry of Education and Culture. Yogyakarta: Galang Press.

[19] Reynard E., & Giusti C. (2018). The landscape and cultural value of geoheritage. In E.Reynard, & J.Brilha ( Geoheritage:Eds.), Assessment, protection and management. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[20] Saaty T. L., & Vargas L. G. (2006). Decision making with the analytic network process: Economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. Boston: Springer.

[21] Samodra H. (2016). Pedoman Membangun dan Mengembangkan Geopark Buku Panduan Penyuluhan Badan Geologi (Bandung) [Guidelines for building and developing geoparks]. Bandung: Geological Agency of Bandung.

[22] Tamansiswaa Association Supreme Council (2013). Ki Hajar Dewantara, thoughts, conceptions, modeling, independent attitude, Culture II. Yogyakarta: UST Press.

[23] UNESCO (2016). The operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines.

[24] Vahidnia M. H., Alesheikh A. A., Alimohammadi A., & Hosseinali F. (2009). Landslide hazard zonation using quantitative methods in GIS. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 7(3), 176-189.