Georgia’s Megalithic Heritage as a Geotourism Resource and the Development of an Index for Assessing Its Tourism Potential

Manana Aladashvili; Maia Khechikashvili; Tamar Tamarashvili

doi:10.52340/spectri.2026.13.01.04

Authors

Manana Aladashvili Georgian Technical University https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6558-2542
Maia Khechikashvili Saint Andrew the First-Called Georgian University of the Patriarchate of Georgia https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6558-2542
Tamar Tamarashvili Iakob Gogebashvili Telavi State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52340/spectri.2026.13.01.04

Keywords:

megalithic heritage, geotourism, geoheritage, tourism potential, tourism readiness, MGTAI, AHP, Abuli, Gokhnari, Georgia

Abstract

Georgia’s megalithic heritage constitutes an important component of the country’s prehistoric and archaeological heritage, yet its tourism potential remains insufficiently studied and utilized. The significance of megalithic and Cyclopean structures is determined not only by their historical, archaeological, and cultural value, but also by their interrelationship with the natural environment, terrain, landscape, and spatial context. Accordingly, assessing their potential for tourism use requires a comprehensive approach that considers both the resource value of the heritage and the conditions necessary for its tourism utilization.

The aim of this study is to develop and pilot-test a quantitative assessment tool—the Megalithic Geoheritage Tourism Potential Assessment Index (MGTAI)—adapted to the evaluation of the geotourism potential of Georgia’s megalithic heritage. The index was pilot-tested on the Abuli and Gokhnari megalithic sites. The proposed model integrates two principal components: Resource Geotourism Potential (RGP) and Tourism Readiness (TR). The assessment is based on 10 criteria, five representing the resource component and five addressing tourism readiness. Each criterion is evaluated on a 0–5 scale, with predetermined weights assigned according to its relative importance.

The pilot assessment resulted in an MGTAI score of 84.0 out of 100 for the Abuli site and 61.0 for Gokhnari. Abuli’s Resource Geotourism Potential (RGP) was assessed at 58.0 out of 60, while its Tourism Readiness (TR) reached 26.0 out of 40. The corresponding scores for Gokhnari were 46.0 and 15.0, respectively. The results demonstrate that the resource-based geotourism potential of both sites exceeds their current level of tourism readiness, indicating the need for additional conditions and targeted interventions to transform existing heritage resources into viable tourism products.

The main finding of the study is that high heritage and landscape value does not automatically imply a high level of tourism readiness. Therefore, MGTAI can be used not only to rank megalithic sites according to their tourism potential, but also as a decision-support tool for identifying tourism development priorities and balancing heritage conservation with tourism use.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Manana Aladashvili, Georgian Technical University

Associate Professor

Maia Khechikashvili, Saint Andrew the First-Called Georgian University of the Patriarchate of Georgia

Associate Professor

Tamar Tamarashvili, Iakob Gogebashvili Telavi State University

Associate Professor

References

1. Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage, 8, 119–134.

2. Brilha, J., Gray, M., Pereira, D. I., & Pereira, P. (2018). Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environmental Science & Policy, 86, 19-28.

3. Farsani, N. T., Coelho, C., & Costa, C. (2011). Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(1), 68–81.

4. Farsani, N. T., Coelho, C., & Costa, C. (2014). Geotourism and geoparks: A tool for socio-economic development in rural areas. GeoJournal, 79, 39–54.

5. Gray, M. (2008). Geodiversity: Valuing and conserving abiotic nature (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

6. Hose, T. A. (2012). 3G’s for modern geotourism. Geoheritage, 4, 7–24.

7. Renfrew, C. (1973). Before Civilization. The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Jonathan Cape, London. 1976 Megaliths, Territories and Populations. Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe, edited by SJ De Laet, 198-220.

8. Richards, G. (2006). Cultural tourism: Global and local perspectives. Haworth Press.

9. Richards, G. (2011). Cultural tourism: Global and local perspectives. Tourism Recreation Research, 36(3), 299–303.

10. Scarre, C. (Ed.). (2002). Monuments and landscape in Atlantic Europe: Perception and society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Psychology Press.

11. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.

12. Štrba, Ľ., Varró, K., & others. (2023). Geosite assessment and geotourism potential: Methodological approaches and applications. Sustainability, 15, 9539.

13. Zorlu, K., Polat, S., Yılmaz, A., & Dede, V. (2024). An integrated fuzzy-rough multi-criteria group decision-making model for quantitative assessment of geoheritage resources. Resources Policy, 90, 104773.

14. ხოზრევანიძე ნ., ალადაშვილი მ., ქობლიანიძე თ. (2026). გეოტურიზმი და გეომე¬მკვიდ-რეობის დაცვა: მდგრადი განვითარების და ვიზიტორთა მართვის მოდელები. საქარ¬თვე-ლოს ტექნიკური უნივერსიტეტის შრომები.

15. Amir, J. F., & Shaleha, N. (2026). Digitisation of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Raising the Legend of a UNESCO Global Geopark Area. Udayana Journal of Law anpd Culture, 10(1), 102-124.