In: Wagner W., Szekely, B. (eds.): ISPRS TC VII Symposium - 100 Years ISPRS, Vienna, Austria, July 5-7, 2010, IAPRS, Vol. XXXVIII, Part 7B 
Figure9: Pirshalizar Ceremony 
3-5 Zoning 
Zoning was based on the ecological and socio-economical 
factors. The results obtained by combining and overlaying the 
maps of ecological potentials and conventional boundary, 
reveal 12978 biological units in Kusalan area. Combining the 
uniform units, we obtained 6 main zones: 1- safe zone, 2- 
protected zone, 3- mass recreation, 4- alternative recreation, 
and 5- cultural and historical zone, 6- reconstruction zone. 
Area of each zone and its ratio to the total area were measured. 
Zone l(safe zone) covering 29% of the study area is extended 
over the eastern and western ranges of Doab River. Some parts 
of this zone are observed in southern range with a slope over 
60%. The vegetation cover has a low density in this zone. 
Rocks are the main coverage of the area. 
Some other factors such as some threatened species of goat 
(main habitat) and Ursus have also affected on the selection of 
this zone. Zone 2 (preservation zone) with an area of 40/7% 
surrounds zone 1. This zone involves some parts of forests in 
the north and north-east ranges. Lynx habitat can be observed 
in this zone. 13/7% of the study area pertains to alternative 
recreation (zone 3), mainly observed in south ranges of Sirvan 
Permanent River and north ranges of Shahoo Mountain. Zone 4 
(mass recreation) is located at north ranges with an area of 
about 3/21%. This zone was chosen because of the asphalt road 
of Marivan-Sanandaj and also the gravel rural road of 
Bahramabad -Bandol. Historical town of Horaman with special 
customs for holding Pirshaliar ceremony is selected as zone 5 
(cultural and historical zone). The reconstructive zone is 
13/2%. Totally, 70/7% of the study area has the potentiality to 
be preserved. In continue, the final zoning was done with 
regard to their natural condition, wetland shape and their 
combination with the conventional boundary map. According 
to the results of zoning, 29% of the study area pertains to zone 
1 and 40/7% is considered as zone 2. In total, 70% of the study 
area has the potentiality to be preserved. About 17% of the 
study area (zones 3&4) has recreative potentiality. 14% of zone 
5 and the rest 13/2% are considered as zone 6 or the 
reconstructive area. 
4- Conclusion 
Results of this study indicate the high potentiality of study area 
(Kusalan) to be a national park and receive the IUCN criteria. 
In this study, it is also verified that the biological potentials of 
an area or a natural habitat can be studied using data extracted 
from SPOT5 remotely sensed images (panchromatic 10 m 
images) via optical interpretation and supervised digital 
classification (hybrid method) and based on the global criteria 
(IUCN) to establish protected areas. It is also emphasized on 
using GIS to save and analyze the special data and also on 
providing proper outputs (maps, tables, etc.) as a significant 
and applicable method. 
References 
1. Ahsani, Nabi. 2004, practical strategies for 
natural resource conservation. Moje Sabz 
Journal. No 3. P 47. 
2. Colwell, R. N. (1968) Arial and space 
photographs as aide to land evaluation. In Lland 
Eevaluation; Macmilan of Aust. Melbourne: 
324-341. 
3. Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2002) The use of remote 
sensing and GIS in the sustainable management 
of tropical coastal ecosystems, Environment, 
Development and Sustainability, 4:93-112. 
4. Eskandar Firuz. 1974. Bioenvironment in Iran. 
National committee of natural resource 
conservation. P 105. 
5. FAO (1976) Nitional park planning with 
annotated examples. Forestry Paper NO. 6, 
FAO, Rom. 173 pp. 
6. Faust, N. I. (1991) Geographical information 
system and remote sensing future computing 
environment, Photogrammetric Engineering & 
Remote Sensing. 57(8): 655-668. 
7. Francoismass, J. & I. ramierZ. (1996) 
Comparsion of landuse classification obtained 
by visual Interpretation and digital processing, 
ITC Journal, 3(4): 278-282. 
8. Ghaderi Morteza. 1996. Remote Sensing. 
Translated. Second edition. Tehran University 
publication center. P 257. 
9. Ghasriani Farhang and Hossein Marufi. 1999. 
Identifying ecologic areas in Iran (vegetation 
cover in Kurdistan province), published by 
forests and rangelands research Institution. P 
78. 
10. Howard, J, A, and Mitchell, C, W. (1985) Photo 
geomomophology, John Wiley and Sons. 
Newyork. 222pp. 
11. IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected areas 
management categories. IUCN, Cambridge, UK 
and Gland, Switzerland. 261pp. 
12. IUCN (2006) Red list catagories. 341pp. 
13. IUCN (1992) Park for life- report of ivth world 
congress national parks and protecte areas. 
IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland.