Introduction

The Cameroon volcanic line (CVL), orientated N 30° E, is a chain of volcanoes and plutonic complexes over 1600 km long, located between the West African Craton and the Congo Craton (Fig. 1). Its volcanic activity, which dates from the Eocene to the present (2000 eruption of Mount Cameroon), is at the origin of several volcanic landforms, both of oceanic (Atlantic Ocean) and continental crust. Several plutonic massifs as well as some volcanic rocks were emplaced more than 50 Ma ago (Moundi et al. 2007).

Fig. 1
figure 1

General map of the Cameroon volcanic line (adapted after Halliday et al. 1988), showing the location of the Mbepit Massif (blue diamond)

Full size image

Many studies on volcanic geoheritage, geoconservation and geotourism have emerged in recent years around the world (Migon and Pijet-Migon 2016; Németh et al. 2017; Ginting and Sasmita 2018; Pérez-Umaña et al. 2019; Yaseen et al. 2019 etc.). The CVL also constitutes a geological heritage dominated by numerous geomorphological features. Despite the important geoheritage values and the tourist potential, morphometric information across the CVL is least available. Only recently, some initiatives for carrying out geoheritage inventories and assessment were undertaken in localities of Mount Manengouba, Mount Bamenda and Mount Bambouto’s (Zangmo Tefogoum et al. 2014, 2017, 2019). The Mbepit Massif, one of the most important massif of the CVL, was selected for this project. This massif was chosen because it is made up of important assets that have attracted an active multi-origin population and fostered their settlement during the past decades. It is important to draw the attention of the local population to the importance of geomorphological heritage and popularise geomorphic sites through systematic studies.

Mbepit Massif lies in the plain of Noun, elevated at 1988 m above sea level and 800 m above the plain. Some scientific researches conducted within this region concentrated on petrology, mineralogy, geochemistry and geochronology of rock formations, and risks related to volcanic activity (Tchoua 1972; Tchokona Seuwi 2010; Wandji 1995; Wandji et al. 2008). Thus, specifically, no research on the inventory of geosites has been conducted till date in order to promote geotourism and thus the local economy. Likewise, geoscience research in Cameroon, focused on the development of geoheritage as geotourism resource, is still scarce. The aim of this paper is to select and assess the geological heritage of the Mbepit Massif, with the purpose of promoting the geosites in Cameroon, and their utilisation in education and geotourism development.

The scientific literature reveals a multitude of concepts and definitions concerning geodiversity, geoconservation, geoheritage and geosites (notably Black and Gonggrijp 1990; Elízaga et al. 1994; Gray 2008, 2013; Pena dos Reis and Henriques 2009; Wimbledon 2011, Reynard and Brilha 2018). Some important definitions used in this paper are extracted from the ProGEO simple guide (2011, 2017). Geosite and geotope are considered by Reynard (2004) as synonyms. Several definitions of geotope have been proposed in some works (Grandgirard 1995; Panizza and Piacente 1993; Panizza and Piacente 2003; Panizza 2001, 2003; Reynard 2004). Reynard’s definition (2004) of geotope, i.e. a geological or geomorphological object that has acquired a scientific (e.g. sedimentological stratotype, relict moraine representative of a glacier extension), cultural/historical (e.g. religious or mystical value), aesthetic (e.g. some mountainous or coastal landscapes) and/or social/economic (e.g. aesthetic landscapes as tourist destination) value due to human perception or exploitation, has been retained in this study. Likewise, the term geomorphosites, which according to Bussard (2014) is a contraction of “geomorphological sites”, is applicable. Geomorphosites are landforms that have acquired a scenic/aesthetic, scientific, cultural, historical, aesthetic and/or a social/economic value due to their human perception or exploitation (Panizza 2001).

The geological heritage should be employed for tourism purposes in good balance with conservation (e.g., Prosser 2011; Gray 2008, 2013). Geotourism is one of the newest concepts within the field of tourism, and primarily focuses on promoting geological and geomorphological features in landscapes as tourist attractions (Rannveig Ólafsdóttir 2019). Geotourism spans a range of visitor interests, from the specialist geotourist to the more general visitor. This also provides economic, cultural, relational and social benefits for both visitors and host communities (Gordon 2018). Thus, geotourism needs to be integrated with best practice management to preserve and enhance visitor experience and protect the resource (Leung et al. 2018).

This article first presents the geological context of the study, then describes the different analytical methods and justifies the choice of methods adopted compared with other proposals, before presenting the results of the study. The utilisation of Mbepit Massif geoheritage to promote development of local tourism would also be the discussed.

Geological Setting

Cameroon Volcanic Line

The CVL is one of the major recent magmatic provinces in Africa (Fitton and Dunlop 1985). The origin of this large magmatic province is still highly debated. It has been argued that the alignment of the volcanic massifs is the ancient track of the St Helena mantle plume, but no age progression has been evidenced along the CVL. Many other hypotheses have been proposed, suggesting the mantle plume origin for CVL (Ngako et al. 2006), or the melting of the uppermost mantle previously impregnated by the Saint-Helena hot spot (Halliday et al. 1988; Lee et al. 1994; Rankenburg et al. 2005). The popular hypotheses include that of “hot line” (Meyers et al. 1998; Déruelle et al. 2007), or the evolution due to the development of lithospheric cracks (Moreau et al. 1987). The occurrence of transitional basalts and leucogabbros in the Bamoun Plateau (Moundi 1993; Moundi et al. 1996, 2007; Ziem à Bidias et al. 2017, 2018) allows the possibility of an emerging rift in the Cameroon Line.

New geophysical measurements and numerical modelling along the CVL have provided additional constraints on the structure and evolution of this part of Africa (Adams et al. 2015; De Plaen et al. 2014). Geodynamic models that involve mantle melting due to edge-driven convection along the Congo Craton have been put forward to explain the linear structure of the CVL as well as its extension on the oceanic plate (Fourel et al. 2013; Milelli et al. 2012; Reusch et al. 2010, 2011). Within the tectonic framework of these models, there are still many unanswered questions to explain the compositional diversity, vis-à-vis the sources of magmatism.

Location and Geological Context of the Study Area

This research on the inventory of geomorphosites and their geomorphological features was carried out on the Mbepit Massif, located at the Eastern part of the Noun plain, between latitudes 5° 30′ and 5° 35′ North and longitudes 10° 40′ and 10° 45′ East (Fig. 2). This area has equatorial climate with two seasons: a short dry season (from November to February) and a long rainy season (from March to October). Maximum rainfall is between August and September (~ 323 mm), and temperature varies between 25 and 30 °C with average of 27 °C (source: climate-data.org/Cameroun/west/foumbot-894723). Mbepit Massif (one of the oldest volcanoes of the CVL) was developed during the Eocene (40K/40Ar ages of 45.5 and 44.03 Ma; Wandji et al. 2008). These authors shown that two-thirds of the Mbepit Massif consists of rhyolitic rocks, mostly domes and thick, viscous lava flows. Two rhyolitic protrusions dominate the landscape: a 1988-m-high peak on the southern belt and a 1771-m-high needle displaying columnar jointing, on the northern belt. Due to its prolonged exposure to weathering and erosion, the present morphology of some cones does not reflect the original volcanic features.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Geological map of the Mbepit Massif (adapted after Wandji et al. 2008). Altitudes are shown in metre

Full size image

Similarly, Tchokona Seuwi (2010) demonstrated that three major volcanic phases succeeded one another on the Mbepit Massif: an essentially effusive fissural dynamism that emitted flood basalts; a central dynamism that generated protrusions; numerous thick and highly viscous rhyolitic lava flows; and recently, effusive and moderately explosive basaltic fissural dynamism, which produced flows and projections. The latter is responsible for the construction of the Crater of Lake Nfou, the main attraction of the Mbepit Massif.

Analytical Methods

Inventory of Geomorphosites

An inventory of geological sites based on solid and clear criteria is a first step for any geoconservation strategy (Garcia et al. 2017). Many published works about inventorying methods exist (JNCC 1977; Lapo et al. 1993; Wimbledon et al. 1995, 1999; Alexandrowicz and Kozlowski 1999; Grandgirard 1999; Parkes and Morris 1999; White and Mitchell 2006; Pereira et al. 2007; Reynard et al. 2007, 2016; García-Cortés and Carcavilla Urquí 2009; Pereira and Pereira 2010; Díaz-Martínez and Díez-Herrero 2011; Wimbledon 2011; Fuertes-Gutiérrez and Fernández-Martínez 2012; Reynard and Coratza 2013; Sellier 2016). In general, all methods are based on a set of criteria that intend to reduce the subjectivity, always associated with the selection procedure of natural objects, and the aim of the inventory is related to its final purpose, which may consist of a national geoconservation strategy, a geotouristic project, an educational programme, etc. (Brilha 2018). According to Lima et al. 2010, the four main pillars that support a good inventory are the topic, the value, the scale and the aim (Table 1).

Table 1 The four main pillars for a good inventory (Lima et al. 2010)
Full size table

The main criteria used for the inventory of geomorphosites in this paper are adopted from Reynard et al. (2016). The approach of this method is divided into four stages: (1) definition of the main geomorphological contexts; (2) establishment of a first list of landforms based on a literature survey, consultation of cartographic and photogrammetric material, field survey, other existing inventories, and the assessor’s knowledge; (3) classification of landforms following two sets of criteria: a spatial criterion (representative versus rare landforms) and a temporal criterion (active versus inherited landforms); and (4) selection of potential geomorphosites, which leads to the establishment of a final list. General data for the documentation of selected géomorphosites are measured according to the following main characteristics: (1) code (divided into three parts: three capital letters for the name of the project, three small letters for the geomorphological context or process, three digits); (2) name; (3) altitude; (4) coordinates; (5) main geomorphological process; (6) characteristics; (7) type. Details of the entire analytical procedure are given in Reynard et al. (2016).

Assessment of Sites

There is no generally accepted method about the numerical assessment of sites. Usually, quantitative methods are based on several criteria and respective indicators to which different scores or parameters may be assigned (Cendrero 1996a, 1996b; Pralong and Reynard 2005; Coratza and Giusti 2005; Bruschi and Cendrero 2005, 2009; Reynard et al. 2007; Pereira et al. 2007; Zouros 2007; Reynard 2009; Erhartic 2010; Pereira and Pereira 2010, 2012; Bruschi et al. 2011; Vujičić et al. 2011; Fassoulas et al. 2012; Bollati et al. 2013; Reynard et al. 2016; Mucivuna et al. 2019). The method of assessment applied in this work was developed by Reynard et al. (2016) on geomorphological heritage inventories at a regional scale. This includes the modification of some criteria of the previous method developed by Reynard et al. (2007) and used in several regional studies in Switzerland, at the University of Lausanne (Duhem 2008; Genoud 2008; Pagano 2008; Perret 2008; Maillard and Reynard 2011; Perret and Reynard 2011; Kozlik and Reynard 2013) and also applied, with some adaptations, in regional studies in Quebec (Mass et al. 2011), Romania and Malta (Coratza et al. 2012), Morocco (Boukhallad and El Khalki 2014) and Cameroon (Zangmo Tefogoum et al. 2017, 2019, 2020). It makes use of a card divided into six parts. For this work, three parts were selected: (1) assessment of the scientific value, with four criteria: integrity, rarity, representativeness, palaeogeographical value (Table 2); (2) assessment of three additional values (ecological, aesthetic and cultural value; Table 3); and (3) use and management characteristics (Tables 4 and 5). The four criteria of scientific value (SV) are independently evaluated by a numerical score ranging from 0 (zero) to 1 (very high) at intervals of 0.25 (Table 6). The final scientific value (SV) of the object is obtained by the average of the four criteria, that is:

Table 2 Criteria used for the assessment of the scientific value (Reynard et al. 2007, 2016)
Full size table
Table 3 Criteria used for assessment of the additional values (adapted from Reynard et al. 2016)
Full size table
Table 4 Criteria used for the documentation of the protection of the site (adapted from Reynard et al. 2016)
Full size table
Table 5 Sub-criteria used for the assessment of visit conditions (adapted from Reynard et al. 2016)
Full size table
Table 6 Criteria used for the assessment of the scientific value (adapted from Reynard et al. 2007 and Reynard et al. 2016)
Full size table

SV = (Integrity + Representativeness + Rarity + Palaeogeographical interest) / 4.

A description of the analytical procedure is given in Reynard et al. (2016).

Results

The Inventory

After checking the four pillars of Lima et al. 2010 (Table 1), the establishment of an inventory of the geomorphological heritage of the study area was done gradually. Firstly, the review of existing geological data published about Mbepit Massif under study (Tchoua 1972; Tchokona Seuwi 2010; Wandji 1995; Wandji et al. 2008) and geological maps, has permitted to census a list of 13 potential geomorphosites. This list has been enriched with the advice of some authors that have developed research in the area. The next step involved several field investigations with two main aims: to identify and characterise all the sites included in the list of potential geomorphosites and to recognise new potential geomorphosites. So, four potential geomorphosites were not selected due to lack of accessibility. However, a new geomorphosite (Dome-casting) was discovered and selected because of the related significant scientific and additional value. Then, eight geomorphosites (South Rhyolitic Protrusion, South Volcano, North Rhyolitic Needle, NW cone, North Volcano, Dome-casting, Tam-chi Depression, and Maar Nfou) were definitively selected (Fig. 3) for final assessment. Figures 4 and 5 show pictures of the selected geomorphosites, and general data for the documentation are given in Table 7.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Location of selected geomorphosites in Mbepit Massif

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Pictures of the selected geomorphosites (a South Rhyolitic Protrusion; b North Volcano; c North Rhyolitic Needle; d South Volcano; e NW Cone)

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Continuation and end of the pictures of the selected geomorphosites (a Dome-casting; b Tam-chi Depression; c Maar Nfou)

Full size image
Table 7 General data for the documentation of selected geomorphosites (the criteria used are from Reynard et al. 2016)
Full size table

The Assessment

Scientific Value of Mbepit Massif Geomorphosites

The scientific value of the geomorphosites of the Mbepit massif is recorded in Table 8. In general, almost all of these geomorphosites have retained their integrity (Fig. 6), hence the average score of 0.84. Nevertheless, the South Rhyolitic Protrusion and North Rhyolitic Needle get score of 0.75 for this criterion because of the phenomenon of physical disintegration that erodes their rocks. These gradually become detached and fall in the neighbouring valleys. The degradation of the Tam-Chi Depression is marked by the presence of houses and crops. That justifies the lowest score of 0.5 given to Tam-Chi Depression. Geomorphosites of the Mbepit Massif are representative of regional geomorphology. Their majestic character overlooks the general relief of the surrounding plain. These very distinctive facts attribute the score of 0.91 due to their representativeness. Concerning rareness, the North Rhyolitic Needle, the South Rhyolitic protrusion, the South Volcano, the Tam-chi Depression and the Maar Nfou obtain the maximum score of 1, because they constitute unique and specific geomorphological entities in the region. On the other hand, NW Cone, North Volcano, and Dome-casting (score 0.75) have a relatively recurring relief in the region. Nevertheless, a high average of 0.91 is obtained for rareness. Palaeogeographic interest concedes the lowest average of the criteria determining the scientific value (0.50). This is largely due to the fact that the geomorphosites evaluated are not indicators of past climate. However, the score is due to the fact that they reveal a change of appearance compared with the past landscape. In the same way, the geomorphological characteristics and the different volcanic products of the Mbepit Massif make it possible to identify the variety of volcanic dynamisms at the origin of the formation of these geomorphosites which modified the original relief.

Table 8 Scores obtained from the assessment of the scientific value of geomorphosites in the Massif Mbepit
Full size table
Fig. 6
figure 6

Highlight of the integrity of the Mbepit Massif’s geomorphosites

Full size image

In general, the scientific value of the Mbepit Massif geomorphosites is fairly high (0.79). Figures 7 and 8 underline the evolution bend of the scientific value of the Mbepit Massif geomorphosites. Maar Nfou obtains the highest score (0.94) due to its integrity, representativeness and rarity. For a similar reason, South Volcano and North Rhyolitic Needle have a high scientific value (respectively 0.88 and 0.81). However, the Tam-chi Depression has the lowest scientific value (0.69) due to average integrity and insignificant palaeogeographic interest.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Histograms of the scientific value of the Mbepit Massif’s geomorphosites

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Curve showing the variation of the scientific value between geomorphosites

Full size image

Additional Values of the Mbepit Massif Geomorphosites

Ecological Value

There are various natural environments with remarkable biological diversity, with special fauna and flora species. The geomorphosites of the Mbepit Massif also play a vital role in the subsistence of organisms including man, animal and plants. On the flanks of cones and domes appear gallery forests (Fig. 9a) serving as sanctuary for a diverse variety of living organisms which are often inter-dependent on each other for their subsistence. Thus, vegetation provides shelter and food for many species. That is one aspect of the ecological importance of mountains to living things. Another role the geomorphosites of the Mbepit Massif play is that they serve as protection from harsh weather conditions or winds of gale force. The ravines of these geomorphosites also serve as a drain during the rains that water vegetation in the lower surrounding areas. The flowing water also carries many minerals that improve the growth of vegetation.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Pictures a and b highlighting the contrast of colours in the Mbepit Massif range

Full size image

Thus, due to the mount, forest and lake ecosystems, the Mbepit Massif geomorphosites have a significant ecological influence. However, the protection of geomorphosites in the region is limited. Only the North Rhyolitic Needle and the Maar Nfou are protected, though South Rhyolitic Protrusion, South Volcano, NW Cone, North Volcano, Dome-casting and Tam-chi Depression are not protected. The Maar Nfou is protected by the Ministry of Tourism and Leisure. North Rhyolitic Needle is protected by the traditional authorities of the Baïgom village.

Despite that weak protection, the average ecological value of the Mbepit Massif geomorphosites is quite high, because these are sites little disturbed by human action, except at the lower flanks of the mountains.

Aesthetic Value

The geomorphosites of the Mbepit Massif are clear and visible from afar. They present contrasts of colour due to the diversified vegetation and the volcanic formations with various facies (rhyolites, basalts, lapilli, volcanic ash …). Thus, the rhyolitic protrusions, of light colour, overhang the vegetation, while on certain flanks of mountain a green plant carpet can be observed (Fig. 9a). The pyroclastic projections cover the soil, which then present a black colour, and contrasts with the brown soils of the part not covered by volcanic ash. The contrast of colours is also due to the variations of slope that have structured the space, as is the case in the Maar Nfou (Fig. 9b).

The variation of the altitudes (between 1120 and 1988 m) of the geomorphosites makes their vertical development perceptible. Thus, depending on whether the reference zone is the plain or the slopes of the volcanoes, there is a positive vertical development (South Rhyolitic Protrusion, South Volcano, North Rhyolitic Needle, NW Cone, North Volcano and Dome-casting) and a negative vertical development (Tam-chi Depression and Maar Nfou). These different criteria give all these geomorphosites a high average aesthetic value.

Cultural Value

The geomorphosites of Mbepit Massif do not have a religious importance. There is no prehistoric or historical element to trace the geological history of these different geomorphosites except the products of volcanic eruptions. Thus, the volcanological, petrological and geochemical studies of the volcanic formations made it possible to characterise the geohistory of this region of the CVL. At the symbolic level, only the Maar Nfou is subject to a traditional interest owing to its mystical attributes by the people. The Maar Nfou site is also mentioned several times in the scientific and tourist literature. Overall, the geomorphosites of Mbepit Massif have a moderate average cultural value.

Figure 10 shows the intrinsic and additional values of each Mbepit Massif geomorphosite.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Intrinsic and additional values of Mbepit Massif geomorphosites

Full size image

Use and Management Characteristics

Protection of Geomorphosites

The geomorphosites of the Mbepit Massif have no legal protection. Their protection status is therefore zero. Only the Maar Nfou, with a crater lake, enjoys a very low protection status. This protection is materialised in the Baïgom village by a small fence and a sign post at the entrance of the site, which informs on the management of the site by the commune of Foumbot and entry payment modalities (Fig. 11a). However, beyond the fence, the population carries out several agricultural activities and exploitation of volcanic projections that gradually degrade the road to the site. This exploitation of pozzolana in the area is the main threat because it is unregulated and abusive. Likewise, intensive arable and pastoral farming on the mountain slopes modifies the topography and the natural flora of the slopes of certain geomorphosites (e.g. NW cone, North volcano, South Volcano) in some places. Finally, the permanent threat to the selected geomorphosites remains a possible resumption of volcanic activity.

Fig. 11
figure 11

a–d Some installations on the site of the Mbepit Massif. They are all damaged

Full size image

Valorisation of the Geomorphosites

Individual tourists and tourist groups can access the Mbepit Massif via cars or motorbikes. For some geomorphosites, notably North Rhyolitic Needle, South Rhyolitic Protrusion, South Volcano, NW Cone, North Volcano and Dome-casting, fairly steep slopes and the presence of drill-galleries complicate access. Nevertheless, the tracks traced on the flanks by herdsmen facilitate access to the sites. Access to the Nfou maar and the North Rhyolitic Needle is facilitated by stairs and rest huts (Fig. 11b). These infrastructures are in a state of degradation (Fig. 11c, d) and need to be refurbished. On the peaks of North Rhyolitic Needle and South Rhyolitic Protrusion, the pedestrian path is untagged and requires a lot of caution on the part of visitors to avoid tumbling. These tracks are also strongly prohibitive to people who do not have specific abilities in mountain environments.

Most of the geomorphosites of the Mbepit massif enjoy a calm environment, a preserved natural environment, a picturesque landscape with little noise or olfactory nuisance. Only pastoral farming is a source of trouble in these environments, but at a negligible level.

There is no permanent tourist infrastructure near the Mbepit Massif geomorphosites. The accommodation and catering facilities are located in the town of Foumbot, about 3 km from various sites. Despite the advantages of the Mbepit Massif geomorphosites highlighted by their aesthetic value, there are no interpretation facilities such as didactic panels, brochures, books ... providing the public with guidance and explanations on the sites. This is the consequence of the lack of valorisation of local geotourism and the fact that decision-makers are not aware of the wealth of the Mbepit Massif geoheritage.

Education Interest

Mbepit Massif’s geomorphosites benefit from high readability due to numerous geological phenomena that have occurred in this area and set up a variable range of volcanic reliefs. Thus, there are volcanoes set up by explosive (NW cone, South Volcano), effusive (North Volcano, Dome-casting) and extrusive (South Rhyolitic Protrusion, North Rhyolitic Needle) eruptive dynamisms, as well as a maar (Maar Nfou) and a huge depression (Tam-chi Depression). Numerous thick and highly viscous rhyolitic lava flows of Mbepit have been erupted onto the older plateau basalts, and some rhyolites were covered by more recent basaltic lava flows and tephra later on (Wandji et al. 2008). The basal volcanic formations are clearly tuffaceous (Tchoua 1972) and contain small enclaves of basalt and of the same rhyolite. All these geological features constitute a real didactic potential and can be easily understood by students of secondary school, universities and initiated people. Thus, the Mbepit Massif provides exceptionally good educational avenues for the dissemination of the current understanding on specific types of volcanism. Among the local people, there is a considerable level of awareness. The locals have general knowledge of certain volcanic products such as pozzolana, which is being exploited in an artisanal way to build houses, while volcanic ashes are used to fertilise agricultural lands for crop and food production. However, this work could improve the level of knowledge of local populations on the geomorphosites of their region and the related benefits.

Despite the corresponding high readability relating to the Mbepit Massif’s geomorphosites, there is lack of interpretation equipment like panels, booklet, website, flyer, and virtual visit in Mbepit area. The highlights of the visit conditions and educational interest of geomorphosites are given in a synthetic map (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12
figure 12

Synthetic map of the highlights of the visit conditions and educational interest of Mbepit Massif geomorphosites

Full size image

Discussion

Utilisation of Mbepit Massif Geoheritage to Promote Development of Local Tourism

The geological heritage of the Mbepit Massif seems to be very suitable for the purposes of geotourism development because of its numerous geomorphological features. Geotourism is, however, a broad concept which encompasses many aspects of a range of tourism activities, such as transport, accommodation, destination amenities, recreation, planning and management (Ólafsdóttir 2019).

Valorisation of the Geotourism Offer

According to Rybar (2010), within the field of Geotourism, the objects with the highest ranking will be those that are worthy of being classified as geosites, be it from mineralogical, petrographic, geomorphological, tectonic or palaeontological point of view, or any other reasons, or in case the object is a part of geopark. In order to highlight the geotourism potential of the Mbepit Massif, the following specific criteria were used:

Accessibility

Any visitor with a suitable vehicle can arrive directly at the foot of the Mbepit Massif in less than 20 min, from the city of Foumbot. The accessibility of the selected geomorphosites and the walking time vary depending on the distance from the site to the parking (Fig. 12), the nature of the slopes and the vegetation cover that surrounds the site. Once at the top of the massif, one can have a generalised view of all the geomorphosites. The poor quality of certain roads is to be emphasised. The tracks are sometimes difficult to access in the rainy season. However, there are bypass tracks mastered by local residents. In general, the roads leading to the Mbepit Massif need to be rehabilitated.

The Interest of the Geomorphosites of the Mbepit Massif

On the one hand, this is determined by their external appearance and the fascination they engender, and on the other hand by the possibility for the public to discover clearly the geological and geomorphological features of the massif.

Visitor Safety

The geomorphosites of the Mbepit Massif are open to nature and present no identified risks, except for a possible resumption of volcanic activity. In case of large numbers and depending on the age of the visitors, it is strongly recommended to be guided by local monitors for more security; some tracks can be dangerous.

Guaranteed Geomorphosites’ Protection

During the passage of visitors, the protection and conservation of selected geomorphosites can be guaranteed as they do not consist of fragile natural elements that can be degraded by visitors.

Capacity Limits

Certain areas of the Mbepit Massif can contain dozens of visitors. It would nevertheless be preferable to reduce the staff as much as possible in the event of a visit by young people to better control them.

The Proximity of Other Potential Geomorphosites

More than sixty strombolian cones line the Noun plain and are visible from the summit of mount Mbepit. This is an important factor for the creation of tourism offers including several geomorphosites.

These important assets made it possible to specify the fundamental actions to be carried out to valorise the offer of geotourism of Mbepit Massif, in particular:

  • Development of tourism infrastructures

    It is important to improve off-road vehicle roads to ease accessibility, build hotels/inns and restaurants around the sites and establish interpretative panels around each geomorphosite.

  • Development of geomorphosites

    The development of the Mbepit Massif can contribute to the enhancement of the geoheritage and the local tourism offer. More recently, site improvements are intended to improve the observation of the site by limiting the degradation of these sites. Thus, by building bridges and installing elevators, the overall view and staging of the site will be more attractive and thus provide more emotions and feelings to visitors.

  • Event creation

    The creation of an event promotes the attractiveness of a destination and makes it possible to mobilise many actors including the media. In the case of Mount Mbepit, a race is organised every 2 years on the occasion of the cultural festival “Ngouon” (Fig. 13a) of the Bamoun people, natives of the region. This kind of initiative is to be encouraged because it allows the promotion of this site. By the same token, the organisation of geopromenades (Fig. 13b), conferences and exhibitions to promote the geomorphosites of the Mbepit massif is highly recommended.

Fig. 13
figure 13

Event to promote the Massif Mbepit’s geomorphosite (a Mount Mbepit race organised on the occasion of the local cultural festival “Ngouon “; b geopromenade with students at the top of Maar Nfou)

Full size image

Impacts of Geotourism

The geological sites of the Mbepit massif can generate direct economic income thanks to services such as transport, catering or paid visits to the site. Investment into the manufacturing of commercial ski lifts would contribute to the economic benefits. Geotourism offers can also create significant economic added value by exploiting the appropriate geological potential (Megerle and Schrembs 2009).

Similarly, geotourism includes local communities in planning, development and exploitation, thereby contributing to their well-being. It also ensures the protection of the areas through the management of tourist flows, the knowledge of the resource through research, the education of tourists or inhabitants, the participation of the local population through the training of guides, and the perpetuation of the product by putting in place effective conservation (Cayla 2009).

Final Considerations

The Mbepit Massif is dominated by geomorphosites that are mostly of volcanic origin. These are domes, volcanic cones, lava flows, a maar and a depression, all characterised by relatively high scientific and additional values. These geomorphosites are therefore a natural heritage that deserves to be valued through tourism. The current use of the natural and tourist attractions of the Mbepit Massif is less than the associated potential. The main goal of geotourism in this case is to raise awareness of the interesting aspects of Mbepit Massif and to attract as many tourists as possible to the region. In combination with geodidactic offers to raise visitors’ awareness of the value of geomorphosites, geotourism on the Mbepit massif can also contribute to improving the protection of identified geomorphosites. Geo-morphological landscapes and regions with special geological features are becoming increasingly recognised as critical areas to protect and conserve for the unique geoscientific aspects they represent and as places to enjoy and learn about the science and history of our planet. Geotourism and geoeducation are key tools to be used to ensure the protection of the Mbepit Massif landforms through geoconservation. Nature conservation policies implemented in Cameroon are focused on biodiversity conservation concerns (Zangmo Tefogoum et al. 2017). These policies rely on the Law no. 96/12 of 5 August 1996 relating to environmental management. As a result, in Cameroon, geomorphosites do not benefit from legal protection. Since geomorphosites are the basis of a successful geotourism, it is important that they are preserved and protected through legal legislation by the competent authorities.

The development of geological sites establishes a way of valuing them. Currently, a lot of importance is placed on the preservation of the environment. Therefore, the infrastructures that can be set up as part of geotourism in the Mbepit Massif must be adapted to the observation of places without degrading them.

The assessment of geoheritage assets, values and benefits within a cultural ecosystem service framework can enable a more holistic approach to geotourism, recognising the connections between people, geoheritage and the landscape (Gordon 2018).