Strategies to Manage Ecotourism Sustainably: Insights from a SWOT-ANP Analysis and IUCN Guidelines
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Areas
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Delphi Method
3.2.2. SWOT-ANP
3.2.3. SWOT Analysis
- SO (aggressive strategies): Use strengths and opportunities.
- ST (diverse strategies): Use strengths to avoid threats.
- WO (review strategies): Use opportunities to reduce weaknesses.
- WT (defensive strategies): Reduce weaknesses and avoid threats.
3.2.4. ANP Model
3.2.5. Comparing the Negative Impacts of Ecotourism and the Guidelines of the IUCN in PAs
4. Results
4.1. Respondent Demographics
4.2. Evaluating the Negative Impacts of Ecotourism on PAs
4.3. Comparing the Negative Impacts of Ecotourism and the Guidelines of the IUCN in PAs
4.4. Assessment of Factors (IF and EF)
4.5. Determination and Selection of the Best Strategy
5. Discussion
5.1. Research Implications
5.2. Research Limitations and Future Works
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tapfuma, M.M.; Musavengane, R.; Magwaza, R. The role of creative tourism through arts and crafts in promoting inclusive tourism in Zimbabwe. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2023, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobbinah, P.B.; Amenuvor, D.; Black, R.; Peprah, C. Ecotourism in the Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana: Local politics, practice and outcome. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2017, 20, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surendran, A.; Sekar, C. A comparative analysis on the socio-economic welfare of dependents of the Anamalai Tiger Reserve (ATR) in India. Margin J. Appl. Econ. Res. 2011, 5, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsić, S.; Nikolić, D.; Živković, Ž. Hybrid SWOT-ANP-FANP model for prioritization strategies of sustainable development of ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 80, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.-H. Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valdivieso, J.C.; Eagles, P.F.; Gil, J.C. Efficient management capacity evaluation of tourism in protected areas. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 1544–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaPage, W. Rethinking Park Protection Treading the Uncommon Ground of Environmental Beliefs; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Soltani, N.; Amini-birami, F.; Keshavarzi, B.; Moore, F.; Busquets, R.; Sorooshia, A.; Javid, R.; Rahmani Shahraki, A. Microplastic occurrence in selected aquatic species of the Persian Gulf: No evidence of trophic transfer or effect of diet. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 892, 164685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golkar, K. Tailoring SWOT Analytical Technique for Urban Design Application. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339055754_Tailoring_SWOT_Analytical_Technique_for_Urban_Design_Application (accessed on 17 January 2022).
- Kajanus, M.; Kangas, J.; Kurttila, M. The use of value focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertini, A.; Vitolo, T. Historical Centres, protected natural areas, communities and sustainable development: A possible balance. Land 2023, 12, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Başkent, E.Z. Assessing and developing improvement strategies for the protected area management (PAM) planning process/effectiveness in Turkey. Environ. Dev. 2023, 46, 100867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papapostolou, A.; Karakosta, C.; Apostolidis, G.; Doukas, H. An AHP-SWOT-Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for Achieving a Cross-Border RES Cooperation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arsić, S.; Nikolić, D.; Mihajlović, I.; Fedajev, A.; Živković, Ž. A new approach within ANP-SWOT framework for prioritization of ecosystem management and case study of National Park Djerdap, Serbia. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 146, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Stoffelen, A.; Vanclay, F. A conceptual framework and research method for understanding protected area governance: Varying approaches and epistemic worldviews about human-nature relations. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2023, 66, 1393–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soltani-Nejad, N.; Rastegar, R.; Shahriari-Mehr, G.; Taheri-Azad, F. Conceptualizing tourist journey: Qualitative analysis of tourist experiences on tripadvisor. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2022, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, T.; Takashina, N. Governance paradox: Implications from Japan’s national parks for managing complex protected areas. Sustain. Sci. 2023, 18, 1995–2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulte, E.; Tadele, H.; Haileslassie, A.; Mekuria, W. Perception of local communities on protected areas: Lessons drawn from the Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Ecosyst. People 2023, 19, 2227282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobhani, P.; Esmaeilzadeh, H.; Sadeghi, S.M.M.; Wolf, I.D.; Deljouei, A. Relationship Analysis of Local Community Participation in Sustainable Ecotourism Development in Protected Areas, Iran. Land 2022, 11, 1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, P.; Zhu, Y.; Ye, Z.; Zhang, G.; Gu, S.; Shen, Q.; Meshram, S.G.; Alvandi, E. Identification and prioritization of tourism development strategies using SWOT, QSPM, and AHP: A case study of Changbai Mountain in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaiswal, A.; Negi, P.; Singh, N. MCDM Computational Approaches for Green Supply Chain Management Strategies. In Proceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Networks (ISCON), Mathura, India, 3–4 March 2023; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Qayyum, M.; Yuyuan, Y.; Bhatti, U.A.; Shijie, L. Evaluation of the one belt and one road (OBOR) in economic development and suggestions analysis based on SWOT analysis with weighted AHP and entropy methods. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2023, 82, 14985–15006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oktari, R.S.; Latuamury, B.; Idroes, R.; Sofyan, H.; Munadi, K. Knowledge management strategy for managing disaster and the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia: SWOT analysis based on the analytic network process. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 85, 103503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobhani, P.; Esmaeilzadeh, H.; Sadeghi, S.M.M.; Marcu, M.V.; Wolf, I.D. Evaluating Ecotourism Sustainability Indicators for Protected Areas in Tehran, Iran. Forests 2022, 13, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, D.-J.; Huber, J.; Hesser, F.; Höllbacher, E.; Stern, T. Two experts, three opinions: Volatile organic compounds’ testing methods and regulative systems. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sutterlüty, A.; Hesser, F.; Schwarzbauer, P.; Schuster, K.C.; Windsperger, A.; Stern, T. A Delphi approach to understanding varying expert viewpoints in sustainability communication: The case of water footprints of bio-based fiber resources. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, H.P. Enhancing Delphi research: Methods and results. J. Adv. Nurs. 2004, 45, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paraskevas, A.; Saunders, M.N. Beyond consensus: An alternative use of Delphi enquiry in hospitality research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 24, 907–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, X.; Xie, Y.; Wang, H. Research on the construction and application of teacher-student interaction evaluation system for smart classroom in the post COVID-19. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2023, 78, 101286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph-Williams, N.; Newcombe, R.; Politi, M.; Durand, M.-A.; Sivell, S.; Stacey, D.; O’Connor, A.; Volk, R.J.; Edwards, A.; Bennett, C. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: A modified Delphi consensus process. Med. Decis. Mak. 2014, 34, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fallah, M.; Ocampo, L. The use of the Delphi method with non-parametric analysis for identifying sustainability criteria and indicators in evaluating ecotourism management: The case of Penang National Park (Malaysia). Environ. Syst. Decis. 2021, 41, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, C. The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. J. Adv. Nurs. 2003, 41, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lawshe, C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975, 28, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yüksel, İ.; Dagdeviren, M. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis–A case study for a textile firm. Inf. Sci. 2007, 177, 3364–3382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G.; Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process. In Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 23–40. [Google Scholar]
- Saludares, Q.E.D.; Namoco, R.A. Optimizing Allocation and Distribution of Students’ Assistance Among SUCs Using Analytic Network Process (ANP). J. Innov. Teach. Learn. 2023, 3, 19–22. [Google Scholar]
- Yuslem, N.; Nawawi, Z.M.; Dahrul, S. Strategy For Strengthening Business Incubators As Establishment Of Entrepreneurship Using The Anp Model In Private Higher Education In North Sumatera. Edukasi Islam. J. Pendidik. Islam 2023, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Margles, S.W.; Masozera, M.; Rugyerinyange, L.; Kaplin, B.A. Participatory planning: Using SWOT-AHP analysis in buffer zone management planning. J. Sustain. For. 2010, 29, 613–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starr, M.; Joshi, O.; Will, R.E.; Zou, C.B. Perceptions regarding active management of the Cross-timbers forest resources of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas: A SWOT-ANP analysis. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Li, Z.; Xing, X. The Dilemma of Sustainable Development of Russian Arctic Development Based on ANP-SWOT Model Theory Perspective. Systems 2023, 11, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini, A.; Pourahmad, A.; Oroji, H.; Alizadeh, M. The Priority of Measuring the Strategies for Development of Cultural Tourism in Alamut, Qazvin. Hum. Geogr. Res. 2013, 45, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grošelj, P.; Hodges, D.G.; Stirn, L.Z. Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 71, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1996; Volume 4922. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN; WCMC. Godliness for Protected Areas Management Categories; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; CNPPA: Ambleside, UK; WCMC: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Pollard, W.; Rajendran, D.; Sendjaya, S.; Neesham, C. Organisational culture and effectiveness in ecotourism: The case of World-Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms Australia (WWOOF Australia). Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2023, 28, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karthik, A.; Jeniffer, M.; Chandran, R.A. Multi-Dimensional Strands of Rural Tourism in Alankuppam A Stimulus for Destination Branding. Int. Res. J. Econ. Manag. Stud. IRJEMS 2023, 2, 94–98. [Google Scholar]
- Wongthong, P.; Harvey, N. Integrated coastal management and sustainable tourism: A case study of the reef-based SCUBA dive industry from Thailand. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 95, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobhani, P.; Esmaeilzadeh, H.; Sadeghi, S.M.M.; Marcu, M.V. Estimation of Ecotourism Carrying Capacity for Sustainable Development of Protected Areas in Iran. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jahani, A.; Saffariha, M. Human activities impact prediction in vegetation diversity of Lar National Park in Iran using artificial neural network model. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2021, 17, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rakhshan, M.; Mahmoudi, H.; Abdoli, A.; Veisi, H.; Babrgir, S. The interaction of local people and natural area in Haraz drainage basin; Case study: Ab-e Ask village. Front. Water 2023, 4, 949691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, S.; Ladkin, A. Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective. Tour. Manag. 1997, 18, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandit, M.K. The Himalayas must be protected. Nature 2013, 501, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scott, D. Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, N.M.; Wheaton, M.; Bowers, A.W.; Hunt, C.A.; Durham, W.H. Nature-based tourism’s impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: A review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 838–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blancas, F.J.; Lozano-Oyola, M.; Gonzalez, M.; Guerrero, F.M.; Caballero, R. How to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: The case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 412, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozano-Oyola, M.; Blancas, F.J.; González, M.; Caballero, R. Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 659–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.; Morse, S. Breaking through the glass ceiling: Who really cares about sustainability indicators? Local Environ. 2001, 6, 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottrill, C.G.; Pearce, D.G. Ecotourism: Towards a key elements approach to operationalising the concept. J. Sustain. Tour. 1995, 3, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, R.W. Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tour. Geogr. 1999, 1, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Céron, J.P.; Dubois, G. Tourism and sustainable development indicators: The gap between theoretical demands and practical achievements. Curr. Issues Tour. 2003, 6, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chávez-Cortés, M.; Maya JA, A. Identifying and structuring values to guide the choice of sustainability indicators for tourism development. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3074–3099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dhakal, S.; Imura, H. Policy-based indicators systems: Emerging debates and lessons. Local Environ. 2003, 8, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabrielsen, P.; Bosch, P. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003; 20p. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, C.M. Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships; Pearson Education: Harlow, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Plan Theor. Pract. 2000, 1, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, T.G. Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A conceptual approach. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 431–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H. A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude, and motivation affect the future behavior of tourists. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H.; Hsieh, H.P. Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from a Taiwan’s wetland. Ecol. Ind. 2016, 67, 779–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mascarenhas, A.; Nunes, L.M.; Ramos, T.B. Selection of sustainability indicators for planning: Combining stakeholders’ participation and data reduction techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, G. The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qiu, Q.; Zheng, T.; Xiang, Z.; Zhang, M. Visiting intangible cultural heritage tourism sites: From value cognition to attitude and intention. Sustainability 2020, 12, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sigala, M. Exploiting Web 2.0 for new service development: Findings and implications from the Greek tourism industry. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2012, 14, 551–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taghvaei, M.; Akbari, M. Introduction to Urban Planning and Tourism Management Isfahan; Alavi Publications: Tehran, Iran, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Therrien, M.C. Sustainable tourism indicators: Selection criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 862–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torres-Delgado, A.; Palomeque, F.L. Measuring sustainable tourism at the municipal level. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 49, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, H. Gendering sustainability’s contradictions: Between change and continuity. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 30, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.H.; Lee, M.T.; Château, P.A.; Chang, Y.C. Performance indicator framework for evaluation of sustainable tourism in the Taiwan Coastal Zone. Sustainability 2016, 8, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- White, V.; McCrum, G.; Blackstock, K.L.; Scott, A. Indicators and Sustainable Tourism: Literature Review; The Macaulay Institute: Aberdeen, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, Y.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, J.S. Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.Q.; Fan DX, F.; Tse TS, M.; King, B. Creating a scale for assessing socially sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Xiao, X.; Zheng, C.; Xue, L.; Guo, Y.; Wu, Q. Is tourism participation in protected areas the best livelihood strategy from the perspective of community development and environmental protection? J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 587–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Name | Size (ha) | Management History | Number of Tourists per Year |
---|---|---|---|
Lar | 35,800 | Since 2001 | 36,000 |
Jajrud | 74,800 | Since 1982 | 50,000 |
Tangeh Vashi | 3800 | Since 2011 | 300,000 |
Kavdeh | 76,900 | Since 2019 | 40,000 |
Dimension | Variables | Indicators | Lar | Jajrud | Tangeh Vashi | Kavdeh | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean Dimensions | Mean | Mean Dimensions | Mean | Mean Dimensions | Mean | Mean Dimensions | Mean | |||
Physical-environmental | Environmental pollution | (1) Increase of environmental pollution (water, soil, air, visual, and noise) | 2.80 | 3.38 | 3.20 | 4.27 | 3.16 | 4.36 | 2.88 | 3.58 |
Ecosystem | (2) Increase in destruction of natural ecosystems (mountains, forests, deserts, and wetlands) | 2.18 | 4.15 | 4.28 | 3.64 | |||||
(3) Increased change in ecosystem structure and function | 3.75 | 4.45 | 4.20 | 3.46 | ||||||
(4) Decrease in ecosystem services | 2.27 | 3.70 | 4.02 | 3.34 | ||||||
(5) Increased habitat fragmentation | 2.06 | 4.50 | 4.00 | 3.85 | ||||||
(6) Increased land use/land cover (LULC) changes | 1.95 | 4.65 | 3.68 | 3.2 | ||||||
Wildlife habitat | (7) Increase in wildlife hunting (poaching) | 3.63 | 3.46 | 3.20 | 4.52 | |||||
(8) Increase in species extinction | 3.50 | 3.60 | 3.26 | 4.35 | ||||||
(9) Increased wildlife migration | 3.82 | 3.56 | 2.43 | 4.46 | ||||||
(10) Increased change in wildlife behaviour (feeding, migration, reproduction) | 3.48 | 3.50 | 3.00 | 4.22 | ||||||
Vegetation | (11) Decrease in the quality of vegetation | 4.20 | 3.36 | 2.11 | 3.18 | |||||
(12) Increase in cut-down trees and shrubs | 4.11 | 3.24 | 3.33 | 3.05 | ||||||
(13) Decrease of high-density pasture | 4.38 | 3.42 | 3.63 | 2.94 | ||||||
(14) Increase of fires in forests and pastures | 3.17 | 3.86 | 1.42 | 2.84 | ||||||
Biodiversity | (15) Decrease in biodiversity | 3.32 | 3.18 | 3.82 | 4.08 | |||||
(16) Decrease in rare or dominant species | 3.24 | 3.10 | 3.40 | 3.15 | ||||||
Resources consumption | (17) Decrease in renewable resources (water, soil, and air) | 2.36 | 2.74 | 3.36 | 2.72 | |||||
(18) Increase in water resource consumption | 1.76 | 2.82 | 3.30 | 2.65 | ||||||
(19) Increase in energy consumption and types of fuels | 3.25 | 2.71 | 2.16 | 2.47 | ||||||
Waste and sewage | (20) Increase in waste generated by ecotourism | 3.08 | 2.66 | 3.76 | 2.33 | |||||
(21) Increase of sewage generated by ecotourism | 1.62 | 2.57 | 3.63 | 2.26 | ||||||
Safety | (22) Increase in accident rates | 2.64 | 1.30 | 3.52 | 1.87 | |||||
(23) Increase of road traffic | 2.80 | 1.42 | 2.20 | 1.60 | ||||||
(24) Decrease in access to emergency services | 1.54 | 1.58 | 2.28 | 1.34 | ||||||
Environment/ protection | (25) Increase in destruction of natural, cultural, historical, and man-made attractions | 2.75 | 2.38 | 3.45 | 2.11 | |||||
(26) Increase in visiting time and presence of tourists in PAs | 2.43 | 2.32 | 3.40 | 2.20 | ||||||
(27) Increased threat to strict natural zones and sensitive habitats | 3.11 | 2.47 | 3.16 | 3.77 | ||||||
(28) Increased numbers of tourists in PAs | 2.46 | 2.33 | 3.68 | 1.67 | ||||||
Access | (29) Decrease in access to facilities and tourism infrastructure | 1.32 | 3.15 | 1.45 | 1.43 | |||||
(30) Increase in road infrastructure and transportation networks | 2.20 | 4.42 | 2.36 | 1.66 | ||||||
(31) Increase in construction and tourist accommodation | 1.28 | 4.56 | 2.35 | 1.52 | ||||||
Socio-cultural | Security | (1) Decrease in social security | 2.76 | 3.45 | 3.07 | 4.11 | 2.90 | 3.50 | 2.78 | 3.88 |
(2) Decrease of educational programmes for tourists | 3.38 | 1.54 | 2.25 | 2.11 | ||||||
Culture | (3) A decline in the acceptance and integration of new cultural and moral values among local residents | 3.33 | 3.22 | 3.65 | 2.35 | |||||
(4) A decline in the adherence to local values and traditions | 3.20 | 3.30 | 3.60 | 2.55 | ||||||
(5) Increased change in the culture of local communities from the current situation | 3.18 | 3.43 | 4.00 | 2.72 | ||||||
Satisfaction | (6) Increase in change in the quality of life standards | 3.00 | 3.65 | 3.46 | 1.86 | |||||
(7) Decrease in satisfaction among local communities | 2.92 | 3.50 | 3.33 | 3.64 | ||||||
Participation | (8) Decrease in participation in nature protection and development of sustainable ecotourism | 3.60 | 3.82 | 3.25 | 3.76 | |||||
Justice | (9) Decreased access to facilities and local infrastructure | 1.52 | 2.77 | 3.11 | 3.54 | |||||
(10) Decreased access to facilities and educational services | 1.68 | 2.36 | 2.73 | 3.32 | ||||||
(11) Increased job opportunities for local communities | 2.85 | 3.02 | 2.51 | 3.20 | ||||||
(12) Decrease in local household income | 2.32 | 3.11 | 2.26 | 2.85 | ||||||
(13) Increase in cost for local households | 2.45 | 3.35 | 1.74 | 3.15 | ||||||
Population | (14) Increased migration of local residents | 2.68 | 2.57 | 1.37 | 1.46 | |||||
(15) Increase in density of local residents | 1.85 | 2.36 | 2.8 | 1.35 | ||||||
Economic-institutional | Employment and income | (1) Increase in change in various employments | 2.78 | 2.11 | 3.15 | 2.84 | 3.10 | 2.45 | 2.83 | 1.88 |
(2) Increased economic pressure among households | 1.82 | 2.70 | 2.64 | 2.11 | ||||||
(3) Increase in the change in income of local communities | 2.20 | 2.55 | 2.85 | 2.23 | ||||||
Cooperation | (4) Increase of conflicts between governmental and non-governmental organisations | 2.42 | 4.15 | 3.00 | 2.38 | |||||
(5) Decrease in cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organisations in planning and decision making | 2.63 | 4.02 | 3.12 | 2.46 | ||||||
Monitoring and control | (6) Decrease in protection monitoring | 3.70 | 3.88 | 3.70 | 2.96 | |||||
(7) Decrease in monitoring of ecotourism activities | 3.32 | 3.64 | 4.12 | 2.58 | ||||||
Rules and regulations | (8) Decreased attention to protective rules and regulations | 3.63 | 3.75 | 3.92 | 3.7 | |||||
(9) Decrease in implementation of strict legal guidelines | 3.52 | 3.58 | 3.78 | 3.88 | ||||||
(10) A reduction in the accessibility of local laws and regulations | 3.44 | 3.23 | 3.66 | 3.46 | ||||||
(11) Decrease in compliance with laws and regulations | 3.36 | 3.45 | 3.50 | 3.58 | ||||||
Institutional element | (12) Decline in the performance quality of both governmental and non-governmental institutions (by increasing the number of tourists) | 3.28 | 3.30 | 3.42 | 3.35 | |||||
(13) Deterioration in the performance of managers regarding training and information (by increasing the number of tourists) | 3.15 | 3.18 | 3.33 | 3.24 | ||||||
(14) Decrease in the quality of environmental guardians’ performance in the protection of an area (by increasing the number of tourists) | 2.90 | 3.00 | 3.24 | 3.12 | ||||||
Local prices | (15) Increase in prices, including commodities, accommodations, and property | 2.78 | 2.35 | 2.32 | 2.85 | |||||
Economic activity | (16) Increase in change in economic activities and income | 1.63 | 2.20 | 2.07 | 2.70 | |||||
Ethical principle | (17) Decrease of beliefs and notice of ethical principles | 1.47 | 1.84 | 1.75 | 1.72 | |||||
Total mean | 2.78 | - | 3.14 | - | 3.05 | - | 2.83 | - |
PAs | Characteristics | Objectives | Management Type | Use Type | Types of Conflicts/Issues in Studied Areas (Directly and Indirectly Relating to Tourism) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lar |
| Deliver continuous maintenance of systems in natural conditions for non-consumptive or non-physical uses |
|
|
|
Jajrud | These areas hold significant ecosystem diversity that is managed to conserve plant and animal diversity | Provide conditions for restoration and reconstruction of ecosystems, plant and animal species, and improve habitat conditions |
|
|
|
Tangeh Vashi |
| Preservation of scientific values and their special features in natural conditions for non-consumptive uses such as education, limited visits, and interpretation |
| In these areas, educational, research, and interpretive uses are allowed for visitors |
|
Kavdeh | These areas are home to prominent natural habitats and special climatic conditions for wildlife, which have been protected to preserve or rehabilitate habitats | Maintaining and improving the quantity and quality of habitat for authorised exploitation and following management principles |
|
|
|
Internal Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Final Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
Strengths (S) | 0.455 | S1: Pristine habitat and natural conditions | 0.187 | 0.085 |
S2: High richness of vegetation and wildlife species | 0.176 | 0.080 | ||
S3: Existence of valuable aquatic resources, especially S. trutta fario | 0.146 | 0.066 | ||
S4: Existence of great natural attractions (such as the landscape of Damavand Peak and the existence of Lar lake) | 0.122 | 0.05 | ||
S5: Mountainous conditions | 0.098 | 0.044 | ||
S6: Existence of abundant water resources, including springs, rivers, and Lar Lake | 0.082 | 0.037 | ||
Weaknesses (W) | 0.132 | W1: Lack of monitoring the number of livestock and grazing outside of the season | 0.168 | 0.022 |
W2: Insufficiency of guard stations and environmental guardians for tourist monitoring | 0.142 | 0.018 | ||
W3: High tourism restrictions resulting from an abundance of pristine areas | 0.128 | 0.016 | ||
W4: Inadequate infrastructure and tourism services | 0.088 | 0.011 | ||
W5: Short period of ecotourism activities and visits (June to September) | 0.068 | 0.008 | ||
External factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Final Weight |
Opportunities (O) | 0.321 | O1: Possibility of developing educational and research activities due to pristine conditions and the existence of valuable aquatic resources | 0.172 | 0.055 |
O2: Possibility of developing sport-fishing in rivers (such as the Haraz river on Pleur road) | 0.146 | 0.046 | ||
O3: Possibility of developing ecotourism activities in the extensive recreation area due to its high potential and many tourist attractions | 0.121 | 0.038 | ||
O4: Possibility of converting the area into a mountaineering and rock-climbing hotspot | 0.108 | 0.034 | ||
O5: Possibility of developing and exploiting medicinal plants due to the diversity of plant species | 0.092 | 0.029 | ||
Threats (T) | 0.117 | T1: Issuance of livestock grazing licences exceeding grazing capacity | 0.162 | 0.018 |
T2: Destruction of pastures and loss of vegetation due to overgrazing | 0.156 | 0.018 | ||
T3: Threats to habitat security due to the entry of tourists and access | 0.124 | 0.014 | ||
T4: Change in behaviour patterns and wildlife migration due to the presence of tourists and nomads | 0.115 | 0.013 | ||
T5: Gradual decrease of tourists due to legal restrictions | 0.074 | 0.008 | ||
T6: Destruction of ecosystems and natural resources with the development of road infrastructure | 0.063 | 0.007 |
Internal Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Final Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
Strengths (S) | 0.334 | S1: The area holds the distinction of being one of the world’s oldest PAs | 0.174 | 0.058 |
S2: Presence of two unique and old national parks (Khojir and Sorkheh Hesar) characterised by high levels of plant and animal species richness | 0.162 | 0.054 | ||
S3: Great biodiversity and valuable genetic resources | 0.139 | 0.046 | ||
S4: Located in the interior of Tehran city, with the possibility of daily visits and high access to ecotourism | 0.125 | 0.041 | ||
S5: Existence of many tourism attractions | 0.104 | 0.034 | ||
S6: Existence of many summer villages | 0.093 | 0.031 | ||
S7: The importance of Mamlu dam in supplying drinking water to the area | 0.087 | 0.029 | ||
Weaknesses (W) | 0.228 | W1: Insufficient monitoring of the development of construction, industrial, and mining activities | 0.158 | 0.036 |
W2: Habitat fragmentation due to the development of road infrastructure and highways within the area | 0.146 | 0.033 | ||
W3: Existence of various organisations for physical and economic exploitation | 0.127 | 0.028 | ||
W4: Existence of military industries and barracks and their negative impacts on the development of ecotourism | 0.116 | 0.026 | ||
W5: Devolution of a large part of the area to the Municipal organisation for the construction of parks and green spaces | 0.108 | 0.024 | ||
External Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Final Weight |
Opportunities (O) | 0.137 | O1: Possibility of developing ecotourism activities due to the high potential of tourism and many attractions | 0.142 | 0.019 |
O2: Possibility of developing monitoring mechanisms to prevent the destruction of the area due to the existence of Khojir and Sorkheh Hesar national parks within the area | 0.124 | 0.016 | ||
O3: Possibility of visiting and offering ecotourism experiences in all seasons due to suitable climatic diversity | 0.094 | 0.012 | ||
O4: Possibility of converting areas into an urban green habitat for air purification, leisure, and creating a pristine and calm environment | 0.085 | 0.011 | ||
O5: Possibility of using ecotourism development experiences in this area compared to other areas due to its long history | 0.073 | 0.010 | ||
Threats (T) | 0.368 | T1: Possibility of the destruction of natural resources and ecosystems due to the development of construction, industrial, and mining activities | 0.198 | 0.072 |
T2: Increased stress levels of animal species due to high noise pollution from vehicles and the possibility of their migration from this area | 0.186 | 0.068 | ||
T3: Existence of an intervention organisation for development and planning processes | 0.138 | 0.050 | ||
T4: Possibility of a gradual decrease in tourists due to the existence of multiple military and security areas | 0.121 | 0.044 |
Internal Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Final Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
Strengths (S) | 0.342 | S1: Unique attractiveness due to movement in the river and the existence of a long tourist route between two straits | 0.184 | 0.062 |
S2: Existence of historical painted inscriptions of past kings and their impacts on attracting tourists | 0.175 | 0.059 | ||
S3: Suitable climate due to its location in the Alborz highlands | 0.118 | 0.040 | ||
S4: Pristine and natural area and lack of physical construction | 0.104 | 0.035 | ||
Weaknesses (W) | 0.175 | W1: Growth of various environmental pollutants due to the uncontrolled activities of tourists | 0.146 | 0.025 |
W2: Insufficient staffing to guide and monitor tourist activities | 0.131 | 0.022 | ||
W3: Lack of proper welfare centres and accommodation for tourists | 0.115 | 0.020 | ||
W4: Dissatisfaction of local communities due to high density of tourists, road traffic, and increased noise pollution | 0.087 | 0.015 | ||
External Factors | Factors Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Final Weight |
Opportunities (O) | 0.286 | O1: Possibility of developing tourism activities due to favourable weather conditions and the high potential of the area (mountaineering, water sports, etc.) | 0.166 | 0.047 |
O2: Possibility of expanding ecotourism in the area due to its pristine and natural environment | 0.153 | 0.043 | ||
O3: Possibility of increasing job opportunities related to ecotourism for local communities | 0.125 | 0.035 | ||
O4: Possibility of developing small-scale tourism and residential services in the area to attract more tourists | 0.098 | 0.028 | ||
Threats (T) | 0.123 | T1: Possibility of ecosystem degradation and pollution due to tourist overcrowding on the weekends and during holidays | 0.136 | 0.016 |
T2: Destruction of vegetation in the area due to livestock overgrazing and uncontrolled activities of tourists | 0.124 | 0.015 | ||
T3: Decrease of a sense of safety for tourists due to low access to rescue bases, fire services, and security forces | 0.094 | 0.011 | ||
T4: Possibility of growing scattered and unbalanced constructions due to lack of necessary manpower and insufficient monitoring | 0.083 | 0.010 | ||
T5: Possibility of environmental hazards such as floods due to the environmental conditions near the Tangeh Vashi river | 0.068 | 0.008 |
Internal Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Final Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
Strengths (S) | 0.326 | S1: Existence of the best habitats for wildlife protection | 0.184 | 0.060 |
S2: High richness of animal species | 0.178 | 0.058 | ||
S3: Existence of natural attractions, including Ahanac lake, Bornic cave, and Khomdeh spring | 0.163 | 0.053 | ||
S4: Favourable climatic conditions | 0.112 | 0.036 | ||
S5: Existence of abundant rivers (Gorsefid, Namrud, and Hablehrud Rivers) | 0.108 | 0.035 | ||
Weaknesses (W) | 0.162 | W1: Inadequate infrastructure and limited availability of tourism services | 0.144 | 0.023 |
W2: Absence of comprehensive management plans and zoning measures | 0.136 | 0.022 | ||
W3: Limited availability of guard stations and environmental custodians, resulting in inadequate monitoring capabilities | 0.072 | 0.011 | ||
W4: Excessive numbers of livestock | 0.064 | 0.010 | ||
External Factors | Factors Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Final Weight |
Opportunities (O) | 0.286 | O1: Possibility of developing sustainable ecotourism due to high tourism potential | 0.175 | 0.050 |
O2: Possibility of resuscitating habitats and increasing wildlife species | 0.156 | 0.044 | ||
O3: Possibility of developing and exploiting medicinal plants | 0.122 | 0.034 | ||
Threats (T) | 0.124 | T1: Damage to trees and shrubs by tourists and overgrazing | 0.103 | 0.012 |
T2: Occupancy and increase of LULC changes | 0.096 | 0.011 | ||
T3: Conflicts between local communities and wildlife | 0.085 | 0.010 | ||
T4: Wildlife hunting | 0.044 | 0.005 |
SWOT Matrix | Strengths (S) | Weaknesses (W) |
---|---|---|
Opportunities (O) | Aggressive strategies (SO)
| Review strategies (WO)
|
Threats (T) | Diverse strategies (ST)
| Defensive strategies (WT)
|
SWOT Matrix | Strengths (S) | Weaknesses (W) |
---|---|---|
Opportunities (O) | Aggressive strategies (SO)
| Review strategies (WO)
|
Threats (T) | Diverse strategies (ST)
| Defensive strategies (WT)
|
SWOT Matrix | Strengths (S) | Weaknesses (W) |
---|---|---|
Opportunities (O) | Aggressive strategies (SO)
| Review strategies (WO)
|
Threats (T) | Diverse strategies (ST)
| Defensive strategies (WT)
|
SWOT Matrix | Strengths (S) | Weaknesses (W) |
---|---|---|
Opportunities (O) | Aggressive strategies (SO)
| Review strategies (WO)
|
Threats (T) | Diverse strategies (ST)
| Defensive strategies (WT)
|
Internal Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Strategies | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SO | ST | WO | WT | ||||
Strengths (S) | 0.455 | S1 | 0.287 | 0.125 | 0.131 | 0.147 | 0.125 |
S2 | 0.268 | 0.137 | 0.147 | 0.127 | 0.133 | ||
S3 | 0.247 | 0.114 | 0.124 | 0.114 | 0.154 | ||
S4 | 0.198 | 0.138 | 0.172 | 0.138 | 0.178 | ||
S5 | 0.311 | 0.118 | 0.141 | 0.122 | 0.211 | ||
S6 | 0.147 | 0.224 | 0.126 | 0.176 | 0.341 | ||
Weaknesses (W) | 0.132 | W1 | 0.275 | 0.184 | 0.145 | 0.184 | 0.114 |
W2 | 0.268 | 0.165 | 0.132 | 0.162 | 0.141 | ||
W3 | 0.257 | 0.142 | 0.149 | 0.147 | 0.126 | ||
W4 | 0.198 | 0.124 | 0.154 | 0.184 | 0.139 | ||
W5 | 0.326 | 0.154 | 0.108 | 0.224 | 0.168 | ||
External Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Strategies | |||
SO | ST | WO | WT | ||||
Opportunities (O) | 0.321 | O1 | 0.298 | 0.114 | 0.123 | 0.127 | 0.145 |
O2 | 0.286 | 0.138 | 0.145 | 0.135 | 0.138 | ||
O3 | 0.238 | 0.184 | 0.174 | 0.141 | 0.178 | ||
O4 | 0.187 | 0.165 | 0.126 | 0.169 | 0.115 | ||
O5 | 0.147 | 0.236 | 0.112 | 0.187 | 0.132 | ||
Threats (T) | 0.117 | T1 | 0.238 | 0.124 | 0.136 | 0.174 | 0.126 |
T2 | 0.208 | 0.138 | 0.152 | 0.163 | 0.136 | ||
T3 | 0.198 | 0.115 | 0.127 | 0.187 | 0.162 | ||
T4 | 0.185 | 0.132 | 0.116 | 0.119 | 0.147 | ||
T5 | 0.172 | 0.187 | 0.171 | 0.126 | 0.131 | ||
T6 | 0.154 | 0.135 | 0.166 | 0.187 | 0.144 | ||
Strategies final weight | - | - | 0.368 | 0.248 | 0.321 | 0.193 |
Internal Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Strategies | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SO | ST | WO | WT | ||||
Strengths (S) | 0.334 | S1 | 0.145 | 0.151 | 0.226 | 0.275 | 0.168 |
S2 | 0.126 | 0.185 | 0.232 | 0.184 | 0.135 | ||
S3 | 0.163 | 0.238 | 0.345 | 0.161 | 0.121 | ||
S4 | 0.124 | 0.343 | 0.227 | 0.157 | 0.138 | ||
S5 | 0.128 | 0.242 | 0.148 | 0.287 | 0.215 | ||
S6 | 0.287 | 0.315 | 0.168 | 0.336 | 0.154 | ||
S7 | 0.187 | 0.354 | 0.245 | 0.126 | 0.167 | ||
Weaknesses (W) | 0.228 | W1 | 0.134 | 0.228 | 0.314 | 0.152 | 0.229 |
W2 | 0.164 | 0.273 | 0.117 | 0.308 | 0.178 | ||
W3 | 0.158 | 0.234 | 0.118 | 0.342 | 0.287 | ||
W4 | 0.161 | 0.254 | 0.157 | 0.221 | 0.188 | ||
W5 | 0.154 | 0.360 | 0.174 | 0.336 | 0.146 | ||
External Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Strategies | |||
SO | ST | WO | WT | ||||
Opportunities (O) | 0.137 | O1 | 0.126 | 0.232 | 0.171 | 0.246 | 0.189 |
O2 | 0.163 | 0.318 | 0.187 | 0.154 | 0.245 | ||
O3 | 0.175 | 0.268 | 0.345 | 0.151 | 0.278 | ||
O4 | 0.158 | 0.324 | 0.215 | 0.181 | 0.174 | ||
O5 | 0.227 | 0.144 | 0.239 | 0.148 | 0.346 | ||
Threats (T) | 0.368 | T1 | 0.316 | 0.148 | 0.247 | 0.185 | 0.172 |
T2 | 0.117 | 0.187 | 0.154 | 0.347 | 0.256 | ||
T3 | 0.126 | 0.315 | 0.263 | 0.184 | 0.141 | ||
T4 | 0.158 | 0.354 | 0.242 | 0.111 | 0.147 | ||
Strategies final weight | - | - | 0.211 | 0.278 | 0.308 | 0.344 |
Internal Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Strategies | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SO | ST | WO | WT | ||||
Strengths (S) | 0.342 | S1 | 0.224 | 0.363 | 0.168 | 0.152 | 0.111 |
S2 | 0.143 | 0.137 | 0.236 | 0.182 | 0.378 | ||
S3 | 0.126 | 0.311 | 0.224 | 0.173 | 0.146 | ||
S4 | 0.274 | 0.314 | 0.278 | 0.166 | 0.241 | ||
Weaknesses (W) | 0.175 | W1 | 0.176 | 0.265 | 0.163 | 0.214 | 0.127 |
W2 | 0.144 | 0.187 | 0.218 | 0.324 | 0.133 | ||
W3 | 0.168 | 0.326 | 0.145 | 0.278 | 0.344 | ||
W4 | 0.115 | 0.246 | 0.137 | 0.215 | 0.149 | ||
External Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Strategies | |||
SO | ST | WO | WT | ||||
Opportunities (O) | 0.286 | O1 | 0.175 | 0.211 | 0.356 | 0.148 | 0.153 |
O2 | 0.147 | 0.238 | 0.341 | 0.122 | 0.265 | ||
O3 | 0.156 | 0.213 | 0.145 | 0.387 | 0.173 | ||
O4 | 0.133 | 0.151 | 0.238 | 0.347 | 0.144 | ||
Threats (T) | 0.123 | T1 | 0.328 | 0.266 | 0.145 | 0.368 | 0.157 |
T2 | 0.153 | 0.274 | 0.344 | 0.235 | 0.128 | ||
T3 | 0.171 | 0.364 | 0.278 | 0.155 | 0.315 | ||
T4 | 0.363 | 0.278 | 0.174 | 0.387 | 0.108 | ||
T5 | 0.165 | 0.263 | 0.375 | 0.123 | 0.144 | ||
Strategies final weight | - | - | 0.154 | 0.278 | 0.227 | 0.198 |
Internal Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Strategies | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SO | ST | WO | WT | ||||
Strengths (S) | 0.326 | S1 | 0.145 | 0.154 | 0.165 | 0.142 | 0.171 |
S2 | 0.213 | 0.211 | 0.187 | 0.158 | 0.225 | ||
S3 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 0.176 | 0.107 | 0.314 | ||
S4 | 0.107 | 0.165 | 0.321 | 0.234 | 0.144 | ||
S5 | 0.147 | 0.147 | 0.156 | 0.267 | 0.165 | ||
Weaknesses (W) | 0.162 | W1 | 0.326 | 0.166 | 0.247 | 0.302 | 0.198 |
W2 | 0.108 | 0.245 | 0.321 | 0.137 | 0.256 | ||
W3 | 0.147 | 0.138 | 0.109 | 0.185 | 0.178 | ||
W4 | 0.184 | 0.225 | 0.115 | 0.156 | 0.132 | ||
External Factors | Factor Weight | SWOT Sub-Factors | Sub-Factor Weight | Strategies | |||
SO | ST | WO | WT | ||||
Opportunities (O) | 0.286 | O1 | 0.126 | 0.168 | 0.263 | 0.254 | 0.182 |
O2 | 0.241 | 0.136 | 0.156 | 0.124 | 0.105 | ||
O3 | 0.185 | 0.118 | 0.172 | 0.311 | 0.264 | ||
Threats (T) | 0.124 | T1 | 0.167 | 0.178 | 0.193 | 0.165 | 0.231 |
T2 | 0.223 | 0.144 | 0.134 | 0.184 | 0.145 | ||
T3 | 0.265 | 0.308 | 0.128 | 0.173 | 0.163 | ||
T4 | 0.321 | 0.154 | 0.176 | 0.118 | 0.196 | ||
Strategies final weight | - | - | 0.136 | 0.314 | 0.236 | 0.187 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sobhani, P.; Esmaeilzadeh, H.; Wolf, I.D.; Marcu, M.V.; Lück, M.; Sadeghi, S.M.M. Strategies to Manage Ecotourism Sustainably: Insights from a SWOT-ANP Analysis and IUCN Guidelines. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411013
Sobhani P, Esmaeilzadeh H, Wolf ID, Marcu MV, Lück M, Sadeghi SMM. Strategies to Manage Ecotourism Sustainably: Insights from a SWOT-ANP Analysis and IUCN Guidelines. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):11013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411013
Chicago/Turabian StyleSobhani, Parvaneh, Hassan Esmaeilzadeh, Isabelle D. Wolf, Marina Viorela Marcu, Michael Lück, and Seyed Mohammad Moein Sadeghi. 2023. "Strategies to Manage Ecotourism Sustainably: Insights from a SWOT-ANP Analysis and IUCN Guidelines" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 11013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411013
APA StyleSobhani, P., Esmaeilzadeh, H., Wolf, I. D., Marcu, M. V., Lück, M., & Sadeghi, S. M. M. (2023). Strategies to Manage Ecotourism Sustainably: Insights from a SWOT-ANP Analysis and IUCN Guidelines. Sustainability, 15(14), 11013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411013