Aligning National Protected Areas with Global Norms: A Four-Step Analysis of Türkiye’s Conservation Laws

Abstract

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) conducts critical international studies and offers recommendations on the sustainable conservation, use, and management of protected areas worldwide by setting targets within the framework of the Nature 2030 goals and the Green List standards. These initiatives are essential for protecting designated areas and encouraging their use through nature-based and community-based solutions. The success of implementing these solutions depends on the effectiveness of the local legal regulations that are currently in place. This article argues that developing a common language and norms between global and national conservation frameworks, along with the efficiency of the national legal framework, plays a crucial role in facilitating the goals of the protection, use, and management of global protected areas. This study evaluates how the reflections and presence of IUCN’s globally significant targets are addressed within Türkiye’s national legal framework and policy level. The article evaluates global and national legal texts in Türkiye for social, environmental, and economic sustainability, comparing them with the Nature 2030 and Green List standards through methodologies such as word matching, comparison, and compatibility analysis. For the development of laws and policies that align with Türkiye’s global goals for the protection, use, and governance of protected areas regarding language and normative standards unity, the article highlights the importance of nature- and community-based national policy norms in achieving global protected area targets. The article’s results highlight the absence of community-based norms such as participation, governance, transparency, and equality, despite international consensus on norms like planning, area management, and the rule of law for the effective management of protected areas in Türkiye.

1. Introduction

The increasing global population has subjected the natural environment to anthropogenic impacts as a result of the demands imposed by this expanding demographic [1]. Individuals are making sustainable modifications and transformations to their environment to improve living conditions [2]. The concept of sustainability first emerged from the 1987 United Nations Brundtland Report, which defines it as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It also considers the environmental degradation caused by development and industrialization processes [3]. The United Nations Conferences on Human Settlements, particularly, Habitat I in 1976, Habitat II in 1996, and Habitat III in 2016; the Rio Conference in 1992; the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change convened in Kyoto in 1997; the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (also known as the Paris Agreement), which remains in effect today; and the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, implemented in 2016, have identified key themes related to sustainability [4]. The initial concept primarily emphasized the environment. In the international agreements and targets established after 2010, the ideas of climate change, economic and social inequality, innovation, consumption, peace, and justice were integrated to achieve a sustainable environment [5]. In particular, the sustainable and integrated protection of the natural environment has become essential for humanity [6]. The destruction of protected areas within natural areas has led to the uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources [7]. The natural structure is deteriorating in conservation areas due to decision-makers’ management of urban infrastructure and superstructures, which focuses solely on economic and political interests [8]. All this destruction significantly impacts the world’s deterioration and the natural balance on a global scale [9]. For these reasons, the use of nature conservation areas and the implementation of a sustainable planning system focused on nature protection are essential components for a cleaner world and a brighter future. Nature conservation areas include both terrestrial and marine habitats. They are encompassed in 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) under the 2030 Agenda. Life below water, life on land, clean water and sanitation, reduced inequalities, and sustainable cities and communities are areas directly related to climate action and indirectly linked to other factors [10]. The importance of sustainability in nature reserves for future generations is a global concern. International agreements effectively govern areas for the sustainability of protected regions. This study addresses a gap in the literature by providing a tool to measure and ensure that legal texts comply with the international norms discussed in the existing literature, using the case of Türkiye.

1.1. Historical Background: The Evolution of Global Standards and Their Reflection in the Literature

In the academic literature, the topics of “sustainable nature conservation” and “sustainable protected areas” began to be explored after 2006. However, early studies focused on specialized subjects such as agriculture, management, biodiversity, community, and tourism and are now outdated for developing a model [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Another study conducted a thorough analysis of the vertebrates in the area and the features of their habitats for sustainable conservation [18]. The relationship between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development has been explored for sustainable conservation [19,20]. Literature studies, observations, and survey data are noted as methods used in the research. Research in the literature on sustainable conservation of protected areas is insufficient and needs improvement [21]. Additionally, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is dedicated to the sustainability of protected areas. Particularly with Nature 2030 and the Green List Standards, the IUCN has created a work plan for our vision of a just world that values and protects nature. The Nature 2030 program identifies areas of research and sets indicators to measure success. In the themes of humanity, land, water, ocean, and climate, it specifically explores recognition, retention, reinstatement, sourcing, and reconnection [22]. Green List standards define specific sustainability criteria for protected areas to be eligible for inclusion on this list. These include Good Governance, Sound Design and Planning, Effective Management, and Successful Conservation Outcomes [23].

According to April 2024 data from the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), there are 293,696 protected areas across 244 countries and territories. Additionally, data from the same month in 2024 from the World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) indicate that 872 registered protected areas exist across 10 countries and territories. Furthermore, these databases report the presence of 18,200 marine protected areas, encompassing an area of 29,031,266 km², which represents 8.01% of the total coverage. The IUCN Green List includes 58 protected areas, covering 733,351 km², equivalent to 0.14% of the world’s total surface area [24]. According to the Protected Planet report released by the UN Environment Programme and IUCN in 2018, 15% of the world’s land areas, 7% of the seas, and 8% of the oceans are protected. Less than 1% of the international oceans and/or marine waters is protected. However, it is recognized that many important regions still require protection, as the current network of protected areas does not encompass all significant biodiversity zones [25]. The Intergovernmental Science and Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) stated in its 2019 report that the loss of species and ecosystems is occurring at an unprecedented rate in human history. It was also emphasized that climate change and land use changes threaten approximately one million fauna and fauna species globally [26]. For this reason, it was determined that these targets were inadequate, and the rate would be increased to 30% in the 2030 targets. Many participating countries, along with the European Union, support this decision and are committed to meeting these targets [27].

Nature should be protected, used, and managed for global sustainability [28]. This should be accomplished through nature-based solutions, practices, and interventions that evaluate it in its healthy and natural state [29]. The sustainable use of protected areas provides economic and social advantages [30,31]. Current studies highlight the importance of locality in relation to the goals of international organizations regarding the protection of protected areas [32,33]. The integration of conservation management with local has been an important issue. Moreover, aligning national laws with international standards serves to enhance conservation efforts and ensure their effectiveness [34]. The goal is to achieve a clearer understanding of how to prevent failure by identifying key assumptions and risks within the policy and legal framework [35]. Joining an international conservation union is vital for protecting an area and can also provide economic and social advantages [36,37]. The legal and political systems that govern protected areas significantly influence protection practices and interventions. In this context, while ensuring the compliance of protected areas with the international protection framework, local assessment analyses will offer an important perspective regarding national protection, usage, and effective management factors. The national protected areas inventory plays a crucial role in evaluating national laws related to protected areas concerning alignment with international goals and the unity of norms.

1.2. Ensuring Local Compliance with Global Standards in Türkiye

Approximately 9% of Türkiye’s land is designated as protected areas. To ensure the integrity of the ecosystem and biodiversity in Türkiye and its surroundings, the country has committed to increasing its protected areas by 20% each year, aiming to reach 17% by 2023 [38]. It is clear that this rate cannot be achieved under the current circumstances. Factors such as contradictions among legal regulations in protected areas in Türkiye, confusion regarding authority, and pressure from construction make these protected areas vulnerable [39]. Türkiye needs to achieve its protected area goals, and these areas require sustainable protection. This article analyzes the current situation and identifies the gap to measure the compliance of national conservation legal texts concerning protected areas in Türkiye with international nature conservation standards. The findings of the article aim to contribute to the evaluation of international policy documents.

The hypothesis of this research is that, within the framework of sustainable nature conservation principles, the alignment of protected area legal texts with international norms and the enhancement of global conservation language consistency can contribute to worldwide nature conservation. Promoting the use and implementation of contemporary terminology for legal texts and policy developers related to protected areas is an important step in a changing and developing world.

Nature 2030, an initiative of the United Nations IUCN, has issued a global call to action. It is committed to making clear and demonstrable contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals for a sustainable future, the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the global recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic [22]. It provides support for generating and disseminating science-based evidence and information that decision-makers need to formulate policies and promote a sustainable conservation culture [22]. It has established specific standards in protected areas using both the Green List and the Red List. While demonstrating its commitment to global conservation through the Green List for protected areas, it also highlights species and regions at risk with the Red List [23,40]. These efforts have a positive impact on many countries around the world [41]. The IUCN Nature 2030 and Green List Standards provide global guidelines for sustainable land use in nature conservation. The foresight that transcends national boundaries, along with an inclusive, integrated approach, emphasizes the importance of considering this as a criterion for evaluating national nature conservation legal texts. Türkiye has joined many international agreements and is making various efforts to ensure compliance [42]. It establishes the protection status through specific calculations by using the Ecologically Based Scientific Research Report (ETBAR) system to evaluate natural protected areas based on a common criterion [43]. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Assessment (ÇED-EIA) report system has become a requirement for activities conducted in natural areas [44]. Various tools, including geographic data model applications for sustainable land management, are being developed in national research [45]. All these efforts in Türkiye represent a significant advancement in nature conservation, as well as the sustainable protection and use of protected areas. The national literature in Türkiye lacks sufficient studies on protected area management. More academic efforts and development should consider various aspects. Nature conservation areas in Türkiye overlap with urban areas. Although Istanbul is the largest metropolitan area in Türkiye, it is a city where natural conservation areas coexist, and the entire boundary of a district is a protected area [46]. For this reason, zoning plans are being developed in many nature conservation and protected areas in Türkiye [47]. During the construction phase of conservation-focused development plans, critical aspects are overlooked while urban development is prioritized [48]. All activities conducted in protected areas are governed by legal regulations related to their protection. For these reasons, to enhance and develop sustainable conservation efforts in Türkiye, the laws and policy documents pertaining to protected areas should be evaluated in relation to international goals and criteria. It is crucial to provide guidance and theorize to ensure the alignment of international norms.

This article’s novelty lies in examining the current status of legal texts regarding the sustainability of protected area legislation in Türkiye. It assesses their compliance with global norms at both the text and policy levels through various analyses, including descriptive content analysis, keyword matching, keyword comparison, and alignment analysis. Additionally, it quantitatively evaluates them using simple percentages. This overview presents the laws related to protected areas in Türkiye, the textual framework of their legal systems, and a sustainable approach. All the studies discussed in this article illuminate other global research by presenting the relationship between legal texts and sustainable protection from an innovative perspective. The primary goal of the sustainable protection of protected areas for a better future is to assess and evaluate the current status of legal and political texts.

1.3. General Aspects of Protected Areas in Other Countries/Regions

The management and effectiveness of protected areas have been important research topics regarding biodiversity conservation worldwide [49]. Studies conducted in different countries reveal that the management systems of protected areas vary based on governance structures, economic pressures, and environmental factors such as climate change. In this context, when examples from different geographies are examined, various problems and suggestions for enhancing the sustainability of protected areas emerge.

Weihua Xu et al. [50] evaluate protected area management in China and note that biodiversity conservation efforts are not fully aligned with international plans. Additionally, protected areas in China do not completely match IUCN categories, making it difficult to implement national-level conservation goals effectively. The study emphasizes the necessity of developing a more balanced approach between ecological protection and economic development.

Similarly, Barr et al. [51] examined 63 protected area management plans in Canada to assess the integration of climate change into these plans. Through content analysis, the review found that current management plans had an average climate robustness score of 18%, indicating that climate change was not effectively incorporated. The study recommends that management plans for protected areas should be developed more systematically and consistently to adapt to climate change.

Ochoa et al. [52] evaluated the impact of protected areas on forest dynamics in the Americas. The study shows that the size, distribution, and quality of forest areas vary across different categories of protected areas, which can influence ecosystem dynamics. Analysis based on climate scenarios and land use models revealed that the increase in global temperatures threatens ecological balance. The study also emphasizes that differences in locality and governance are crucial for achieving conservation goals.

As an example from the European continent, Muñoz and Hausner analyzed the management of alpine protected areas in Spain and questioned the impact of IUCN categories on conservation objectives. The assessment, which employed content analysis and correspondence analysis, revealed that many parks had incomplete management plans and lacked clear biodiversity objectives. The study concluded that delegating protected area management to autonomous communities resulted in significant differences in management approaches, which could negatively affect conservation objectives [53].

As a result, when the analyses of China, Canada, the United States, and their autonomous communities, along with Spain—both prominent examples—are evaluated together, it is concluded that analyzing the current protected area categories of these countries, the species communities residing within these categories, the social and economic contexts surrounding them, and the legal and administrative regulations, in conjunction with the IUCN categories and definitions, will help protect global biological diversity and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of national efforts. International studies provide evidence for assessing whether and how well national regulatory actions align with international standards concerning content analysis. This article aims to contribute to the literature by employing the textual content analysis method used in international research to examine the compliance of protected area regulations in Türkiye with the IUCN categories framework. Unlike other studies, descriptive content analysis is approached through various stages.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. General Aspects of Protected Areas in Türkiye and Conservation Laws

Türkiye covers an area of 77,998,600 hectares, encompassing both land and sea, with a population of around 80 million. It is situated at the intersection of the Asian and European continents. Bordered by seas on three sides, it boasts a rich geographical diversity, including numerous rivers, various freshwater and saltwater lakes, along with forests and natural areas that host diverse habitats. According to the 2020 data from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Türkiye, there are 3,642,826 hectares of protected areas in Türkiye, consisting of 1,985,543 hectares of natural protected areas and 2,601,568 hectares of Special Protected Environment Areas, based on information from the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (

Table 1. Protected areas in Türkiye [54,55].

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Protected Areas
Protected Area Status	Number	Area (ha)
national park	45	907,519
nature park	250	1,057,632
nature conservation area	31	46,461
nature monument	115	9393
wildlife development site	84	1,158,820
Ramsar area	14	184,487
wetland of national importance	59	869,697
wetland of local importance	13	14,513
protection forest	54	247,708
city forest	134	10,089
gene conservation forests	336	43,120
seed stand	318	41,880
seed garden	207	1506
Total overlapping	1660	3,642,826
The Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change Protected Areas
special protected environment areas (SPAs)	18	2,601,568
natural site	2835	1,985,543
General total overlapping	4537	7,008,717
Ratio of protected areas in the country’s total surface area *		9%

* The ratio of the area of terrestrial and marine protected areas to the overall area of Türkiye was used to obtain the percentages. The ratio is predicated on a consistent 77,998,600 hectare area in Türkiye.

) [54,55]. Nine percent of protected areas fail to meet national and global conservation targets [56]. The ratio of protected areas to the country’s surface area is 9 percent, which is below the global average for protected area targets [56]. It presents a discouraging outlook for achieving national goals targets.

In Türkiye, protected areas are categorized into various classes, including national parks, wetlands, natural protected areas, special environmental protection areas, and mixed protected areas. Mixed protected areas and special environmental protection areas include both nature conservation areas and cultural heritage sites.

Table 2. Legal framework of protected areas in Türkiye.

Name		Authorized Institution	Law and Regulations
National Parks	National Park	Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry	National Parks Law No. 2873
	Nature Park
	Natural Monument
	Nature Protection Area
Wetlands	Ramsar Site		Environmental Law No. 2872
	Wetland of National Importance		Ramsar Convention, Wetlands Protection Regulation
	Wetland of Local Importance
Cultural Site Areas	Urban Site Areas	Ministry of Culture and Tourism Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change	Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets Law No. 2863 Archaeological Sites, Conservation and Usage Conditions Resolution No. 658 Regarding The Protection By Renewing And The Use Of Historical And Cultural Immovable Items Law No. 5366
	Archaeological Site Areas	Ministry of Culture and Tourism
Natural Site Areas	Sensitive Areas to be Definitively Protected	Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change	Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets Law No. 2863 Principle Decision of the High Council for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets on Natural (Natural) Sites, Conservation and Use Conditions Decision No. 728
	Qualified Nature Reserve Area
	Sustainable Conservation and Controlled Use Area
Natural Assets	Monument Trees
	Caves
Special Protected Environment Areas		Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change	no clear explanation
Mixed Site Areas		Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry	All Protection Laws/nature conservation priority

presents the authorized institutions and the relevant legal regulations for areas with varying statuses. In these areas, four different institutions hold legal authority, along with three ministries and the approval authority of the Presidency. When areas owned by different institutions overlap, the authorized authority is the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change.

Although the basic objective of the protection statuses currently available in Türkiye remains the same, there are several problems, confusions, and overlaps regarding the scientific, technical, and administrative aspects in practice. In addition to the varying criteria for determining and declaring protection areas, there are uncertainties and issues surrounding some fundamental characterizations and categorizations, similar to those found in natural sites [57]. The terms outlined in Table 1 and Table 2, along with the various authorized institutions, illustrate this irregular situation.

In Türkiye, one of the most prominent studies conducted to ensure compliance with international norms in the context of protected areas is the Ecological-Based Scientific Research Report (ETBAR) [58]. This report establishes the quantitative and qualitative criteria necessary for defining and categorizing the boundaries of potential and existing natural protected areas in Türkiye. It also provides scientific justification for the proposed “Natural Site Identification and Categorization Approach”, outlining criteria and rationales related to bio-ecological, geological, geomorphological, hydrogeological, and landscape values [58]. Although ETBAR is designed as a scientific method aimed at protecting natural sites, it has faced criticism. Concerns have been raised that the process has downgraded or revoked the protection status of certain natural sites, thereby weakening principles of nature conservation. There are also concerns about the lack of transparency in the evaluation criteria and the assurance of scientific impartiality, with claims that urbanization and tourism investments have influenced decision-making. Additionally, the method has been criticized for not adequately considering biodiversity and ecological integrity, instead assessing natural areas in a fragmented manner rather than adopting a holistic approach [59]. Furthermore, ETBAR is a system that exclusively evaluates natural protected sites and does not provide a comprehensive framework encompassing all protected areas in Türkiye. However, Türkiye has various protection statuses, including national parks, nature parks, and special environmental protection zones. This has led to criticisms that ETBAR is inadequate in evaluating the overall structure of protected areas and does not fully align with an ecosystem-based conservation approach [60].

Türkiye was chosen as the national context for this study not only because of the authors’ familiarity with its regulatory framework but also due to its strategic geographical position and ecological significance. As a country spanning three major biogeographical regions—Mediterranean, Euro-Siberian, and Irano-Turanian—it supports a high level of biodiversity and numerous internationally recognized protected areas. Türkiye is also a signatory to key global conservation agreements, such as the Bern Convention, Ramsar Convention, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, making it a relevant case for analyzing the integration of international conservation policies into national legislation. Moreover, Türkiye’s rapid urbanization and industrialization create a complex policy environment where nature conservation efforts must be balanced with competing land use demands. The governance of protected areas in Türkiye is divided among multiple institutions, presenting an opportunity to assess the coherence between international norms and national regulatory structures. Considering these factors, Türkiye serves as a significant case study for understanding the challenges and opportunities in aligning national conservation laws with global environmental commitments.

The decisions made in Türkiye regarding protected areas and each planning stage are outlined in Laws No. 2863, 2873, and 2872, along with the associated regulations and key decisions laws. All legal regulations and practices in Türkiye are shaped by the decisions and principles of these three fundamental laws. Therefore, these laws have been chosen as legal instruments. The evaluation of compliance with sustainability norms is primarily carried out within the legal framework. Therefore, the analysis of the harmony and relationship between the internationally protected area targets and national legal texts is limited to these three legal texts.

2.2. A Four-Step Analysis

The primary goal is to assess and evaluate the compliance of legal texts for conservation purposes in Türkiye with the criteria of international sustainable conservation standards. As part of this effort, the international sustainable conservation criteria are explained, and the alignment of Türkiye’s existing legal texts related to conservation laws with these national norms is assessed. This research is based on the hypothesis that the initial step in ensuring national conservation areas adhere to global conservation standards is to evaluate the relevant legal texts, emphasizing the global significance of sustainable natural conservation areas. Additional hypotheses related to this main hypothesis are as follows:

• Connecting legal texts and policies for protected areas in Türkiye with IUCN principles and global goals will enhance the sustainability of practices.
• IUCN principles can enhance policymaking, and their inclusion in legal and political texts will significantly aid conservation efforts at both national and global levels goals.

In the context of this purpose and hypotheses, Descriptive Content Analysis is applied to IUCN international principles, global goals, and Turkish national laws. It examines the superficial frequency of words in the texts. This method is selected because it allows for an objective comparison of the presence and distribution of key terms across various legal frameworks. Unlike Discourse Analysis or Thematic Content Analysis, which concentrate on interpretative aspects, Descriptive Content Analysis offers a quantitative overview of terminology usage. This facilitates the identification of alignments or discrepancies between international and national legal norms without subjective interpretation.

In the research, a four-step systematic methodology was established as part of Descriptive Content Analysis to evaluate the compatibility between the IUCN Nature 2030 targets; Green List Standards; and the fundamental national conservation laws No. 2873, 2872, and 2863. This methodology involves analyses such as Manual Content Analysis of existing texts, extracting keywords, Keyword Matching, Keyword Comparison, and Alignment Analysis, which are qualitative research methods. This framework offers a thorough and careful approach to assess the current situation, foster relationships, and evaluate outcomes.

The assessment of compliance with IUCN Nature 2030 targets and national laws No. 2873, 2872, and 2863, as well as the assessment of compliance with IUCN Green List Standards and national laws No. 2873, 2872, and 2863, are conducted separately using the four-step method developed, and their results are evaluated together. The four steps to use are as follows.

Step 1: Keyword Extraction and Pre-Filtering of IUCN indicators (Nature 2030, Green List)

First, the targets and criteria to be associated are determined. Each sentence that comprises these targets and criteria is meticulously examined. The keywords and phrases in the sentences are revealed through manual content analysis. This stage lays the groundwork for comparison in the study.

Within the scope of Step 1, the keywords in the 15 Natura 2030 targets organized under the 5 main headings set by IUCN and the 17 Green List standards categorized by the 4 main headings are established in separate sections.

Step 2: Matching IUCN Indicators with Türkiye’s Conservation Laws

The presence of the keywords in the selected national laws is determined through keyword matching and word comparison analysis during the step 1 evaluation. Each keyword’s inclusion in the texts of national law is assessed individually. If a keyword is found in the national law, the value “1” is recorded; if it is not found, the value “0” is noted instead.

The keywords from 15 Natura 2030 targets are matched with the texts of laws No. 2873, 2872, and 2863, as well as the keywords from 17 Green List standards, which are also matched with the texts of laws No. 2873, 2872, and 2863.

Step 3: Indicator Categorization (Relationship Status)

In the third step, the keywords identified in the first step are classified, along with their relationship to national laws. The categorization system used is as follows:

• Category 0: Non-Association: No relationship: It does not match in any of the texts of laws no. 2873, 2872, and 2863.
• Category 1: Full Association: Relation to all laws: It matches with all of the texts of laws no. 2873, 2872, and 2863.
• Category 2: Partial Association: Relation to only one or two laws: It matches with one or both of the texts of laws no. 2873, 2872, and 2863.

Step 4: Creating matrices and graphs

The final step is Descriptive Content Analysis, which occurs during the first three steps. It utilizes basic mathematical percentages to align qualitative results with clear quantitative outcomes. This process involves creating compatibility and relationship calculations between national laws and IUCN’s Natura 2030 targets and Green List standards.

Objectives and criteria are assigned equal, straightforward percentages. The qualitative compatibility relationship indicated by the laws is expressed through simple percentage rates based on the presence of matching keywords. The integrated compatibility of the five main headings in Nature 2030 and the four main headings in the Green List is evaluated using quantitative measures, establishing the current matching and compatibility status. The connection between the texts and the sustainable nature protection targets and criteria is examined, and the compatibility rates are assessed. The potential effectiveness of laws and policymakers is anticipated. The connection with the keywords enhances the improvement and renewal processes of the relationship with the main headings.

3. Results

This section presents the results obtained using the four-step method developed during the research on the Descriptive Content Analysis of IUCN international principles, global targets, and Türkiye’s national laws. The results are divided into three sections: the four-step basic content analysis of Nature 2030 and Turkish national laws, the four-step basic content analysis of Green List standards and Turkish national laws, and a general evaluation of all the results obtained from these two sections.

3.1. Nature 2030 Impact Targets and Conservation Laws in Türkiye

National nature protection laws in Türkiye are assessed in four steps with Nature 2030 Impact Targets.

Step 1: Keyword Extraction

To make an initial judgment about whether the Nature 2030 Impact Targets relate to national laws, the keywords and expressions in the Nature 2030 indicator set are first revealed through the “Determining Noun Phrases—Filtering Unnecessary Vocabulary—Removing Keywords” process known as Manual Content Analysis. All 15 impact targets across five themes were considered. The keywords derived from the 15 indicator sets are presented in

Table 3. Nature 2030 Impact Targets—Determination of keywords.

Themes	Impact Targets	Keywords
People (P)	P1.	fair and inclusive protection, sustainable use, responsibilities and obligations
	P2.	fair and effective governance
	P3.	environmental law, rule of law
Land (L)	L1.	ecosystem protection, species protection, biodiversity protection
	L2.	production, sustainability, long-term protection
	L3.	urban challenges, sustainability, ecological footprint
Water (W):	W1.	freshwater ecosystem, ecosystem disturbances, ecosystem restoration
	W2.	water resources, ecosystem services, equitable access
	W3.	water governance, investment, biodiversity
Ocean (O):	O1.	marine species, marine ecosystem, degradation, restoration
	O2.	marine resources, biodiversity, coastal communities, livelihoods
	O3.	ocean, coast, planetary stability
Climate (C):	C1.	countries, climate change, nature-based solutions, adaptation
	C2.	countries, climate mitigation targets, nature-based solutions
	C3.	climate change, scientific assessment, scientific knowledge

. A total of 44 keywords were identified across various categories. All keywords are either directly or indirectly related to sustainable nature conservation. Thus, their compatibility is evaluated in an integrated way. Rather than using fragmented approaches, a holistic perspective is embraced.

Step 2: Matching IUCN indicators with Türkiye’s conservation laws

The presence of the keywords identified in the first step within national laws No. 2873, 2872, and 2863 is established through keyword matching and word comparison analysis.

Table 4. Matching IUCN indicators with Türkiye’s conservation laws and Indicator Categorization (Relationship Status) and Alignment Analysis.

Step 1		Step 2			Step 3	Step 4
		National Laws					National Laws
		Law No. 2873	Law No. 2872	Law No. 2863	Relationship Status	%	Law No. 2873	Law No. 2872	Law No. 2863
P1	equitable and inclusive conservation	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
	sustainable use	1	1	1	Full Association	2.22	2.22	2.22	2.22
	obligations–responsibilities	1	1	1	Full Association	2.22	2.22	2.22	2.22
P2	fair management	0	0	0	Non-Association	3.33	0	0	0
	effective management	1	1	1	Full Association	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33
P3	environmental law	1	1	1	Full Association	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33
	rule of law	1	1	1	Full Association	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33
L1	ecosystem conservation	1	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	2.22	2.22	0
	species conservation	1	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	2.22	2.22	0
	biodiversity conservation	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	0
L2	sustainable production	1	1	0	Partial Association	3.33	3.33	3.33	0
	long-term conservation	0	1	0	Partial Association	3.33	0	3.33	0
L3	urban challenges	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	0
	sustainability	0	1	1	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	2.22
	ecological footprint	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
W1	freshwater ecosystem	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	0
	ecosystem degradation	1	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	2.22	2.22	0
	ecosystem restoration	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
W2	water resources	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	0
	ecosystem services	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
	equitable access	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
W3	water governance	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
	investment	1	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	2.22	2.22	0
	biodiversity	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	0
O1	marine species	0	1	0	Partial Association	1.67	0	1.67	0
	marine ecosystem	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
	marine degradation	0	1	0	Partial Association	1.67	0	1.67	0
	marine restoration	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
O2	marine resources	0	1	0	Partial Association	1.67	0	1.67	0
	marine biodiversity	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
	coastal communities	0	0	0	Non-Association	167	0	0	0
	livelihood	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
O3	ocean	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
	coastal area	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	0
	planetary stability	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
C1	countries	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
	adaptation to climate change	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	0
	nature-based solutions	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
C2	countries	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
	climate mitigation targets	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	222	0
	nature-based solutions	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.22	0	0	0
C3	climate change	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.22	0	2.22	0
	scientific assessment	1	1	1	Full Association	2.22	2.22	2.22	2.22
	scientific knowledge	1	1	1	Full Association	2.22	2.22	2.22	2.22
Total		12	26	8		100	31.11	61.67	21.11
Average				15.3					37.96

shows the presence of keywords in these laws. Law No. 2873 matches 12 of the 44 keywords, Law No. 2872 matches 26, and Law No. 2863 matches 8. The theme that Law No. 2873 aligns with the most is PEOPLE (P), while the theme it aligns with the least is OCEAN (O). Law No. 2872 aligns with every theme, with LAND (L) being the most aligned and OCEAN (O) the least. Law No. 2873 aligns with the Nature 2030 themes less than the other laws.

Step 3: Indicator Categorization (Relationship Status)

As shown in Table 4, the relationship status of each keyword resulting from matching national laws has been established. Of the 44 keywords, 18 fall into the Non-Association category, 19 are classified as Partial Association, and 7 are categorized as Full Association. The strongest relationship is linked to the PEOPLE (P) section in Nature 2030, while the section with the weakest association is OCEAN (O).

Step 4: Creating matrices and statistical graphs

In the fourth step, the qualitative match analysis conducted in previous steps is used to create a quantitative match matrix by applying simple mathematical percentages according to the position of the keywords in the indicator set. The relationship status is calculated mathematically based on the match percentages. Initially, an equal alignment percentage of 20% was assigned to People (P), Land (L), Water (W), Ocean (O), and Climate (C) to ensure balanced alignment. The subcategories under each main category were further divided equally into three parts, giving them an individual alignment percentage of 6.66%. This percentage was then evenly distributed among the meaningful keywords found in the Impact Targets. Some Impact Targets contain two keywords, some three, and others four. To mathematically calculate the alignment percentage, each keyword within its respective text was assigned an equal share of 2.22, 3.33, or 1.67, depending on the number of keywords present. For example, since P1 includes three keywords, each keyword’s alignment percentage is 2.22; in P3, where there are two keywords, the percentage is 3.33; and in O1, which contains four keywords, the percentage is 1.67 (Table 4). The total sum of these percentages equals 100. Following this, each identified keyword is checked for its presence in national legal texts, and the corresponding score is recorded. If a keyword is not found in the legal text, it receives a score of 0.

Legal text No. 2873 has a 31.11 percent alignment with Nature 2030 targets, while legal text No. 2872 has a 61.67 percent alignment, and legal text No. 2863 shows a 21.11 percent alignment. The overall alignment percentage, calculating the score of all these national legal texts, is 37.96 out of 100 (Table 4).

3.2. Green List Standards and Conservation Laws in Türkiye

In Türkiye, national nature protection laws are assessed in four steps using the Green List Standards.

Step 1: Keyword Extraction

To determine the relationship between Green List Standards and national laws, the keywords and expressions in the indicator set are identified through the process of “Determining Noun Phrases—Filtering Unnecessary Vocabulary—Removing Keywords” using Manual Content Analysis. All 17 criteria encompassing four themes are addressed. As a result of this process, 61 keywords from various categories within the 17 indicators were identified (

Table 5. Green List Standards—Determination of keywords.

Component	Criterion	Keyword
Good Governance (GG)	(GG1) Guarantee Legitimacy and Voice	civil society, rights holders, stakeholders, fair representation, governance
	(GG2) Achieve Transparency and Accountability	governance arrangements, decision-making processes, transparency, accountability, accessibility
	(GG3) Enable Governance Vitality and Capacity to Respond Adaptively	planning, governance, social and ecological context, responsiveness
Sound Design and Planning (SSP)	(SDP1) Identify and Understand Major Site Values	natural values, ecosystem services, cultural values
	(SDP2) Design for Long—Term Conservation of Major Site Values	design, long-term protection
	(SDP3) Understand Threats and Challenges to Major Site Values	site values, threats and challenges, planning and management,
	(SDP4) Understand the Social and Economic Context	site management, socioeconomic context, social and economic impact
Effective Management (EM)	(EM1) Develop and Implement a Long-Term Management Strategy	management strategy, long-term management, protection, social goals, economic goals
	(EM2) Manage Ecological Condition	ecological attributes, ecological processes, natural values, ecosystem services, cultural values
	(EM3) Manage Within the Social and Economic Context of the Site	socioeconomic benefit, management, rights holders, stakeholders, natural values,
	(EM4) Manage Threats	threat management, site values, goals and objectives
	(EM5) Effectively and Fairly Enforce Laws and Regulations	protected area management, laws and regulations, effective implementation, fair implementation.
	(EM6) Manage Access, Resource Use and Visitation	access, resource use, tourism management, visit management
	(EM7) Measure Success	monitoring, evaluation processes, learning processes, protection, change
Successful Conservation Outcomes (SCO)	(SCO1) Demonstrate Conservation of Major Natural Values	area management, natural values, IUCN, nature conservation performance
	(SCO2) Demonstrate Conservation of Major Associated Ecosystem Services	ecosystem services, protection
	(SCO3) Demonstrate Conservation of Major Cultural Values	cultural values, sustainability

). In this study, all keywords are either directly or indirectly associated with nature conservation. In this context, the alignment of keywords is assessed using a holistic approach rather than a fragmented analysis. This method ensures a more comprehensive and effective analysis by considering various aspects of nature conservation together.

Step 2: Matching IUCN indicators with Türkiye’s conservation laws

In the second step, the presence of the 61 keywords identified in the first step within the texts of Laws No. 2873, 2872, and 2863 is assessed through word matching and comparison analysis. Law No. 2873 matches 31 of the 61 keywords, while Law No. 2872 matches 38, and Law No. 2863 matches 35 (

Table 6. Matching IUCN indicators with Türkiye’s conservation laws and Indicator Categorization (Relationship Status) and Alignment Analysis.

Step 1		Step 2			Step 3	Step 4
		National Laws					National Laws
		Law No. 2873	Law No. 2872	Law No. 2863	Relationship Status	%	Law No. 2873	Law No. 2872	Law No. 2863
GG1	civil society	0	1	1	Partial Association	1.67	0	1.67	1.67
	rights holders	1	0	1	Partial Association	1.67	1.67	0	1.67
	stakeholders	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
	fair representation	0	0	1	Partial Association	1.67	0	0	1.67
	governance	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
GG2	governance arrangements	1	1	1	Full Association	1.67	1.67	1.67	1.67
	decision-making processes	1	1	1	Full Association	1.67	1.67	1.67	1.67
	transparency	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
	accountability	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
	accessibility	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.67	0	0	0
GG3	planning	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
	governance	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.08	0	0	0
	social and ecological context	0	1	0	Partial Association	2.08	0	2.08	0
	responsiveness	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.08	0	0	0
SDP1	natural values	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
	ecosystem services	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.08	0	0	0
	cultural values	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
SDP2	design	0	0	1	Partial Association	3.13	0	0	3.13
	long-term protection	0	1	0	Partial Association	3.13	0	3.13	0
SDP3	site values	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
	threats and challenges	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
	planning and management	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
SDP4	site management	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
	socioeconomic context	0	1	1	Partial Association	2.08	0	2.08	2.08
	social and economic impact	0	0	1	Partial Association	2.08	0	0	2.08
EM1	management strategy	1	1	1	Full Association	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.71
	long-term management	0	1	0	Partial Association	0.71	0	0.71	0
	protection of core values	1	1	1	Full Association	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.71
	social goals	0	1	0	Partial Association	0.71	0	0.71	0
	economic goals	0	1	0	Partial Association	0.71	0	0.71	0
EM2	ecological attributes	1	1	0	Partial Association	0.71	0.71	0.71	0
	ecological processes	0	1	0	Partial Association	0.71	0	0.71	0
	natural values	1	1	1	Full Association	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.71
	ecosystem services	0	0	0	Non-Association	0.71	0	0	0
	cultural values	1	1	1	Full Association	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.71
EM3	socioeconomic benefits	1	1	1	Full Association	0,71	0.71	0.71	0.71
	management	1	1	1	Full Association	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.71
	stakeholders	1	0	1	Partial Association	0.71	0.71	0	0.71
	natural values	0	0	0	Non-Association	0.71	0	0	0
	threat management	1	1	1	Full Association	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.71
EM4	site values	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.19	0	0	0
	aims and objectives of the area	1	1	1	Full Association	1.19	1.19	1.19	1.19
	protected area management	1	1	1	Full Association	1.19	1.19	1.19	1.19
EM5	laws and regulations	1	1	1	Full Association	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89
	effective implementation	1	1	1	Full Association	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89
	fair implementation	1	1	1	Full Association	0,89	0.89	0,89	0.89
	access, resource use	0	0	0	Non-Association	0.89	0	0	0
EM6	tourism management	1	1	0	Partial Association	1.19	1.19	1.19	0
	visit management	1	1	0	Partial Association	1.19	1.19	1.19	0
	monitoring–evaluation and learning	1	0	1	Partial Association	1.19	1.19	0	1.19
EM7	success criteria	0	1	1	Partial Association	1.79	0	1.79	1.79
	site management	0	0	0	Non-Association	1.79	0	0	0
SCO1	natural values	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
	IUCN	1	1	1	Full Association	2.08	2.08	2.08	2.08
	nature conservation performance	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.08	0	0	0
	ecosystem services	0	0	0	Non-Association	2.08	0	0	0
SCO2	protection of values	0	0	0	Non-Association	4.17	0	0	0
	cultural values	1	1	1	Full Association	4.17	4.17	4.17	4.17
SCO3	sustainability	1	1	1	Full Association	4.17	4.17	4.17	4.17
	civil society	0	1	1	Partial Association	4.17	0	4.17	4.17
Total		31	38	35		100	47.14	61.34	60.63
Average				35					56.37

). The theme most closely aligned with the content of Law No. 2873 is Effective Management (EM), whereas the theme it is least associated with is Good Governance (GG). Law No. 2872 aligns with Sound Design and Planning (SDP) and Effective Management (EM), while it is least associated with Good Governance (GG). Law No. 2863 most closely matches the theme of Sound Design and Planning (SDP) and least closely matches Good Governance (GG). Overall, the connection between the Good Governance (GG) theme and the legal texts is less robust compared to others themes.

Step 3: Indicator Categorization (Relationship Status)

As shown in Table 6, the relationship status resulting from matching each keyword in national legal texts was established. Out of the 61 keywords, 16 fall into the no-association category, 17 into the partial association category, and 25 into the full association category. The most frequently matched theme among the Green List standards is Effective Management (EM), while Good Governance (GG) and Successful Conservation Outcomes (SCO) are the least matched themes.

Step 4: Creating matrices and statistical graphs

In the fourth step, the Descriptive Content Analysis performed in the first three steps is utilized to communicate a quantitative match status using simple mathematical percentages. The presence of the match within the sentence and theme is calculated mathematically (Table 6). Initially, Good Governance (GG), Sound Design and Planning (SDP), Effective Management (EM), and Successful Conservation Outcomes (SCO) were each assigned an equal alignment percentage of 25%. The subcategories under each main category were then divided equally based on their quantity, resulting in alignment percentages of 8.33 for GG1-2-3, 6.25 for SDP1-2-3-4, 3.57 for EM1-2-3-4-5-6-7, and 8.33 for SCO1-2-3. The significant keywords within these standards were also scored equally. Some standards contain two, three, four, or five keywords. To mathematically calculate the alignment percentage, each keyword within its respective text was assigned an equal proportion, yielding values such as 1.67, 2.08, 3.13, 0.71, 1.19, 0.89, 1.79, and 4.17 (Table 6). The total sum of these values equals 100. Subsequently, for each identified keyword found in national legal texts, the corresponding score is recorded. If a keyword is absent from the legal text, a score of 0 is assigned.

Legal text No. 2873 has a 47.14 percent alignment with the Green List Standards, legal text No. 2872 has a 61.34 percent alignment, and legal text No. 2863 has a 60.63 percent alignment. When we calculate the overall alignment percentage, the score of all these national legal texts is 56.37 out of 100.

3.3. General Evaluation

In the Nature 2030 targets, a total of 44 keywords across 15 targets under five themes match, with an average of 15 keywords found in national protected area legal texts in Türkiye, which amounts to 38%. In Green List standards, a total of 61 keywords across 17 criteria under four themes align, with an average of 35 keywords found in national conservation legal texts in Türkiye, representing 56%. Green List standards align more closely with national legal texts than the Nature 2030 targets. When calculating the overall average of these percentage assessments, the compliance of legal texts regarding protected areas in Türkiye with the sustainability indicator sets developed by IUCN for protected areas stands at 47.17% (

Table 7. General evaluation alignment rating.

UICN	Law Nr. 2873-Compatibility %	Law No. 2872 Compatibility %		Law No. 2863 Compatibility %
Nature 2030	31.11	61.67		21.11
Average %		37.96
Green List	47.14	61.34		60.63
Average %		56.37
General Average %		47.17

). This situation demonstrates that the fundamental laws regarding protected areas in Türkiye are linked to sustainable conservation at the policy development level. While there is some effort at the national level, policies need to be developed to address the gaps in keywords.

Study focusing on keyword presence in the laws is expected to impact the development of legal policies and the updating of legal texts. It is important to focus on both related and unrelated keywords. The keywords associated with the laws in Türkiye also reflect the issues these laws address. Unrelated keywords can provide insights for the future and emphasize the issues that need to be addressed in policies.

Nature 2030 includes the keywords “sustainable use, responsibilities, effective management, environmental law, rule of law, scientific assessment, scientific knowledge”, while the Green List standard features the keywords “management regulations, decision-making processes, planning, natural values, cultural values, site values, threats and challenges, planning and management, site management, management strategy, protection of core values, socioeconomic benefits, management, site values, aims and objectives of the area, protected area management, laws and regulations, effective implementation, protection of values”, all of which are present in legal frameworks (

Table 8. Full Association and Non-Association in the keyword analysis.

Full Association in the Keyword		Non-Association in the Keyword
Nature 2030 Keyword	Green List Keyword	Nature 2030 Keyword	Green List Keyword
sustainable use	management arrangements	fair and inclusive conservation	stakeholders
obligations–responsibilities	decision making processes	equitable management	governance
effective management	planning	ecological footprint	transparency
environmental law	natural values	ecosystem restoration	accountability
rule of law	cultural values	ecosystem services	accessibility
scientific assessment	site values	equitable access	responsiveness
scientific knowledge	threats and challenges	water governance	ecosystem services
	planning and management	marine ecosystem	stakeholders
	site management	marine restoration	threat management
	management strategy	marine biodiversity	fair practice
	protection of core values	coastal communities	success criteria
	socioeconomic benefits	livelihood	IUCN
	management	ocean	nature conservation performance
	site values	planetary stability
	aims and objectives of the area	countries
	protected area management	nature-based solutions
	laws and regulations
	effective implementation
	site management
	protection of values

). In the context of sustainable protection, the inclusion of concepts like “sustainable use, cultural values, management, effectiveness, value preservation, and scientific assessment” among the keywords identified in step 1 suggests that national legal texts and policy developers are effective. Together, these elements create a crucial basis for the sustainability of nature protection.

The keywords “fair and inclusive conservation, equitable management, ecological footprint, ecosystem restoration, ecosystem services, equal access, water governance, marine ecosystem, marine restoration, marine biodiversity, coastal communities, livelihoods, ocean, planetary stability, countries, nature-based solutions” in Nature 2030 and “stakeholders, governance, transparency, accountability, accessibility, governance, sensitivity, ecosystem services, threat management, fair implementation, success criteria, IUCN, nature conservation performance” in the Green List standard are not present in the legal texts (Table 8). It is advisable to address these issues in future improvements of legal texts and policy development processes while prioritizing research and innovation on these themes. Emphasizing the concepts of fairness, inclusiveness, and equality renders the language of the texts more sustainable. Nature-based solutions are also among the key issues that have been on the agenda in recent years and are essential for global sustainability.

When evaluating all these data, it becomes clear that most of the keywords we have addressed are represented in Türkiye’s legal texts, particularly with regard to the sustainability of protection. Studies should be conducted to improve the sustainability of legal texts and policies. It is particularly important to address unrelated keywords. The sustainable protection and utilization of natural areas are influenced by the framework of legal texts and policies. The foundational legal texts and laws need to be organized and developed based on this data framework.

4. Discussion

The consumption and destruction of natural resources available to humanity impact the entire globe. It is projected that the quality of life for both people and nature will decline, both directly and indirectly, in the future [6]. Protecting nature can be achieved through global initiatives at the national level. This study assesses the current situation by highlighting the relationship between legal texts in Türkiye and the IUCN’s international targets and criteria. The missing keywords identified in the national conservation legal texts pertinent to this research include “governance, stakeholders, transparency, accountability, accessibility, sensitivity, threat management, fair and inclusive conservation, ecosystem restoration”, and so forth. These keywords are crucial for future scenarios and policy development processes. All interventions, especially in protected areas, are subject to legal procedures. Conservation plans focusing on zoning and construction are insufficient to protect ecological values in the city [61]. In Türkiye, while the plans and decisions made for protective purposes in many conservation areas, especially in populated regions, aim to safeguard these areas, various issues persist. Planning practices that exclude all stakeholders, lack transparency, have shortcomings in access and threat management, and are not effectively integrated negatively impact protection. The identified missing keywords align with the existing problems. This situation also highlights the importance of research.

Unlike other studies in the literature, this research on Türkiye’s protected area management system not only examines the integration of IUCN categories into national legal texts but also makes a significant contribution by employing an innovative method, such as textual content analysis, to understand how international standards are addressed in the national context. In particular, the challenges encountered in managing protected areas in Türkiye and the proposed strategies for overcoming these challenges reveal more clearly the extent to which national regulations support global biodiversity conservation goals.

The management and sustainability of protected areas are regarded as critical global issues for biodiversity conservation. Comparative studies conducted in countries such as China, Canada, the United States, and Spain have demonstrated that the effectiveness of protected area management is affected by factors including governance structures, climate change, and socioeconomic contexts [50,51,52,53]. For instance, research conducted in China highlights the discrepancy between national objectives and IUCN categories, while studies in Canada note that climate change has not been adequately incorporated into management plans [50]. Similarly, the management of protected areas in Spain reveals challenges related to governance autonomy and demonstrates how these challenges can affect conservation objectives [53]. These examples illustrate the complexity of achieving sustainability in protected areas and stress the importance of adapting management strategies to local conditions and international frameworks.

One of the themes in nature conservation areas is the management and governance of the area, which encompasses and fulfills all rationales for sustainability [62]. It also emphasizes the importance of involving the public and stakeholders in management. The concept of good governance underscores the significance of actors in sustainable planning and the feasibility of that planning [63]. Nature conservation areas should be evaluated as both ecological and urban commons [64]. Due to Ostrom’s refutation of Hardin’s commons theory, the concept of commons has become more comprehensive, raising questions about its evolution [65,66]. The sustainability of ecological values is vital for improving lives, developing communities, and fostering environments that encourage economic growth, social mobility, unity, and well-being for both current and future generations [64,67]. The key issues that need addressing for nature conservation are community-based solutions and nature-based solutions. A complementary concept is “livelihood”. This idea, found in the literature as “sustainable livelihood”, encompasses aspects related to gender, environmental protection and renewal, and governance [4]. Sustainable livelihoods also promote global resilience against environmental destruction, as well as the stresses and shocks that may arise [68,69,70]. Participatory methods provide essential tools for understanding at the local level and serve as a medium where societal values and scientific strategies can converge [71,72]. The keywords derived from our research also provide a distinct perspective, focusing on community-based and nature-based themes. While stakeholders, governance, transparency, and equality in the unrelated keywords emphasize the importance of a community-based perspective, concepts such as management, planning, area management, and the rule of law, which are directly related, further highlight their significance. The relevance of concepts found in Türkiye’s national laws is also evident and emphasized.

Nature-based solutions, regarded as essential responses to global nature conservation challenges, have been recognized as the missing keyword. This seems to be a matter that necessitates development within Türkiye’s national legal frameworks and on a global-scale context.

In Asian countries, known for having some of the world’s richest biodiversity, the 17% land conservation target set for 2020 was not met [73]. Establishing 30% of protected areas by 2030 is expected to be unattainable [74]. An examination of studies conducted in Türkiye reveals that, while the targets for protected areas have not been met, the physical area designated as protected has increased [75]. In addition to the importance of increasing the number of protected areas for their own sake, it is also essential to ensure that they are protected sustainably [76]. To prepare Türkiye for the 2030 global goals, efforts to expand protected areas and promote sustainable protection should be supported by legal texts and policies. One of the most significant steps in national nature conservation efforts, ETBAR aims to contribute to the scientific evaluation of natural sites as a methodology; however, it faces practical criticisms [59]. In this context, it is emphasized that the methodology and decision-making processes should be approached within a more transparent, participatory, and ecologically based framework [60]. The identified missing keywords in the results of this research reflect similar concerns. This study, which encompasses a global perspective and aligns with international norms, can play a crucial role in enhancing the success of local initiatives.

The greatest strength gained from this research, which represents a crucial step toward the national accessibility of sustainable nature protection within global criteria, is the identification of missing keywords. In future studies, assessing the current situation ensures that deficiencies are recognized in the next stage and that innovations and explanations are incorporated.

This research focuses on evaluating keywords solely through legal texts, neglecting the complexities of legal language, the contextual subtleties, and the political challenges encountered in practice. It does not provide a thorough understanding of how effective laws are. Local dynamics also influence the implementation and sustainability of laws in various ways. These aspects are not included in the study; only the relationship and compliance status are determined, and a potential effect is left unaddressed. One key limitation of this approach is its failure to directly assess how effective these laws are in practice. Future studies should complement these legal analyses by examining the real impact of these legal norms in conservation areas through case-based evaluations and empirical analyses. Expanding the methodological approach used in this study, supported by qualitative methods that include stakeholders’ perspectives, could prove beneficial. Methods such as expert interviews and participatory evaluations can provide deeper insights into governance issues, institutional capacities, and the practical applicability of nature conservation policies in the field.

Another important point of discussion is the adaptability of this approach to various national contexts. Türkiye, with its ecological diversity and complex regulatory framework, serves as a unique example. However, the methodology applied in this study can also be adapted to assess the nature conservation policies of other countries. Conducting comparative studies on how different nations integrate international conservation norms into their national regulations would strengthen the validity and applicability of the findings.

Additionally, this research, as part of a broader study, aims not only to provide a theoretical analysis but also to develop a structural nature conservation governance model. Future research will focus on further enhancing this model, testing its applicability, and evaluating its impact through field studies. Thus, it aims to offer tangible contributions toward bridging the gap between legal frameworks and practical nature conservation strategies.

5. Conclusions

Nature is a global concern highlighted in the World Economic Forum’s 2023–2024 global risk report. All components of nature must be protected sustainably. The responsible use of nature by humans, along with its protection and management, creates a perfect balance. In the context of this research, the IUCN’s Green List standards and Nature 2030 targets were used as benchmarks for sustainable conservation. Utilizing the four-step method outlined in these standards, the legal texts directly related to protected areas in Türkiye were examined to explore the relationship between keywords for sustainable conservation purposes. The main findings emphasize that this can serve as a tool for potential development and improvement processes by assisting decision-makers in crafting legal texts and policies. It anticipates the potential for a normative union with the 2030 sustainability goals and global protected areas targets.

This research article evaluates the preparedness of the legal text infrastructure to implement the standards developed by IUCN. The qualitative relationship among the themes in the standards is assessed using the keyword method, while the quantitative relationship status and compatibility are shown through simple percentages calculations. The four-step approach developed and the key relationship defined using the Descriptive Content Analysis method demonstrate a systematic and objective way to assess the alignment between national laws and international conservation principles. This methodology not only facilitates comparative policy assessments and identifies legal gaps in different countries but also presents both opportunities and limitations for direct application in various international contexts. On one hand, the structured approach allows for the comparison of legal texts within a standardized framework, offering a valuable tool for international comparative legal analysis. On the other hand, contextual factors such as differences in legal interpretation, governance structures, and data accessibility may limit the method’s effectiveness in certain regions. For instance, in countries where legal texts require extensive interpretation or are integrated into complex regulatory systems, a purely quantitative approach may not fully capture the nuances of legal practice and enforcement. Furthermore, while the method is effective in identifying patterns in legal terminology, it does not provide an in-depth analysis of implementation processes and contextual factors. Nevertheless, this study lays a solid foundation for future comparative legal research and, when supported by qualitative analyses, can provide broader explanatory power in different international contexts. Future studies could strengthen the methodological dimension by integrating content analysis with case studies or expert interviews, employing mixed-methods approaches.

The evaluation of national protected area legal texts in alignment with IUCN targets ensures that these targets serve as indicators and provide a tangible benchmark for sustainability. Future studies will not only focus on improving these legal texts but will also contribute to developing effective strategies for achieving global and national sustainability goals. Such research has the potential to create a broader impact by ensuring that conservation efforts at both local and global levels mutually reinforce one another.