Next Article in Journal
Analysis of the Factors Affecting China’s Manufacturing Servitization from the Perspective of the Ecological Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Time History Analyses of a Masonry Structure for a Sustainable Technical Assessment According to Romanian Design Codes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Some Considerations on the Implications of Protected Areas for Sustainable Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/su15042933
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identifying, Monitoring, and Evaluating Sustainable Ecotourism Management Criteria and Indicators for Protected Areas in Türkiye: The Case of Camili Biosphere Reserve

by
Inci Zeynep Aydin
* and
Atakan Öztürk
Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Economic, Artvin Coruh University, Artvin 08100, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 2933; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042933
Original submission received: 7 December 2022 / Revised: 27 January 2023 / Accepted: 31 January 2023 / Published: 6 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Protected Areas and Their Contribution to Sustainable Development)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although many criteria and indicator sets have been developed for sustainable ecotourism management in many countries around the world, such a set of criteria and indicators has not been developed in Türkiye yet. The aim of this study was to develop sustainable ecotourism management criteria and indicators specific to Türkiye’s social, economic, and ecological differences and to investigate the possibilities of using this developed set in the sustainable management of the Camili Biosphere Reserve Area. The set that consisted of 12 criteria and 68 indicators prepared based on WTO and UNWTO criteria and indicator sets was used as a starting point. Within the scope of the Delphi method, as a result of three stages of repeated questionnaires, a set of criteria and indicators consisting of 11 criteria and 101 indicators was reached, based on the suggestions and consensus of four expert groups. In the next step, the adaptation and prioritization of the national sustainable ecotourism management criteria and indicator set for the Camili Biosphere Reserve Area were realized using the Analytical Hierarchy Process method, depending on the opinions of four local expert groups. As a result, it was concluded that the ecotourism activities carried out in the Camili Biosphere Reserve received a total score of 95.4 and that the ecotourism activities in the area were positively sustainable, with an average of 69.1%. It was determined that ecotourism activities in the Camili Biosphere Reserve are positively sustainable in terms of “level of awareness and perception of the field”, “socio-economic benefits to the local people”, “local participation”, “financial structure”, “environmental education and practices“, and “visitor satisfaction” criteria. However, in order to ensure the sustainability of ecotourism activities both at the country level and at the local level, studies should be carried out with a participatory approach by establishing a balance between the expectations of the local people and the income obtained from ecotourism, by providing a central authority, and by making improvements in the financing structure.

1. Introduction

As a result of increasing urbanization and demographic problems caused by the intense industrialization process that started with the industrial revolution [1], nature was rapidly destroyed, and many environmental problems emerged as a result of deteriorating the balance of nature. Instead of pure economic development-oriented approaches [2,3], approaches based on the sustainability of rich ecosystems and areas with biodiversity have gained importance [4,5,6]. Especially in recent years, the concept of ecotourism—supporting the development and protection of the local people living in and near the protected area, making positive contributions to the natural and cultural values around the protected area, recognizing the sustainability of these values in the planning process of the protected areas for tourism services, and considering the protection of biodiversity—has started to take place on the agenda [7,8].
Sustainable ecotourism is a kind of technically planned, economically efficient, socially responsible, and ecologically sensitive tourism aiming for long-term development as a process [4,9,10]. In this context, it is extremely important to determine the extent to which the targeted plans are achieved in sustainable ecotourism activities in protected areas and the level of ensuring the economic, ecological, and socio-cultural sustainability of the area during such activities. Especially the classification of protected areas within themselves [9,10,11], problems experienced in determining and registering protected areas [12,13], and conflicts with local people in planning and implementation processes [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15] are at the forefront of these difficulties.
At this point, criteria and indicators are widely used as a means to contribute to the measurement, monitoring, and evaluation of the sustainability of ecotourism activities in protected areas [5,15,16,17,18,19,20].
In this context, first the indicators for the sustainability of tourism were defined under 11 headings by the World Tourism Organization (WTO) in 1996 [21], then a comprehensive set of criteria and indicators that had 12 basic criteria and 140 indicator systems was created by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) in 2004 with the title of “Sustainable Development Indicators Guide for Tourism Destinations” [22], and following these developments, public, private, and non-governmental organizations from among 27 organizations came together in 2008 under the leadership of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) and determined 4 basic and 18 sub-criteria within the scope of sustainable tourism criteria [13,23,24].
Following these, although many studies were conducted to monitor the sustainability of ecotourism activities around the world [9,22,25,26,27], with the planned development period that started in the 1960s in Türkiye, various development plans (eighth, ninth, and tenth) and their Special Specialization Commission reports, the Türkiye National Forestry Program, the 1st Environment and Forestry Council Decisions, the 2nd Forestry and Water Council Decisions, and the 3rd Agriculture and Forestry Council reported only policies and strategies for the development and dissemination of ecotourism in protected areas in these macro-level documents [28,29,30].
Although many criteria and indicator sets have been developed for sustainable ecotourism management in many countries around the world, such a set of criteria and indicators has not yet been developed in Türkiye. The aim of this study was to develop sustainable ecotourism management criteria and indicators specific to Türkiye’s social, economic, and ecological differences and to investigate the possibilities of using this developed set in the sustainable management of Camili Biosphere Reserve, which is the only biosphere reserve area in Türkiye. In this context, it is aimed to adapt and prioritize the national sustainable ecotourism management criteria and indicator set for the Camili Biosphere Reserve Area and determine the sustainability of the ecotourism activity management process in the area.

2. Introduction to The Study Area

The study area covered a total area of 25,395.4 hectares, which is also called “Macahel“, with the combination of 6 villages in the basin (Camili, Düzenli, Efeler, Kayalar, Maral, and Uğur villages) bordering the Borcka District of the city of Artvin in Türkiye, declared as Türkiye’s first Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO-MaB in 2007 [31] under the name of Camili Biosphere Reserve (Figure 1).
There are two nature reserves, Camili-Gorgit Nature Reserve and Camili-Efeler Nature Reserve, within the borders of the Camili Biosphere Reserve, which host a rich variety of plant and animal species and have organically certified agricultural potential. The area is very important as an ecotourism area because it is the only place where the purity of the Caucasian Bee Race (i.e., Apis mellifera caucasica) has remained intact. It is also among the intact forest ecosystems of not only Türkiye but almost all of Europe [32,33].

3. Materials and Methods

Questionnaires were used to achieve these determined goals. In the first step of the study, the set that consisted of 12 criteria and 68 indicators prepared by [12] based on the WTO and UNWTO criteria and indicator sets and largely overlaps with this research was used as a starting point, and depending on expert opinions, criteria and indicators specific to Turkey were used. A national criterion and indicator set consisting of 11 criteria and 101 indicators was reached by using the three-step Delphi method. The AHP Method was used in the second step, and the national sustainable ecotourism management criteria and indicator set were adapted and prioritized for the Camili Biosphere Reserve Area. In the third and final step of the study, the sustainability of ecotourism activities in the Camili Biosphere Reserve was evaluated in terms of sustainability based on the views of local interest group representatives.
In the selection of the experts who would contribute to the study, people from different expert groups were included in each step of the study. In this context, academics (A), forestry organizations (O), tourism sector NGOs and other organizations (T), and related ministries (the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the abolished Ministry of Environment and Urbanization) (KC) to experts were included in the first step of the study; local administrators and GEF project workers (YYG), NGOs and tour operators (STO), direct income earners of Camili people (DGH), and academics (AKD) were included in the second step of the study; local administrators (YY), NGO representatives (ST), GEF project employees (GC), hostel operators with direct income (DP), and DOKA experts (DU) were included as the local interest groups in the third step of the study.

3.1. The Delphi Method

In the first step of the study, in addition to evaluating the initial criteria and the set of indicators, experts were asked to specify two criteria and indicators based on the proposed criteria, if possible. A total of 148 experts were identified, with a response rate of 39.19%, and 58 experts were included in the study. In the second step, 12 criteria and 317 indicators, which were formed according to the results of the first stage survey, were sent to the same experts, and the experts re-specified the new criteria and indicators based on the criteria, and they evaluated the relevant criteria and indicators with a 5-point Likert scale. As a result, 48 experts participated in the study, with a response rate of 82.76% from 58 experts. In the third and final step of the study, the new criteria and indicator set, consisting of 11 criteria and 109 indicators prepared according to the results of the second step questionnaire, were sent to the same experts, and the results of the questionnaires were evaluated and shared with the experts. At this step, a response rate of 96% was achieved with the participation of 46 experts out of 48 experts (Table 1).
Delphi arithmetic averages of criteria and indicators were used in the first step in the analysis of Delphi questionnaire results by using the IBM SPSS Statistics 20 program, and consensus criteria were used in the other steps. In this context, the median, CAG, percentage of participation, and arithmetic mean were taken into account in the selection of consensus criteria in each of the second and third steps of the Delphi [34,35,36,37,38]. Moreover, factor analysis was used in the second step, and the changes in the standard deviation were used in the third step (Table 2).
In the evaluation of the Delphi second-step questionnaire, firstly, the reliability and validity of each of the criteria and indicator sets were assessed using the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) and Barlett tests. In this respect, it was determined that the Cronbach Alpha (α) reliability coefficients were between 0.795 and 0.939, in other words, highly reliable, and the validity coefficients of each criterion were between 0.90 and 1.00, in other words, highly valid [39,40,41]. In addition, the results of the KMO test were greater than 0.5 and the result of the Barlett test was less than 0.05, and it was decided that the relevant criteria and indicator set were suitable for factor analysis, in which indicators that had a critical factor load less than 0.6 were eliminated (Table 2).
Considering the median (4 and 5), CAG (<1.2), percentage of participation (≥80%), and arithmetic mean (>3.5) consensus values of the remaining indicators, if at least one of these consensus criteria did not meet the necessary consensus conditions, it was decided to eliminate it from the criteria and indicator set within the scope of the study. Similar to the second step in the evaluation of the Delphi third step questionnaire, the median (4 and 5), CAG (<1.2), percentage of participation (≥80%), and arithmetic mean (>3.5) were evaluated as compromise criteria, as were the rate of change in the standard deviations of the indicators calculated in the previous questionnaire and the standard deviation value in the third questionnaire, with care taken to ensure that it was smaller than the standard deviation. If at least one of these reconciliation criteria did not meet the necessary reconciliation conditions, it was decided to eliminate the relevant indicator from the criteria and indicators set within the scope of the study (Table 2).

3.2. The AHP Method

In this step, firstly, local expert groups and individuals were determined, and then the AHP questionnaires were applied to 17 experts from 4 expert groups. Then, a two-part questionnaire study was prepared by creating the Pairwise Comparisons Decision Matrix in the AHP Method. The 1–9-point importance scale that was developed by Saaty was preferred in the comparison of the indicators and criteria in the questionnaire [42,43], and the order of the general priority values was determined according to the overall scores of the alternatives.

3.3. Sustainability Assessment

The indicators that had normalized indicator values (w) equal to or higher than this average value were taken as the basis by taking the average of the normalized indicator values obtained in the common ranking from the prioritized indicators in the Camili Biosphere Reserve [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. As a result, the sustainability of the area was evaluated according to the most important indicators for the Camili Biosphere Reserve. In total, 8 people were asked to answer the relevant questionnaire by considering the changes in ecotourism activities in the Camili Biosphere Reserve in the last five years (2015–2019).
By using Mrosek’s System [45] in scoring and determining success, 1 point meant negative change, 2 points meant neutral/unbiased change, and 3 points meant positive change. That is to say, in the context of each indicator, interest group representatives were asked to give 1 point if there was a negative change, 2 points if there was no positive/negative change, and 3 points if a positive change took place. The sustainability in indicators with a success rate of 100% and a total of 138 points was decided as negative with a score of 0–46 (<33%), neutral/unbiased with a score of 47–92 (34–67%), and positive with a score between 93–138 (68–100%).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Findings and Discussion Regarding the Delphi Method

A national and sustainable ecotourism management criterion and indicator set that consisted of 11 criteria and 101 indicators was obtained in this step. The fact that 48 (82.76%) of the 58 experts participating in the Delphi method first-step questionnaire responded to the second-step questionnaire and then 46 (95.83%) of the 48 experts who participated in the Delphi method second-step questionnaire responded to the third-step questionnaire was an important factor increasing the reliability of these evaluations and the criteria and indicator set obtained. It was determined that the criteria and indicators of sustainable ecotourism management put forward in the present study had similarities with various criteria and indicator sets developed for similar purposes [6,20,46]. As a matter of fact, “restriction/control of visitors in critical areas”, “practices intended to mitigate environmental effects“, and “zoning system and management” in the A3 criterion, in which A2, A6, A9, A11, and A12 criteria in the [12] study, which was taken as the basis of this step, were eliminated. It was seen that the indicators were included in the D1 criterion, and the “direction signs” and “brochure/booklet” indicators underwent a name change in the A4 criterion.
In addition, when the scores given by the experts to the criteria were examined collectively, the criteria given the highest priority by the experts was “D1-Conservation of natural resources and biological diversity.” In the study that was conducted by [47], it was determined that the criterion of “natural resources and biodiversity” was the most important criterion in the provision and development of sustainability for all interest groups. In the study of [9,10,12,48], the criteria for “conservation of natural resources and biological diversity” and “ensuring the sustainable development of environmental resources” were at the top of the list, and these criteria were fully or partially named D1 and D5, and their criteria and contents were found to overlap. This was also emphasized in the Quebec Declaration [49]. However, although the criterion of “conservation of natural resources and biological diversity” is among the positive externalities, it is often faced with the problem of not being priced and not being tradable in the market [50].
It was determined that the criteria and indicator set specific to Türkiye largely overlapped with the criteria and indicators developed at regional or local levels in the international arena and were 100% in 5 (45%) of the 11 criteria developed in Türkiye (D2, D3, D5, D7, and D8). It was also determined that a consensus was reached (Table 3).
It was also determined by the experts that the second criterion, which was one of the newly proposed criteria and the second-most prioritized criterion, was the D2 criteria, and this criteria was followed by the D3 and D4 criteria. D2 criteria argues that human activities in a protected area must be at a threshold level because activities in a protected area can cause the degradation and destruction of the resource base, negative effects on the economy and culture of local people, and reductions in visitor satisfaction [51]. In various studies, it has been determined that there is an increase in the destruction of nature due to the lack of development of a defined carrying capacity for the area during the intense use of the relevant area and a decrease in the utilization levels of the visitors coming to the area over time due to natural destruction [4,5,6,14,15,16,52,53,54]. In this context, it is obvious that the D2 criteria and related indicators were among the most important criteria.
D3 and D4 criteria, which are at the top of the criteria and indicator set specific to Türkiye, and indicators based on these criteria were extremely important criteria in terms of establishing continuous and mutually trusting relations between stakeholder groups and resolving conflicts, and they were used for the management of protected areas by non-governmental organizations, local governments, local people, and area managers, etc. Although there are various projects and meetings on this issue in Türkiye, there may be conservation approaches that exclude the local people because of a lack of information, misinterpretation of information, and lack of communication [20,55,56,57,58], and the decisions taken generally remain on paper [59,60,61]. Moreover, indicators such as the income and the continuity of the socio-economic benefits provided to the local people have the potential to increase the commitment of the local people to ecotourism activities [5,6,23,56,62], achieve economic recovery in these segments with the sale of these products [63,64,65,66], and partially slow down the migration experienced from villages to cities [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67].
In the studies conducted by [6,65,68], the other suggested criteria for monitoring sustainable ecotourism management in protected areas were reported to be “educational awareness”, “conservation of soil and water resources”, “visitor and local people satisfaction”, “economic benefits to local people”, “preservation of cultural heritage and diversity”, “protection of hygiene and touristic safety”, “institutional capacity”, and “financial structure“, and these criteria partially or completely overlapped with the D3, D5, D8, D9, D10, and D11 criteria in this study. It was also seen that the criteria of “protection of cultural heritage and diversity” and “protection of hygiene and touristic safety” in the relevant studies were included as indicators in the criteria D7 and D9 in this study. In the study that was conducted by [20,52,54], it was reported that the criteria of “visitor safety”, “environmental education and awareness”, “environmental management and practices”, and “local participation” came to the forefront, and these criteria were D3, D5, D6, and D9 criteria in this study, partially or completely.
Also, although it had the lowest average of the criteria and indicators specific to Türkiye as determined by the experts, the “D11—awareness and perception level of the field” criterion was one of the newly proposed criteria within the scope of the study (Table 3). The D11 criterion was likely to rank at the bottom of the sustainable management of protected areas in Türkiye because of the lack of awareness of this concept. Moreover, different groups of people may have different opinions on the management of the protected area, and these differences may be important for monitoring the sustainable ecotourism management of a protected area. It was also reported in various studies that the D11 Criterion can be used as an effective tool in monitoring sustainable ecotourism management [6,9,23,54,66,69].

4.2. Findings and Discussion of Opinions on the AHP Method

The Consistency Rate (CR) values of each criterion were calculated in the statistical analysis about the prioritization of the criteria and the indicators specific to Camili Biosphere Reserve, and it was understood that the pairwise comparison matrix of all criteria was consistent (Table 4).
Moreover, the change in the ranking of the criteria as a result of adapting the sustainable ecotourism management criteria and indicator set that were specific to Türkiye to the Camili Biosphere Reserve is given in Table 5.
It was determined that D1 and D2 criteria, which were in first place in the national criteria and indicator set, were also included as priority criteria (E1 and E4) in the Camili Biosphere Reserve. The E1 criterion, which was the most prioritized criterion by the relevant experts in the Camili Biosphere Reserve, also overlapped with the results of similar studies [14,70,71]. To realize the sustainable management of ecotourism activities in protected areas, it is not surprising that the E1 criterion, which had an important share in international agreements, included plant and animal species to attract the attention of visitors and was the main component of ecotourism with the highest average in Camili Biosphere Reserve.
It was determined that criterion D11, which was in the last place in the national criteria and indicator set, was the second criterion in the Camili Biosphere Reserve as the E2 criterion. In some international studies, determinations were made on the importance and necessity of the E2 criterion [4,9,12,55,68]. Despite the high education and awareness levels of the local people in the Camili Biosphere Reserve, it is possible that awareness of the areas suitable for ecotourism activities has not yet been created by the local stakeholders, especially the local people, and the resulting lack of experience in ecotourism activities was highlighted in the Camili area.
It was determined that the D5 criterion, which was in the middle of the national criteria and indicator set, was in the same place as the E3 criterion, especially in the Camili Biosphere Reserve. It is not surprising that it ranks first. Generally, there may be losses in the landscape and recreation values as a result of the waste problem, soil erosion, and erosion of the carrying capacity in ecotourism areas in protected areas (e.g., inadequate or no intervention in forest areas) [50], and their activities can cause negative externalities. In this context, the disposal of solid waste to the environment in a protected area, the absence of environmentally friendly practices, and the presence of resource values damaged by visitors also have the potential to disrupt the positive effects of ecotourism activities in the relevant protected area. In this context, the E3 criterion will most likely be among the priority criteria identified by local experts, especially for the Camili Biosphere Reserve.
Again, although D3 and D4 criteria, which were priority criteria in the criteria specific to Türkiye, were also included as priority criteria in the Camili Biosphere Reserve, it was determined that they were in the middle of the ranking (E7 and E8). In this context, it can be argued that these relevant criteria are in the middle rank, providing a certain level of success because they also provide sufficient socio-economic benefits, in particular for the Camili Biosphere Reserve. Similarly, in some previous studies conducted in the Camili Biosphere Reserve [57,72,73,74], an increase was detected in the number of entrepreneurs with the participation of local people in ecotourism, local economic development, and the welfare of local people. It was also determined that the number of permanent residents in the area increased when compared to previous years, and visitor satisfaction can be achieved. Moreover, the main purpose of the local people participating in ecotourism activities in protected areas was to gain socio-economic benefits [6,14,75,76,77].

4.3. Findings and Discussion on the Criteria for Evaluating the Sustainability of Camili Biosphere Reserve

It was also determined that the second criteria, in which the most positive sustainable changes were experienced, was the “E2–2.7 OGP” criteria and was closer to neutral than positive but closer to positive. In this context, the positive approach of the residents of the area to ecotourism and the high level of education of the people of the Camili Biosphere Reserve [56,57,77,78,79] had direct effects on monitoring the changes occurring in the Camili Biosphere Reserve and measuring its sustainability.
Many management meetings have been held in Camili Biosphere Reserve since Camili Biosphere Reserve was declared as Türkiye’s first and only biosphere reserve, carrying out activities in Camili that include many components, from policy to planning, from education to awareness, from implementation to monitoring, financial and technical support of the people of Camili, carrying out studies for the establishment of an official management structure of the Camili under the leadership of UNESCO, and the UNESCO Turkish National Commission with the preparation of a book taking into account the land use, traditional, cultural, and socio-economic life of the Camili Biosphere Reserve from the past to the present, contributing to the positive increase in knowledge, awareness, and attitudes of the residents of the area.
However, it was determined that the least positive sustainable changes in the field were experienced in the “E10–1.6 OGP” and “E4–1.5 OGP” criteria. It was determined that the E10 and E4 criteria caused a change between negative and neutral in the area, and although these changes were close to neutral or in the middle of neutral, they were not in a positive enough course within the scope of sustainable ecotourism activities. Despite the absence of periodic inspections by independent organizations in the Camili Biosphere Reserve, the problem of legislation regarding the area, the diversity of authority among institutional organizations, the absence of laws protecting the area, the lack of principles to protect the area by the stakeholders, the area being Türkiye’s first and only biosphere reserve, and the lack of a management structure make it possible to experience these problems in the Camili. It is thought-provoking that even the meetings on the Camili Biosphere Reserve were only held in 2019, and even the legal status has not yet been fully determined. For this reason, it is important to focus on efforts to make the criteria with negative changes in the Camili Biosphere Reserve positive or at least neutral.
The statistical analysis of the sustainability assessment of the area according to the most important indicators for Camili Biosphere Reserve is given under this title (Table 6).
Also, the “carrying capacity”, a newly recognized concept in Türkiye constituting the first pillar of the study as a new criterion defined by experts in the process of determining the criteria and indicator set for sustainable ecotourism management in Türkiye’s protected areas, was evaluated in the study because it has recently gained importance all over the world; and as a result, the lack of conceptual understanding of the criterion and the inadequacy of the studies on this criterion in the literature caused that the sustainability of the Camili Biosphere Reserve was located in the middle of the negative and neutral. Moreover, it was observed in the study of [80] that the rate of sustainable ecotourism development slows down because of the density of the carrying capacity of the relevant areas, and as a result, sustainability changes negatively when there is no visitor restriction on the ecotourism activities in the relevant areas.
As a result, the score that was reached as a result of scoring the selected indicators in terms of sustainability in the Camili Biosphere Reserve was 95.4, which corresponds to a success rate of 69.1% and an average score of 2.1 when associated with the highest overall score that can be obtained. This shows that there are positive changes in the ecotourism activities in the area and the sustainable management of the area in general. However, although the sustainability change of 2.1 in the indicators for the Camili Biosphere Reserve was positive, it was also evident that it was not in a positive enough course within the scope of sustainable ecotourism activities. In this context, criteria are important for the sustainable protection, development, monitoring, and utilization of human and physical facilities and assets in the sustainable management of ecotourism activities in the Camili Biosphere Reserve and other protected areas.
This section may be divided into subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, and the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

5. Conclusions

Criteria and indicators are used to monitor the sustainability of ecotourism activities in protected areas. However, scientific studies in Türkiye, aiming to develop criteria and indicator sets for similar purposes with a holistic approach are inadequate. The purpose of the present study was to develop a set of criteria and indicators to ensure the sustainable management of ecotourism activities in protected areas of Türkiye, adapt this set of criteria and indicators to the Camili Biosphere Reserve Area, and determine the sustainability of the management process of ecotourism in the Area.
Questionnaires were used to achieve these determined goals. In the first stage of the research, a national criterion and indicator set consisting of 11 criteria and 101 indicators was developed using the three-stage Delphi method. The AHP Method was used in the second stage, and the national sustainable ecotourism management criteria and indicator set were adapted and prioritized for the Camili Biosphere Reserve Area. In the last stage, ecotourism activities in the Camili Biosphere Reserve were evaluated in terms of sustainability based on the views of local interest group representatives.
It was determined that the criteria and indicators set at the national level largely overlap with the criteria and indicators developed at the international, regional, or local levels. In addition, the composition of experts from different sectors and fields of knowledge and expertise made it possible to propose a wide range of indicators. In this sense, it can be said that the set of criteria and indicators determined at the national level has the quality of a guiding base that can contribute to and be used by the decision makers in determining, monitoring, and planning the sustainability of ecotourism activities carried out in the protected areas of Türkiye.
As a result of the evaluation of the sustainability of ecotourism in Camili Biosphere Reserve, it was determined that there were positive changes in the sustainable management of the area, with a total score of 95.4 (a 69.1% success rate) and an average score of 2.1. However, it was also determined that the sustainability of ecotourism activities in the area is not at the desired level. Therefore, it shows that ecotourism in our country faces both opportunities and threats for protected areas. Particularly, the lack of proper planning in the study area and the inadequacy of monitoring policies are among the important constraints that will lead to a decrease in sustainability. In this context, the importance of criteria and indicators in the protection, development, monitoring, and utilization of sustainable management of ecotourism activities in both the Camili Biosphere Reserve and the protected areas in Türkiye was presented. However, the relevant indicators should be expressed in numbers, such as units or ratios, to guide practitioners in a more beneficial way.
The time-consuming process was an important limitation in this study because of the scope of the study subject. In addition, the risk of eliminating high-importance indicators due to the fact that there are quite a few weaknesses in the ecotourism inventory in Türkiye and that the data collection and measurability of the indicators are difficult is also among the other important constraints. For this reason, a database must be created regarding the criteria and indicator set of sustainable ecotourism management in protected areas in Türkiye, and inventories must be prepared urgently.
As well as these, the legal, political, and institutional structure are important requirements for successful ecotourism sustainability management in Türkiye. For example, problems such as the absence of periodic inspections by independent organizations in Camili Biosphere Reserve, the diversity of authority among institutions, the absence of laws protecting the area, the lack of principles to protect the area among the stakeholders, and even the act that legal status has not been fully determined should be solved. For this reason, an interdisciplinary “central government authority” board should be established under the leadership of relevant public institutions and organizations, especially in order to eliminate the coordination and communication problems in the management processes.
If the number of visitors to a protected area is too high, the potential for damage to the values and biodiversity in the area is high due to the area’s exceeding visitor capacity. Since a similar problem is observed in the protected areas of Türkiye, it is important to determine and follow the criteria regarding this problem. Additionally, “level of awareness and perception of the field”, and “carrying capacity” criteria were suggested as the new criteria by experts in the criteria and indicator set specific to Türkiye.
Despite all these constraints, it was determined that thanks to the ecotourism activities in the protected areas, there is an increase in the welfare level, the number of entrepreneurs, and the number of permanent residents of the local people in the area. So, the size of annual investments should be increased, an area-specific budget should be created, and the problem of authority diversity should be resolved in order to ensure the sustainability of ecotourism activities to be carried out both at the national level and in the Camili Biosphere Reserve Area.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.Z.A.; methodology, I.Z.A. and A.Ö.; software, I.Z.A.; validation, I.Z.A.; formal analysis, I.Z.A.; investigation, I.Z.A.; resources, I.Z.A.; data curation, I.Z.A.; writing—original draft preparation, I.Z.A.; writing—review and editing, A.Ö.; visualization, A.Ö.; supervision, A.Ö.; project administration, I.Z.A. and A.Ö.; funding acquisition, I.Z.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

http://library.artvin.edu.tr/yordam/?dil=0&p=1&q=inci+zeynep+ayd%C4%B1n&alan=tum_txt (accessed on 2 January 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gül, F. Environmental problems and philosophy in the context of human-nature relationship. Pamukkale Univ. J. Soc. Sci. Inst. 2013, 14, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Şener, F.N. Nongovernmental and Administrative Structuring in Certification and Accreditation of Sustainable Forestry Management Applications in Turkey (Case Studies for Andirin and Göksun State Forestry Enterprises 2003–2007). Master’s Thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü Imam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cinnioğlu, H. A Research with a Critical Perspective on Impacts of Ecotourism on Environment within the Scope of Sustainable Economic Development; Nu: 3; Namık Kemal University Institute of Social Sciences: Tekirdağ, Turkey, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andries, D.M.; Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Diaz-Rodriquez, P.; Herrero-Jauregui, C.; Schmitz, M.F. Sustainable tourism and natural protected areas: Exploring local population perceptions in a post-conflict scenario. Land 2021, 10, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Forje, G.W.; Tchamba, M.N. Ecotourism governance and protected areas sustainability in Cameroon: The case of Campo Ma’an National Park. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 4, 100172. [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Polat, A.T. A Research on the Evaluation of Landscape Features of Karapınar Province and Its Environs Respect to Ecotourism Uses. Doctorate Thesis, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. Akgün, B. Investigation of Ecotourism Model in Kazdaği National Park (Balikesir) and Its Surroundings. Doctorate Thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  9. Abidin, Z.Z. The Identification of Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Ecotourism in Taman Negara National Park, Malaysia: An Delphi Consensus. Doctorate Thesis, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Consumer Sciences at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  10. Szolnoki, G.; Tafel, M. Environmental sustainability and tourism-the importance of organic wine production for wine tourism in Germany. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gürer, N. The Contribution of Tourism to the Development of Mountainous Regions, Case Study: Erzurum, Erzincan, Bayburt Region of Turkey. Doctorate Thesis, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bender, M. Development of Criteria and Indicators for Evaluating Forest-Based Ecotourism Destination: A Delphi Study. Doctorate Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  13. Choi, C.H.; Sirakaya, E. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 1274–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Varnacı Uzun, F. Sustainable Tourism in the Ihlara Valley Cultural Landscape Area. Doctorate Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hollenhorst, S.; Gardner, L. The indicator performance estimate approach to determining acceptable wilderness conditions. Environ. Manag. 1994, 18, 901–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Farsari, Y.; Prastacos, P. Sustainable Tourism Indicators: Pilot Estimation for the Municipality of Hersonissos, Crete; Publication Nu: 1526; Regional Analysis Division, Institute of Applied and Computational Mathematics (IACM), Foundation for the Research and the Technology Hellas (FORTH): Heraklion, Greece, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  17. Peng, C.H.; Liu, J.; Dan, Q.; Zhou, X.; Apps, M. Developing carbon based ecological indicators to monitor sustainability of Ontario’s Forests. Ecol. Indic. 2002, 1, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Durusoy, İ. Defining National Level Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in Turkish Forestry. Doctorate Thesis, Black Sea Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  19. Omarzadeh, D.; Pourmoradian, S.; Feizizadeh, B.; Khallaghi, H.; Sharifi, A.; Valizadeh Kamran, K. A GIS-based multiple ecotourism sustainability assessment of West Azerbaijan Province, Iran. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 65, 490–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Stanitsas, M.; Kirytopoulos, K.; Aretoulis, G. Evaluating organizational sustainability: A multi-criteria based-approach to sustainable project management indicators. Systems 2021, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. WTO. What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A Practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism; WTO Publishing: Madrid, Spain, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  22. WTO. Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guide Book; WTO Publishing: Madrid, Spain, 2004; pp. 7–26. [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller, G.; Twining-Ward, L. Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism Transition: The Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, PA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Hunter, C.; Shaw, J. The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. WTO-UNEP. The World Ecotourism Summit Final Report; WTO-UNEP: Quebec City, QC, Canada, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gebhard, K.; Meyer, M.; Roth, S. Criteria for Sustainable Tourism for the Three Biosphere Reserves: Aggtelek, Babia Góra and Šumava; Ecological Tourism in Europe (ETE): Bonn, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  28. SPO. Long-Term Strategy and Eight Five Year Development Plan 2001–2005; State Planning Organization: Ankara, Turkey, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  29. MOEAF. Turkey National Forestry Program; Nu: 266; Ministry of Environment and Forestry Publication: Ankara, Turkey, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  30. SPO. Ninth Development Plan 2007–2013; State Planning Organization: Ankara, Turkey, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  31. Beunders, N.; Klep, R.; Tapaninen, M.; Güneş, G. Guide to Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in and around Protected Areas in Türkiye Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Project Experience: Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Project Experience; General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks: Ankara, Turkey, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  32. GDOF. Camili Forest Management Department Management Plan; Forest Management Directorate: Borçka, Turkey, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  33. Eminağaoğlu, Ö. Artvin’de Doğa Mirası Camili’nin Doğal Bitkileri, 1st ed.; Publication Nu:1; Borcka District Governorate Publications: Istanbul, Turkey, 2012. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  34. Green, A.R. The Delphi Technique in Educational Research. SAGE Open 2014, 4, 2158244014529773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Powell, C. The delphi technique: Myths and realities. J. Adv. Nurs. 2003, 41, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Rice, K. Priorities in K-12 distance education: A delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2009, 12, 163–177. [Google Scholar]
  37. Heyman, E. Overcoming student retention issues in higher education online programs. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 2010, 13, 11. [Google Scholar]
  38. Heiko, A. Consensus measurement in delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2012, 79, 1525–1536. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kalaycı, Ş. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, 2nd ed.; Original Publication Distribution: Ankara, Turkey, 2006. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  40. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed.; Harber Collins UK Publications: Glasgow, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  41. Karasar, N. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi Kavramlar İlkeler Teknikler, 35th ed.; Nobel Publications: Ankara, Turkey, 2020. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  42. Saaty, T.L. The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used? Math Model. 1987, 9, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Erol, İ.; Özmen, A. Measuring environmental sustainability performance: An application in retailing industry. İktisat İşletme Ve Finans Derg. 2008, 23, 70–94. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mrosek, T. Development and Testing of a Criteria and Indicators System for Sustainable Forest Management at the Local Level, Case Study at the Halıburton Forest and Wild Life Reserve Ltd., Canada. Doctorate Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  46. Çalık, İ. Analysis of Eastern Blacksea Region within the Scope of Sustainable Tourism Indicators. Doctorate Thesis, Sakarya University, Serdivan, Turkey, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lin, L.Z.; Lu, C.F. Fuzzy group decision-making in the measurement of ecotourism. Sustainability Potential. Group Decis. Negotiation. 2013, 22, 1051–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gutierrez, E.L.M.; Rivera, J.P.R.; Soler, A.C.D. Creating local sustainability indicators towards evidence-based policymaking for tourism in developing economies: Evidence from the Philippines. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2020, 22, 561–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. UNEP-WTO. Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism; WTO-UNEP: Quebec City, QC, Canada, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  50. Türker, M.F. Ormancılık İşletme Ekonomisi, Updated and Enlarged, 3rd ed.; Ormancılık ve Tabiatı Koruma Vakfı Yayın Nu:6; Ormancılık ve Tabiatı Koruma Vakfı: Trabzon, Turkey, 2020. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  51. McIntyre, G.; Hetherington, A. Sustainable Tourism Development: Guidelines for Local Planners; WTO Publishing: Madrid, Spain, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  52. Konstantakopoulou, I. Does health quality affect tourism? Evidence from system GMM estimates. Econ. Anal. Policy 2021, 73, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Başar, H. The Recreational Use and the Economic Value of Dilek Peninsula-Great Meander Delta National Park by Travel Cost Method. Master’s Thesis, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  54. 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. 2020, 41, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zheng, B.; Li, M.; Yu, B.; Gao, L. The future of community-based ecotourism (CBET) in China’s protected areas: A consistent optimal scenario for multiple stakeholders. Forests 2021, 12, 1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Aydın, İ.Z. Assessing the Socio-Economic Effects of Ecotourism Activities on Local Communities (Case of Camili Biosphere Reserve in Turkey). Master’s Thesis, Black Sea Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  57. Demirbaş, A. Contribution of Protected Areas to Forest Villager Development and Participation in Management (Case of Camili Biosphere Reserve Area). Master’s Thesis, Artvin Coruh University, Artvin, Turkey, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  58. Yıldız, D. Conflict Management in Protected Areas: The Case of Küre Mountains National Park. Doctorate Thesis, Bartın University, Bartın, Turkey, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  59. Güneş, G.; Hens, L. Ecotourism in old-growth forests in Turkey: The Kure Mountains Experience. Mt. Res. Dev. 2007, 27, 281–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Atasayan, Ö. Investigating the Relevance of Delphi Method for Local Participation in Natural Environment Protection: Riva Case. Doctorate Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  61. Aydın, İ.Z.; Türker, M.F. Socio-economic effects on the forest villagers of ecotourism potential (Case of Artvin-Camili Biosphere Reserve Area). Artvin Coruh Univ. Fac. For. J. 2010, 1, 43–51. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lourens, M. Route tourism: A roadmap for successful destinations and local economic development. Dev. South. Afr. 2007, 24, 475–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Asadpourian, Z.; Rahimian, M.; Gholamrezai, S. SWOT-AHP-TOWS analysis for sustainable ecotourism development in the best area in Lorestan Province, Iran. Soc. Indıcators Res. 2020, 152, 289–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bhattacharya, P.; Kumari, S. Application of Criteria and Indicator for Sustainable Ecotourism: Scenario under Globalization. In Proceedings of the IASCP Bi-Annual Conference on “The Commons in an Age of Global Transition: Challenges, Risk and Opportunities”, Oaxaca, Mexico, 9–13 August 2004. [Google Scholar]
  65. Aziz, A.; Barzekar, G.; Ajuhari, Z.; Idris, N.H. Criteria & indicators for monitoring ecotourism sustainability in a protected watershed: A delphi consensus. IOSR J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 2015, 10, 105–111. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ocampoa, L.; Ebisa, J.A.; Ombe, J.; Escoto, M.G. Sustainable ecotourism indicators with fuzzy delphi method-a philippine perspective. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 874–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kaypak, Ş. Ecological tourism and sustainable rural development. KMÜ Sos. Ve Ekon. Araştırmalar Dergi̇si 2012, 14, 11–29. [Google Scholar]
  68. Barzekar, G.; Aziz, A.; Mariapan, M.; Ismail, M.H.; Hosseni, S.M. Delphi technique for generating criteria and indicators in monitoring ecotourism sustainability in northern forests of Iran: Case study on Dohezar and Sehezar Watersheds. Folia For. Pol. 2011, 53, 130–141. [Google Scholar]
  69. Azpillaga, L.G.; Forondo-Rebles, C.; Garcia Lopez, A. Territorial sustainability in protected areas in Spain. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 24, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Demir, Ş.Ş. The effects of pull factors on destination choice: A study in Dalyan. Ege Acad. Rev. 2010, 10, 1041–1054. [Google Scholar]
  71. Talay, İ.; Akpınar, N.; Belkayalı, N. Determination of natural resources economic value due to recreational and tourism use purposes: Göreme Historical Natural Park. Ank. Üniversitesi Coğrafi Bilim. Derg. 2010, 8, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Altınkaya Özmen, C. Efforts and Effects of Local Economic Development Case of Beypazarı Örneği. Master’s Thesis, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  73. Türker, M.F.; Aydın, İ.Z. Ekoturizmin Orman Köyleri Kalkınmaları Üzerindeki Sosyo-Ekonomik Etkilerinin Ölçümü (Camili Biyosfer Alanı Örneği). III.; Ulusal Karadeniz Ormancılık Kongresi: Artvin, Turkey, 2010. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  74. Aydın, İ.Z.; Öztürk, A.; Demirci, U. Defining of criteria and indicators of sustainable ecotourism management for protected areas of our country. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 6, 73–94. [Google Scholar]
  75. Türker, M.F.; Öztürk, A. The value and importance of forestry sector in the economic development of Artvin. Kafkas Üniversitesi Artvin Orman Fakültesi Derg. 2001, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lepp, A. Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in bigodi village Uganda. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 876–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Demirci, U. Estimation of Total Economic Value of Forest Resources: A Case Study of Camili Biosphere Reserve Area. Doctorate Thesis, Artvin Coruh University, Artvin, Turkey, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  78. Albayrak, F.F. Effects of Protected Areas on Ecotourism Development: Case Study in Camili Biosphere Reserve. Master’s Thesis, Artvin Coruh University, Artvin, Turkey, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  79. Demirci, U.; Öztürk, A. Estimating recreational value of Camili Biosphere Reserve Area. Artvin Coruh Univ. J. For. Fac. 2022, 23, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, F.; Liu, J.; Wu, J.; Jinlong, J.; Yan, L.; Lim, P.E.; Bin Idid, M.R.; Poong, S.W.; Song, S.L. Perception-based sustainability evaluation and development path of ecotourism: Taking Pulau Perhentian in Malaysia and Weizhou island in China as examples. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 18488–18508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 02933 g001 550
Figure 1. Camili Biosphere Reserve.
Figure 1. Camili Biosphere Reserve.
Sustainability 15 02933 g001
Table
Table 1. The data collection process according to Delphi steps.
Table 1. The data collection process according to Delphi steps.
Step IStep IIStep III
Number of
invitations made		1485848
Number of answers to the
questionnaire		584846
Response rate of the
questionnaire (%)		39.1982.7696
Data collection toolDelphi first
step
questionnaire		Delphi second
step
questionnaire		Delphi third
step
questionnaire
Data collection routeGeneral opinions5-point Likert5-point Likert
Number of
criteria/indicators		12–6812–31711–109
Table
Table 2. Consensus criteria used in Delphi steps.
Table 2. Consensus criteria used in Delphi steps.
Delphi StepsCriteriaIndicatorEvaluation ToolsValues
I. step1268--
II. step12317Median4 and 5
CAG>1.2
Percentage of participation≤80%
Arithmetic mean<3.5
Factor load0.6
III. step11109Median4 and 5
CAG>1.2
Percentage of participation≤80%
Arithmetic mean<3.5
Change in standard deviationS2 > S3
Table
Table 3. The ranking of Delphi’s third step final set criteria according to the importance.
Table 3. The ranking of Delphi’s third step final set criteria according to the importance.
A
Delphi’s First Step: Initial Set Criteria		D
Delphi’s Third Step: Final Set Criteria		NMean
CodeCriterionCodeCriterion
A1Conservation of natural resources and biodiversityD1Conservation of natural resources and biological diversity464.85
A2Quality and quantity of environmental resourcesD2Carrying Capacity464.63
A3Environmental management practicesD3Local participation464.54
A4Provision of environmental learning and training opportunitiesD4Socio-economic benefits provided to the local people464.52
A5Protection of cultural resourcesD5Environmental management and applications464.43
A6The quality and quantity of cultural resourcesD6Environmental education and practices464.43
A7Local participationD7Current status of cultural resources/assets464.37
A8Socio-economic benefits to local peopleD8Financial structure464.37
A9Public awarenessD9Visitor satisfaction464.28
A10Consumer/tourist satisfactionD10Institutional capacity/framework464.28
A11Management of ecotourism experienceD11Awareness and perception level of the field464.28
A12Institutional framework/capacity
Table
Table 4. The statistical analysis of the priority criteria for Camili Biosphere Reserve.
Table 4. The statistical analysis of the priority criteria for Camili Biosphere Reserve.
NoCriteriaWλmaxRGCICR
E1Conservation of natural resources and biodiversity0.16211.0121.510.00120.00012
E2Level of awareness and perception of the field0.1139.0381.320.00470.0035
E3Environmental management and applications0.1069.0381.450.00470.0033
E4Carrying capacity0.0916.1261.240.02500.0200
E5Environmental education and practices0.08715.071.590.00530.0033
E6Current status of cultural resources/assets0.0877.0641.320.01100.0081
E7Local participation0.0835.0631.120.01600.0142
E8Socio-economic benefits to local people0.07311.381.510.03800.0253
E9Financial structure0.0736.0181.240.00400.0029
E10Institutional capacity/framework0.07216.181.590.01200.0076
E11Visitor satisfaction0.0537.1321.320.02190.0166
Table
Table 5. Listing the criteria prioritized in the Camili Biosphere Reserve.
Table 5. Listing the criteria prioritized in the Camili Biosphere Reserve.
D
(Ranking of Türkiye-Specific
Criteria)		E
(Priority Criteria Specific to Camili Biosphere Reserve)		Changes in
Criteria
CodeCriteriaCodeCriteriaCodeChange
D1Conservation of natural resources and biological diversityE1Conservation of natural resources and biodiversityD1---
D2Carrying capacityE2Level of awareness and perception of the fieldD2Sustainability 15 02933 i001
D3Local participationE3Environmental management and applicationsD3Sustainability 15 02933 i002
D4Socio-economic benefits provided to the local peopleE4Carrying capacityD4Sustainability 15 02933 i003
D5Environmental management and applicationsE5Environmental education and practicesD5Sustainability 15 02933 i004
D6Environmental education and practicesE6Current status of cultural resources/assetsD6Sustainability 15 02933 i005
D7Current status of cultural resources/assetsE7Local participationD7Sustainability 15 02933 i006
D8Financial structureE8Socio-economic benefits to local peopleD8Sustainability 15 02933 i007
D9Visitor satisfactionE9Financial structureD9Sustainability 15 02933 i008
D10Institutional capacity/frameworkE10Institutional capacity/frameworkD10---
D11Awareness and perception level of the fieldE11Visitor satisfactionD11Sustainability 15 02933 i009
Table
Table 6. Sustainability assessment of Camili Biosphere Reserve according to relevant stakeholders.
Table 6. Sustainability assessment of Camili Biosphere Reserve according to relevant stakeholders.
CriteriaNumber of
Indicators		Iowest ScoreHighest ScoreRelevant Stakeholders
YYSTGÇDPDUGeneral
TGPOGPTGPOGPTGPOGPTGPOGPTGPOGPTGPOGP
E15515112.291.891.881.6518.41.7
E24412123102.5102.592.3123112.7
E3441292.361.571.871.8112.882
E42264231.531.531.52131.5
E59927232.6141.6182151.7262.9192.1
E633982.7626251.772.36.42.1
E72264231.54231.5423.61.8
E85515153132.6153142.8153142.9
E933972.341.3623172.35.41.8
E107721121.791.3111.691.3152.1111.6
E11226634252.552.5635.22.6
Gen.46461381112.4811.8942811.81102.495.42.1
Success Rate * (%)10080.43-58.7-68.12-58.7-79.71-69.1-
YY: Local administrators; ST: NGO representatives; GÇ: GEF project employees; DP: Hostel operators with direct income; DU: DOKA experts; TGP: Total indicator score (the sum of the scores given to the indicators in the relevant criteria/criteria); OGP: Average indicator score (ratio of TGP’s to the number of indicators in the relevant criteria); * Success Rate, ıt represents the percentage ratio of the overall indicator score to the overall highest achievement score (138).
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aydin, I.Z.; Öztürk, A. Identifying, Monitoring, and Evaluating Sustainable Ecotourism Management Criteria and Indicators for Protected Areas in Türkiye: The Case of Camili Biosphere Reserve. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2933. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042933

AMA Style

Aydin IZ, Öztürk A. Identifying, Monitoring, and Evaluating Sustainable Ecotourism Management Criteria and Indicators for Protected Areas in Türkiye: The Case of Camili Biosphere Reserve. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):2933. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042933

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aydin, Inci Zeynep, and Atakan Öztürk. 2023. "Identifying, Monitoring, and Evaluating Sustainable Ecotourism Management Criteria and Indicators for Protected Areas in Türkiye: The Case of Camili Biosphere Reserve" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 2933. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042933

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop