IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i6d10.1007_s10668-020-01011-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The evaluation of environmental, economic and social services of national parks

Author

Listed:
  • Sareh Hosseini

    (Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University)

  • Jafar Oladi

    (Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University)

  • Hamid Amirnejad

    (Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University)

Abstract

One of the most effective factors in the sustainability of national parks (NPs) is the identification and determination criteria and indicators of the evaluation of environmental, economic and social NPs. The purpose of this study is the identification, customization, weighting, prioritization of criteria and indicators of NPs evaluation for determination of potential of environmental, economic and social services of Kiasar National Park (KNP). In the study, we used the Delphi questionnaire to identify criteria and indicators of the evaluation of environmental, economic and social NPs and entropy method to calculate their weight. Also multicriteria decision making such as an order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and simple additive weighting (SAW) method were used for the prioritization of criteria and indicators for the evaluation of environmental, economic and social NPs. For this purpose, we evaluated the KNP in northern Iran. In this study, we identified eight criteria and 141 indicators including five environmental criteria with 91 indicators, economic criteria with 20 indicators, social criteria with 20 indicators and political criteria with 11 indicators. Finally, for customization of criteria and indicators, 42 indicators were rejected and eight criteria and 99 indicators including 66 environmental, seven economic, 15 social and 11 political indicators were accepted for NPs evaluation. The results showed that the most and least number of indicators was related to environmental and economic indicators, respectively. Also, the results of weighting criteria showed that protective and environmental functions’ criterion with weight (0.217) and conservation of biodiversity with weight (0.140) had the highest weight for the evaluation in environmental, economic and social services of NPs. Also the results of prioritization criteria with TOPSIS and SAW methods expressed that protective and environmental functions and conservation of biodiversity point of view environmental criteria had a higher priority than other criteria. The results indicate that Kiasar National Park has sufficient potential to provide environmental, economic and social services.

Suggested Citation

  • Sareh Hosseini & Jafar Oladi & Hamid Amirnejad, 2021. "The evaluation of environmental, economic and social services of national parks," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 9052-9075, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s10668-020-01011-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-01011-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-020-01011-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-020-01011-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barrena, José & Nahuelhual, Laura & Báez, Andrea & Schiappacasse, Ignacio & Cerda, Claudia, 2014. "Valuing cultural ecosystem services: Agricultural heritage in Chiloé island, southern Chile," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 66-75.
    2. He, Siyuan & Gallagher, Louise & Su, Yang & Wang, Lei & Cheng, Hongguang, 2018. "Identification and assessment of ecosystem services for protected area planning: A case in rural communities of Wuyishan national park pilot," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 169-180.
    3. Dong, Xiaobin & Yang, Weikun & Ulgiati, Sergio & Yan, Maochao & Zhang, Xinshi, 2012. "The impact of human activities on natural capital and ecosystem services of natural pastures in North Xinjiang, China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 28-39.
    4. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    5. Gao, Lei & Hailu, Atakelty, 2013. "Identifying preferred management options: An integrated agent-based recreational fishing simulation model with an AHP-TOPSIS evaluation method," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 75-83.
    6. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    7. André Pelser & Nola Redelinghuys & Nontombi Velelo, 2013. "Protected areas as vehicles in population development: lessons from rural South Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1205-1226, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kankan Wu & Keliang Chen & Yu Gao & Shang Jiang & Haiping Huang, 2022. "Applying a Set of Potential Methods for the Integrated Assessment of the Marine Eco-Environmental Carrying Capacity in Coastal Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    2. María Camila Sánchez-Prieto & Antonio Luna-González & Alejandro Espinoza-Tenorio & Héctor Abelardo González-Ocampo, 2021. "Planning Ecotourism in Coastal Protected Areas; Projecting Temporal Management Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-13, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaoqing Lin & Chunyan Lu & Kaishan Song & Ying Su & Yifan Lei & Lianxiu Zhong & Yibin Gao, 2020. "Analysis of Coupling Coordination Variance between Urbanization Quality and Eco-Environment Pressure: A Case Study of the West Taiwan Strait Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Lina Tang & Alimujiang Kasimu & Haitao Ma & Mamattursun Eziz, 2023. "Monitoring Multi-Scale Ecological Change and Its Potential Drivers in the Economic Zone of the Tianshan Mountains’ Northern Slopes, Xinjiang, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Lucy Semerjian & Kunle Okaiyeto & Mike O. Ojemaye & Temitope Cyrus Ekundayo & Aboi Igwaran & Anthony I. Okoh, 2021. "Global Systematic Mapping of Road Dust Research from 1906 to 2020: Research Gaps and Future Direction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Majid Baseer & Christian Ghiaus & Roxane Viala & Ninon Gauthier & Souleymane Daniel, 2023. "pELECTRE-Tri: Probabilistic ELECTRE-Tri Method—Application for the Energy Renovation of Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-25, July.
    5. Caviedes, Julián & Ibarra, José Tomás & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Álvarez-Fernández, Santiago & Junqueira, André Braga, 2024. "Indigenous and local knowledge on social-ecological changes is positively associated with livelihood resilience in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    6. Laura Tupenaite & Irene Lill & Ineta Geipele & Jurga Naimaviciene, 2017. "Ranking of Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the New Housing Development Projects: Case of the Baltic States," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-21, October.
    7. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    8. Mariana Oliveira & Remo Santagata & Serena Kaiser & Yanxin Liu & Chiara Vassillo & Patrizia Ghisellini & Gengyuan Liu & Sergio Ulgiati, 2022. "Socioeconomic and Environmental Benefits of Expanding Urban Green Areas: A Joint Application of i-Tree and LCA Approaches," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, November.
    9. María Carmen Carnero, 2020. "Waste Segregation FMEA Model Integrating Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set and the PAPRIKA Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-29, August.
    10. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "An Innovative Job Evaluation Approach Using the VIKOR Algorithm," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
    11. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    13. Raguragavan, Jananee & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2013. "Economic Valuation of Recreational Fishing in Western Australia: Statewide Random Utility Modelling of Fishing Site Choice Behaviour," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-20.
    14. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    15. Gawlik Remigiusz & Głuszak Michał & Małkowska Agnieszka, 2017. "The Measurement of Housing Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 31-43, June.
    16. Witold Torbacki, 2021. "A Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP and PROMETHEE II Methods for the Assessment of Cybersecurity in Industry 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-35, August.
    17. Jaros³aw Brodny & Magdalena Tutak, 2023. "The level of implementing sustainable development goal "Industry, innovation and infrastructure" of Agenda 2030 in the European Union countries: Application of MCDM methods," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 14(1), pages 47-102, March.
    18. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    19. Alireza Valipour & Hadi Sarvari & Jolanta Tamošaitiene, 2018. "Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Ding-Yi Zhao & Yu-Yu Ma & Hung-Lung Lin, 2022. "Using the Entropy and TOPSIS Models to Evaluate Sustainable Development of Islands: A Case in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-25, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s10668-020-01011-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.