The stakeholders’ point of view about the impact of recreational and tourism activities on natural protected area: a case study from Kure Mountains National Park, Turkey

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location map of Kure Mountains National Park, Turkey.

Figure 2. A hierarchical example with five criteria and three alternatives for a goal.

Table 1. Analytic hierarchy process scale and definitions.[2,26]

Definition	Explanation	Intensity of importance
Equal importance	Both activities contribute equally to the objective	1
Somewhat more important	Experience and judgment slightly favour one over the other	3
Much more important	Experience and judgment make an activity strongly more preferable than another	5
Very much more important	One activity is much more important than another and its dominance is easily seen in application	7
Absolutely more important	The evidence on the preferability of an activity compared to another has a considerable reliability	9
Intermediate values	Values falling between two successive judgments; to be used when reconciliation is required	2, 4, 6, 8

Figure 3. Hierarchy process created for determination of the resource values affected by the recreational and tourism activities in the Kure Mountains National Park.

Table 2. AHP pairwise comparison matrix.

Effects	Fl & Veg	F	WQ	AQ	SQ	VQA	HCS	T
Flora and vegetation (Fl & Veg)	1
Fauna (F)		1
Water quality (WQ)			1
Air quality (AQ)				1
Soil quality (SQ)					1
Visual quality and aesthetics (VQA)						1
Historical and cultural structure (HCS)							1
Terrain (T)								1

Table 3. Random consistency index values (RI values).[27]

n	RI	n	RI
1	0	8	1.41
2	0	9	1.45
3	0.58	10	1.49
4	0.90	11	1.51
5	1.12	12	1.54
6	1.24	13	1.56
7	1.35	14	1.57

Notes: number of evaluation criteria (n); random consistency index (RI).

Table 4. Differences between the views of stakeholders.

Dependent variable	Group	Group	Std. error	Sig.
Air quality – water quality	Visitors	Managers	0.18755	0.000*
		Local people	0.33375	0.978
		Experts	0.37542	0.876
	Managers	Visitors	0.18755	0.000*
		Local people	0.32541	0.013
		Experts	0.36802	0.109
	Local people	Visitors	0.33375	0.978
		Managers	0.32541	0.013
		Experts	0.46006	1.000
	Experts	Visitors	0.37542	0.876
		Managers	0.36802	0.109
		Local people	0.46006	1.000
Air quality – historical and cultural aspects	Visitors	Managers	0.38757	0.969
		Local people	0.27836	0.009*
		Experts	0.39090	0.999
	Managers	Visitors	0.38757	0.969
		Local people	0.43118	0.645
		Experts	0.51112	0.942
	Local people	Visitors	0.27836	0.009*
		Managers	0.43118	0.645
		Experts	0.43419	0.093
	Experts	Visitors	0.39090	0.999
		Managers	0.51112	0.942
		Local people	0.43419	0.093
Water quality – soil quality	Visitors	Managers	0.29713	0.000*
		Local people	0.33993	0.079
		Experts	0.34847	0.015
	Managers	Visitors	0.29713	0.000*
		Local people	0.37545	0.000*
		Experts	0.38320	0.925
	Local people	Visitors	0.33993	0.079
		Managers	0.37545	0.000*
		Experts	0.41726	0.000*
	Experts	Visitors	0.34847	0.015
		Managers	0.38320	0.925
		Local people	0.41726	0.000*
Water quality – historical and cultural aspects	Visitors	Managers	0.39331	0.998
		Local people	0.28847	0.009*
		Experts	0.35169	1.000
	Managers	Visitors	0.39331	0.998
		Local people	0.42450	0.383
		Experts	0.46975	1.000
	Local people	Visitors	0.28847	0.009*
		Managers	0.42450	0.383
		Experts	0.38624	0.208
	Experts	Visitors	0.35169	1.000
		Managers	0.46975	1.000
		Local people	0.38624	0.208
Visual quality and aesthetics – air quality	Visitors	Managers	0.10093	0.006*
		Local people	0.16921	0.774
		Experts	0.30711	0.825
	Managers	Visitors	0.10093	0.006*
		Local people	0.13680	0.933
		Experts	0.29052	0.122
	Local people	Visitors	0.16921	0.774
		Managers	0.13680	0.933
		Experts	0.32070	0.405
	Experts	Visitors	0.30711	0.825
		Managers	0.29052	0.122
		Local people	0.32070	0.405
Visual quality and aesthetics – water quality	Visitors	Managers	0.03589	1.000
		Local people	0.03602	0.393
		Experts	0.03687	0.636
	Managers	Visitors	0.03589	1.000
		Local people	0.01602	0.004*
		Experts	0.01786	0.073
	Local people	Visitors	0.03602	0.393
		Managers	0.01602	0.004*
		Experts	0.01811	0.992
	Experts	Visitors	0.03687	0.636
		Managers	0.01786	0.073
		Local people	0.01811	0.992
Visual quality and aesthetics – historical and cultural aspects	Visitors	Managers	0.40444	0.938
		Local people	0.27541	0.000*
		Experts	0.40762	0.687
	Managers	Visitors	0.40444	0.938
		Local people	0.42451	0.001*
		Experts	0.52011	0.999
	Local people	Visitors	0.27541	0.000*
		Managers	0.42451	0.001*
		Experts	0.42754	0.000*
	Experts	Visitors	0.40762	0.687
		Managers	0.52011	0.999
		Local people	0.42754	0.000*
Soil quality – flora and vegetation	Visitors	Managers	0.31978	0.714
		Local people	0.48158	0.044
		Experts	0.31739	0.500
	Managers	Visitors	0.31978	0.714
		Local people	0.53241	0.009*
		Experts	0.39023	0.104
	Local people	Visitors	0.48158	0.044
		Managers	0.53241	0.009*
		Experts	0.53098	0.557
	Experts	Visitors	0.31739	0.500
		Managers	0.39023	0.104
		Local people	0.53098	0.557
Soil quality – historical and cultural aspects	Visitors	Managers	0.34814	0.994
		Local people	0.49738	0.010*
		Experts	0.37484	0.072
	Managers	Visitors	0.34814	0.994
		Local people	0.55837	0.009*
		Experts	0.45265	0.070
	Local people	Visitors	0.49738	0.010*
		Managers	0.55837	0.009*
		Experts	0.57539	0.821
	Experts	Visitors	0.37484	0.072
		Managers	0.45265	0.070
		Local people	0.57539	0.821
Historical and cultural aspects – water quality	Visitors	Managers	0.16350	0.648
		Local people	0.30475	0.999
		Experts	0.12411	0.003*
	Managers	Visitors	0.16350	0.648
		Local people	0.29851	0.820
		Experts	0.10788	0.288
	Local people	Visitors	0.30475	0.999
		Managers	0.29851	0.820
		Experts	0.27889	0.267
	Experts	Visitors	0.12411	0.003*
		Managers	0.10788	0.288
		Local people	0.27889	0.267
Historical and cultural aspects – soil quality	Visitors	Managers	0.52036	1.000
		Local people	0.51329	0.018
		Experts	0.50735	0.004*
	Managers	Visitors	0.52036	1.000
		Local people	0.64909	0.142
		Experts	0.64441	0.058
	Local people	Visitors	0.51329	0.018
		Managers	0.64909	0.142
		Experts	0.63871	1.000
	Experts	Visitors	0.50735	0.004*
		Managers	0.64441	0.058
		Local people	0.63871	1.000
Fauna – water quality	Visitors	Managers	0.07612	0.002*
		Local people	0.12261	0.654
		Experts	0.07642	0.004*
	Managers	Visitors	0.07612	0.002*
		Local people	0.09738	0.864
		Experts	0.01696	0.949
	Local people	Visitors	0.12261	0.654
		Managers	0.09738	0.864
		Experts	0.09761	0.928
	Experts	Visitors	0.07642	0.004*
		Managers	0.01696	0.949
		Local people	0.09761	0.928
Fauna – visual quality and aesthetics	Visitors	Managers	0.16591	0.009*
		Local people	0.24050	0.998
		Experts	0.18738	0.256
	Managers	Visitors	0.16591	0.009*
		Local people	0.23227	0.370
		Experts	0.17669	0.935
	Local people	Visitors	0.24050	0.998
		Managers	0.23227	0.370
		Experts	0.24806	0.879
	Experts	Visitors	0.18738	0.256
		Managers	0.17669	0.935
		Local people	0.24806	0.879
Fauna – soil quality	Visitors	Managers	0.46339	1.000
		Local people	0.39117	0.004*
		Experts	0.44499	0.028
	Managers	Visitors	0.46339	1.000
		Local people	0.52847	0.091
		Experts	0.56946	0.205
	Local people	Visitors	0.39117	0.004*
		Managers	0.52847	0.091
		Experts	0.51241	1.000
	Experts	Visitors	0.44499	0.028
		Managers	0.56946	0.205
		Local people	0.51241	1.000
Fauna – historical and cultural aspects	Visitors	Managers	0.23236	0.842
		Local people	0.16079	0.956
		Experts	0.06622	0.000*
	Managers	Visitors	0.23236	0.842
		Local people	0.26713	0.998
		Experts	0.22336	0.093
	Local people	Visitors	0.16079	0.956
		Managers	0.26713	0.998
		Experts	0.14749	0.032
	Experts	Visitors	0.06622	0.000*
		Managers	0.22336	0.093
		Local people	0.14749	0.032
Terrain – soil quality	Visitors	Managers	0.50429	0.002*
		Local people	0.35329	0.003*
		Experts	0.44972	0.987
	Managers	Visitors	0.50429	0.002*
		Local people	0.54635	0.000*
		Experts	0.61314	0.003*
	Local people	Visitors	0.35329	0.003*
		Managers	0.54635	0.000*
		Experts	0.49642	0.286
	Experts	Visitors	0.44972	0.987
		Managers	0.61314	0.003*
		Local people	0.49642	0.286

Note: *Significance level < 0.01.

Table 5. Impact of recreational and tourism activities on the resource values – visitors’ evaluations.

Effects	W	V1	V2 (V1/W)
Flora and vegetation	0.08	0.71	8.90
Fauna	0.05	0.46	8.32
Water quality**	0.22	2.17	9.92
Air quality*	0.34	3.35	9.82
Soil quality	0.04	0.32	8.73
Visual quality and aesthetics	0.15	1.31	8.91
Historical and cultural aspects	0.09	0.77	8.55
Terrain	0.03	0.27	8.61
Consistency	λmax = 8.97	CI = 0.14	CR = 0.098

Notes: most affected resource value (*); second most affected resource value (**).

Priority vector (W); weighted priority vector (V1);

weighted priority vector/priority vector (V2).

The maximum eigenvalue (λ_max); consistency index (CI); consistency ratio (CR).

Table 6. Impact of recreational and tourism activities on the resource values – experts’ evaluations.

Effects	W	V1	V2 (V1/W)
Flora and vegetation	0.08	0.77	9.04
Fauna	0.05	0.41	8.33
Water quality**	0.25	2.45	9.64
Air quality*	0.29	2.76	9.44
Soil quality	0.06	0.52	8.98
Visual quality and aesthetics	0.14	1.26	9.11
Historical and cultural aspects	0.09	0.77	8.77
Terrain	0.04	0.30	8.55
Consistency	λmax = 8.98	CI = 0.14	CR = 0.099

Notes: most affected resource value (*); second most affected resource value (**).

Priority vector (W); weighted priority vector (V1); weighted priority vector/priority vector (V2).

The maximum eigenvalue (λ _max); consistency index(CI); consistency ratio (CR).

Table 7. Impact of recreational and tourism activities on the resource values – local people's evaluations.

Effects	W	V1	V2 (V1/W)
Flora and vegetation	0.08	0.65	8.49
Fauna	0.05	0.42	8.34
Water quality**	0.24	2.35	9.75
Air quality*	0.33	3.21	9.67
Soil quality	0.05	0.43	8.66
Visual quality and aesthetics	0.14	1.21	9.00
Historical and cultural aspects	0.09	0.75	8.54
Terrain	0.03	0.25	8.62
Consistency	λmax = 8.88	CI = 0.13	CR = 0.089

Note: most affected resource value (*); second most affected resource value (**).

Priority vector (W); weighted priority vector (V1); weighted priority vector/priority vector (V2).

The maximum eigenvalue (λ_max); consistency index (CI); consistency ratio (CR).

Table 8. Impact of recreational and tourism activities on the resource values – managers’ evaluations.

Effects	W	V1	V2 (V1/W)
Flora and vegetation	0.08	0.76	8.98
Fauna	0.05	0.47	8.51
Water quality**	0.23	2.22	9.67
Air quality*	0.33	3.11	9.54
Soil quality	0.04	0.31	8.66
Visual quality and aesthetics	0.15	1.33	9.10
Historical and cultural aspects	0.08	0.75	8.89
Terrain	0.04	0.32	8.17
Consistency	λmax = 8.94	CI = 0.13	CR = 0.095

Notes: most affected resource value (*); second most affected resource value (**).

Priority vector (W); weighted priority vector (V1); weighted priority vector/priority vector (V2).

The maximum eigenvalue (λ_max); consistency index (CI); consistency ratio (CR).

Figure 4. The percent distribution (priority vector) of each stakeholder.

Table 9. Stakeholders’ evaluations of the recreational and tourism activities’ impacts on the resource values.

	W
Resource values	Visitors	Experts	Local people	Managers	Mean
Flora and vegetation	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08
Fauna	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05
Water quality	0.22	0.25	0.24	0.23	0.24
Air quality	0.34	0.29	0.33	0.33	0.32
Soil quality	0.04	0.06	0.05	0.04	0.04
Visual quality and aesthetics	0.15	0.14	0.14	0.15	0.14
Historical and cultural aspects	0.09	0.09	0.09	0.08	0.09
Terrain	0.03	0.04	0.03	0.04	0.03

Note: Priority vector (W).

Figure 5. Stakeholders’ evaluation of the recreational and tourism activities’ impacts on the resource values.

Ananda J, Herath G. The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. For Policy Econ. 2003;5:13–26.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yaralıoğlu K. Analytic hierarchy process in performance evaluation. J Dokuz Eylul Univ Fac Econ Admin Sci. 2001;16(1):129–142.

 Google Scholar

Saaty TL, Vargas LG. Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Norwell (MA): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.

 Google Scholar