Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A method for evaluating areas for national park status

  • Environmental Auditing
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A procedure for evaluating different areas as national parks based on a scoring system is proposed. A National Park Evaluation Form (NPEF) evaluating natural, cultural, and recreational resources in accordance with international criteria for national parks is presented. The evaluation points given to an area indicate the possibility of the area becoming a national park. In this method, subjectivity and bias have been minimized by a special application of the Delphi technique. The method outlined here could help in the efforts of selecting and establishing national parks in many countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Anonymous. 1978a. Peak District national park plan. Peak Park Joint Planning Board, Derbyshire, England, 192 pp.

  • Anonymous. 1978b. Lake District national park plan. Lake District Special Planning Board, Cumbria, England, 201 pp.

  • Anselin, A., P. M. Meire, and L. Anselin. 1989. Multicriteria techniques in ecological evaluation: An example using the analytical hierarchy process.Biological Conservation 49:215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, S. B., R. T. Clarke, and N. R. Webb. 1989. Survey and assessment of heathland in Dorset, England, for conservation.Biological Conservation 47:137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J. E., and R. H. V. Bell 1986. Representation of biotic communities in protected areas: A Malawian case study.Biological Conservation 35:293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, B. A. 1984 Sagarmatha: Managing a Himalayan world heritage site.Parks 9(2):10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dony, J. G., and I. Denholm. 1985. Some quantitative methods of assessing the conservation values of ecologically similar sites.Journal of Applied Ecology 22:229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, F. B. 1987. Slection procedures for forest nature reserves in Nova Scotia, Canada.Biological Conservation 41:185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. H., and G. J. Hunter. 1991. Environmental impact and tourism developments. Pages 313–331in Z. Yenen, (ed.), International symposium on architecture of tourism in the Mediterranean, Vol. 2, Proceedings 1. Yildiz University, Istanbul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. H., C. J. Hunter, and B. Moore. 1990. Application of the Delphi technique in tourism.Annals of Tourism Research 17:270–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, I. 1982. Christmas Island-a new Australian national park.Parks 7(1):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN. 1978. Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland, 26 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN. 1980. 1980 United Nations list of national parks and equivalent reserves. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 121 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashani, R. B. 1989. A new method for site suitability analysis: The analytic hierarchy process.Environmental Management 13:685–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korça, P. 1991. Assessment of environmental impacts on tourism. Pages 357–368in Z. Yenen, (ed.), International symposium on architecture of tourism in the Mediterranean, Vol. 2, Proceedings 1. Yildiz University, Istanbul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindstone, A. H., and M. Turoff (eds.). 1975. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesby Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C. R. 1986. Conservation evaluation in practice. Pages 297–314in M. B. Usher. (ed), Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C. R. 1989. Introduction to some Australian developments in conservation evaluation.Biological Conservation 50:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C. R., and M. B. Usher. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A review,Biological Conservation 21:79–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masser, I., and P. Foley. 1987. Delphi revisited: Expert opinion in urban analysis.Urban Studies 24:217–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, N. L., L. Belbin, C. R. Margules, and G. J. Keighery. 1989. Selecting representative reserve systems in remote areas: a case study in the Nullarbor regions, Australia.Biological Conservation 50:239–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A., and W. Cuff. 1986. The Delphi approach to the mediation of environmental disputes.Environmental Management 10:321–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monfort, A., and N. Monfort. 1984. Akegara: Rwanda's largest national park.Parks 8(4):6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, C. 1986. Methods of selecting lake shorelines in nature reserves.Biological Conservation 35:269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks Canada. 1979. Parks Canada Policy. Department of the Environment. Ottawa, 69 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. 1985. Socio-economic development in the “national parks” of England and Wales,Parks 10(1):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipson, J. (ed.). 1969. Northumberland national park. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 130 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presley, R. L., and A. O. Nicholls. 1989. Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring versus iterative approaches.Biological Conservation 50:199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigg, P.W. 1978. Protecting natural areas. National Audobon Society, International Series No. 3, New York, 69 pp.

  • Sargènt, F. O., and J. H. Brande 1976. Classifying and evaluating unique natural areas for planning purposes.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 31:113–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. G. R., and J. B. Theberge. 1986a. Evaluating biotic diversity in environmentally significant areas in the Northwest Territories of Canada.Biological Conservation 36:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. G. R., and J. B. Theberge. 1986b. A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas.Environmental Management 10:715–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. G. R., and J. B. Theberge. 1987. Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: Theory and practice.Environmental Management 11:447–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tölgyesi, I. 1984. Nature conservation in Hungary: presentation of a national park.Parks 8(4):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, P. 1979. European natur parks. Peak National Park Study Centre, Derbyshire, England, 106 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, M. B. 1986. Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values. Pages 3–44in M. B. Usher. (ed.) Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • US National Park Service. 1976. The great outdoors of the USA. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 55 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • US National Park Service. 1984. Al Hassa oases of Saudi Arabia: 4,000 years of history.Parks 8(4):12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • US National Park Service. 1986. Criteria for parklands. Leaflet prepared for Division of Park Planning and Special Studies, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Landscape Architecture Faculty of Forestry, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey

    Sümer Gülez

Authors
  1. Sümer Gülez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gülez, S. A method for evaluating areas for national park status. Environmental Management 16, 811–818 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02645671

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02645671

Key Words

Search

Navigation