Welcome to Bilingual Publishing Group
Bilingual Publishing Group

Multi-Criteria Environmental Assessment of Protected Areas: Ecosystem Services and Use by Visitors

Authors

  • Jefferson Damián Almeida Peñaherrera Email ORCID Departamento de Ciencias Económicas,Administrativas y de Comercio,Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Sangolquí171103,Ecuador
  • Diana Gabriela Carpio Álvarez ORCID Departamento de Ciencias Económicas,Administrativas y de Comercio,Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Sangolquí 171103,Ecuador
  • Jonathan Mauricio Guallpa Caguana ORCID Departamento de Ciencias Exactas,Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE,Sangolquí171103,Ecuador
  • Rafael Mateo Vásquez Galeas ORCID Departamento de Ciencias Económicas,Administrativas y de Comercio,Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Sangolquí 171103,Ecuador

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/re.v8i5.117146

Received:16 June 2026 |Revised:21 August 2026 |Accepted:28 August 2026 |Published Online:23 October 2026

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) are currently the planet's primary tool for conserving biodiversity and sustaining the ecosystem services upon which human well-being depends. Despite this, their environmental valuation remains methodologically fragmented, particularly in Latin America, a region where frameworks capable of integrating ecological, economic, and tourism dimensions are scarce. To address this gap, this study proposes a multi-criteria environmental valuation framework for the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve (RBS) in Ecuador, a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)-recognized territory covering 931,930 ha that combines exceptional biodiversity gradients with a well-established community-based ecotourism sector. The framework articulates twelve ecosystem services, classified according to the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES v5.1), with four visitor usage metrics, using the combined AHP-VIKOR (Analytic Hierarchy Process-VIšeKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Rešenje) model. Using secondary institutional sources and input from a panel of twelve experts in protected area management and ecosystem services, a standardized indicator matrix was developed to obtain compromise indices for each management zone. The results show that the core zone achieves the most favorable environmental index (Q = 0.000), followed by the buffer zone (Q = 0.612) and the transition zone (Q = 1.000). Cultural services proved to be the dimension with the greatest weight (w = 0.444), driven by recreation, ecotourism, and aesthetic experience, in line with the ecotourism profile of the Biosphere Reserve. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the classification remains stable in 78% of the disturbance scenarios evaluated. The proposed framework bridges the gap between ecosystem services science and visitor management, offering a replicable and transferable tool for protected areas facing conservation-tourism tensions in the Global South.

Keywords:

Multi-Criteria Environmental Assessment,Ecosystem Services,AHP-VIKOR,Protected Areas,Sumaco Biosphere Reserve,Ecotourism,CICES,Global South

References

[1] United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2022. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Decision 15/4). United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada.

[2] Li, Q., Ge, Y., Sayer, J.A., 2023. Challenges to implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Land. 12(12), 2166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land12122166

[3] McGowan, P.J.K., Hutchinson, A., Brooks, T.M., et al., 2024. Understanding and achieving species elements in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. BioScience. 74(9), 614–623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae065

[4] Ghoddousi, A., Loos, J., Kuemmerle, T., 2022. An outcome-oriented, social–ecological framework for assessing protected area effectiveness. BioScience. 72(2), 201–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab114

[5] Gross, M., Pearson, J., Arbieu, U., et al., 2023. Tourists’ valuation of nature in protected areas: A systematic review. Ambio. 52(6), 1065–1084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01845-0

[6] Cabrera-Borraz, J.G., Aguilar-Becerra, C.D., Arroyo Arcos, L., et al., 2025. Ecotourism management in biosphere reserves: A systematic review. Journal of Ecotourism. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2025.2526047

[7] Majewski, L., Bittlingmaier, S., Frieser, A., et al., 2025. Evaluating the economic impact of tourism in Germany’s Biosphere Reserves. Tourism Geographies. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2025.2536120

[8] Canales-Springett, A.W., Chávez Salas, J.M., 2023. Design of a multicriteria analysis to estimate the ecotourism potential of the Cotahuasi sub-basin landscape reserve, Arequipa, Peru. Ecología Aplicada. 22(2), 167–193. Available from: https://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726-22162023000200167 (in Spanish)

[9] Hewlett, D., Gunton, R., Gray, D., et al., 2024. Tourism and visitor management in protected areas post-pandemic: The English context. In: Finneran, N., Hewlett, D., Clarke, R. (Eds.). Managing Protected Areas: People and Places. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland. pp. 267–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40783-3_15

[10] Zeng, Y., Wang, L., Zhong, L., 2025. The impact of protected area establishment on biodiversity via tourism pressure: A case study in Three-river-source National Park, China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 527, 146654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146654

[11] Sobhani, P., Esmaeilzadeh, H., Sadeghi, S.M.M., et al., 2022. Estimation of ecotourism carrying capacity for sustainable development of protected areas in Iran. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19(3), 1059. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031059

[12] Xia, Z., Huang, J., Huang, Y., et al., 2024. A social–ecological approach for identifying and mapping ecosystem service trade-offs and conservation priorities in peri-urban areas. Ambio. 53(10), 1522–1540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02031-6

[13] Haines-Young, R., Potschin-Young, M., 2018. Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A policy brief. One Ecosystem. 3, e27108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108

[14] Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 48(1), 9–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

[15] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research. 156(2), 445–455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1

[16] Taherdoost, H., Madanchian, M., 2023. VIKOR method—An effective compromising ranking technique for decision making. Macro Management & Public Policies. 5(2), 27–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/mmpp.v5i2.5578

[17] Milojković, I., Praščević, N., 2024. Project management using the developed AHP–VIKOR method with the fuzzy approach. Water Science & Technology. 90(2), 578–597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2024.204

[18] Schuhmann, P.W., Bangwayo-Skeete, P., Skeete, R., et al., 2024. Visitors’ willingness to pay for ecosystem conservation in Grenada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 32(8), 1644–1668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2259119

[19] Brander, L.M., de Groot, R., Schägner, J.P., et al., 2024. Economic values for ecosystem services: A global synthesis and way forward. Ecosystem Services. 66, 101606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101606

[20] Sánchez-Cortez, J.L., Simbaña-Tasiguano, M., Vélez-Macías, K., et al., 2023. Sumaco Volcano (Ecuador): Integral approach to its geotourism potential. Geoconservation Research. 6(2), 271–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.57647/j.gcr.2023.0602.18

[21] Hamidifar, H., Yaghoubi, F., Rowiński, P.M., 2024. Using multi-criteria decision-making methods in prioritizing structural flood control solutions: A case study from Iran. Journal of Flood Risk Management. 17(3), e12991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12991

[22] Kermagoret, C., Dupras, J., 2018. Coupling spatial analysis and economic valuation of ecosystem services to inform the management of an UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve. PLOS ONE. 13(11), e0205935. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205935

[23] Almeida Peñaherrera, J.D., Enríquez Espín, M.A., Chuquimarca Nolivos, J.M., 2025. Definition of criteria and indicators for the management of visitors and tourists in the Sumaco Napo Galeras National Park [PNSN-G]. Pacto Sumaco, Ecuador. Turismo, Desarrollo y Buen Vivir. Revista de Investigación de la Ciencia Turística. 19, 7–29. Available from: https://publicaciones.udet.online/index.php/ricit/article/view/254 (in Spanish)

[24] Ortega-Andrade, H.M., Rodes Blanco, M., Cisneros-Heredia, D.F., et al., 2021. Red List assessment of amphibian species of Ecuador: A multidimensional approach for their conservation. PLOS ONE. 16(5), e0251027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251027

[25] Whitham, C.E.L., Shi, K., Riordan, P., 2015. Ecosystem service valuation assessments for protected area management: A case study comparing methods using different land cover classification and valuation approaches. PLOS ONE. 10(6), e0129748. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129748

[26] Su, Y., Zhu, C., Lin, L., et al., 2022. Assessing the cultural ecosystem services value of protected areas considering stakeholders’ preferences and trade-offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an example. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19(21), 13968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113968

[27] Morse, W.C., 2023. Protected area tourism and management as a social-ecological complex adaptive system. Frontiers in Sustainable Tourism. 2, 1187402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frsut.2023.1187402

[28] Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics. 74, 8–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011

[29] Frish, S., Talmor, I., Hadar, O., et al., 2025. Enhancing consistency of AHP-based expert judgements: A new approach and its implementation in an interactive tool. MethodsX. 14, 103341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2025.103341

[30] Opricović, S., 1998. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering: Belgrade, Serbia. (in Serbian)

[31] de Frias Barreto, M., Massara, R.L., Fernandes, A.S., et al., 2025. The perception of cultural ecosystem services by tourists in Brazilian protected areas. Ecology and Evolution. 15(11), e72469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.72469

[32] Gan, Q., Liao, L., Kang, X., et al., 2024. Cultural ecosystem services and disservices in protected areas: Hotspots and influencing factors based on tourists’ digital footprints. Ecosystem Services. 70, 101680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101680

[33] Muñoz Barriga, A., 2017. Perceptions of tourism management in two Ecuadorian biosphere reserves: Galapagos and Sumaco. Investigaciones Geográficas. 93, 110–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.47805 (in Spanish)

[34] Zhen, H., Qiao, Y., Zhao, H., et al., 2022. Developing a conceptual model to quantify eco-compensation based on environmental and economic cost-benefit analysis for promoting the ecologically intensified agriculture. Ecosystem Services. 56, 101442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101442

Downloads

Issue

2026 Vol.8 No.5

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2026 Jefferson Damián Almeida Peñaherrera, Diana Gabriela Carpio Álvarez, Jonathan Mauricio Guallpa Caguana, Rafael Mateo Vásquez Galeas

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.