Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 290–297

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp

Ecotourism sustainable development strategies using SWOT and QSPM

model: A case study of Kaji Namakzar Wetland, South Khorasan
Province, Iran
Amir Ghorbani a, Valiollah Raufirad b,⁎, Parisa Rafiaani c,d, Hossein Azadi c,d,e
a
Department of Management, Isfahan Sheikh Baha'i University, Isfahan, Iran
b
Department of Natural Resources, Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Sari, Iran
c
Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
d
Economics and Rural Development, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
e
Department of Geography, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Evaluating the current situation of ecotourism in Kaji Namakzar Wetland in South Khorasan Province, Iran
Received 8 April 2015 and offering strategies for its sustainable development are the main objectives of this study. To this end, different
Received in revised form 14 August 2015 decision making tools were used including questionnaires and interviews with experts, local residents and
Accepted 19 September 2015
visitors of the wetland. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) and quantitative strategic plan-
ning matrix (QSPM) analysis techniques were conducted to identify the required management strategies. Results
Keywords:
Sustainability
showed that the existing ecotourism activities within the wetland are not in line with the sustainability require-
Kaji Namakzar Wetland ments. Although the result of the present study showed that KNW has an unsustainable situation with regard to
Influencing factors its current management strategies, if authorities take its great opportunities and strengths more into consider-
Strategy ation, it can have positive effects on developing sustainable strategies to increase ecotourism activities in the
SWOT region and to reduce the adverse effects on the environment.
QSPM © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Management

1. Introduction
Ecotourism is defined as “environmentally responsible travel and
visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas in order to enjoy and
appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features both past
and present) that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor im-
pacts, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement
of local people” (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Jalani, 2012). Ecotourism is
about uniting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel. This
means that those who implement and participate in ecotourism activi-
ties should follow the following ecotourism principles: to minimize
negative environmental impact; to build environmental and cultural
awareness and respect; to provide positive experiences for both visitors
and hosts; to provide direct financial benefits for conservation; provide
financial benefits and empowerment for local people; and raise sensi-
tivity to host countries' political, environmental, and social climate
(Higham, 2007; Holden, 2007; Das & Chatterjee, 2015). According to
Quebec declaration on ecotourism (2002), the economic, social and
environmental impacts of tourism should be considered to recognize
the principles of sustainable ecotourism (Das & Chatterjee, 2015).
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: al.raufi@yahoo.com (V. Raufirad).
There are many environmental problems such as increasing noise, air
and water pollution, decreasing biodiversity, draining of wetlands, and
destruction of coral reefs. Because of this, some organizations (like the
International Union for Conservation of Nature) list ecotourism as one
of the most important threats to natural landscapes. Due to increasing
negativities of ecotourism, several authors reiterated tourism industry
to grow carefully (Balmford et al., 2002; Tepelus & Cordobci, 2005).
Ecotourism is a noticeable strategy for protecting environment and
creating income for local communities if its principles consider in a
sustainable manner. It can deeply impact on economic development
and conservation of natural resources (Surendran & Sekhar, 2011). Con-
servationists have identified ecotourism as a valuable tool of protection
of natural resources and development of local communities (Stronza,
2007). Generally, ecotourism deals with living parts of the natural
environments (Sadry, 2009) and mainly focuses on socially responsible
travel, personal growth, and environmental sustainability. It typically
involves travel to destinations where flora, fauna, and cultural heritage
are the primary attractions. Ecotourism is intended to offer tourists
insights into the impact of human beings on the environment, and to
foster a greater appreciation of our natural habitats. It is one of
the less destructive and more sustainable forms of tourism in rural
and urban environments and with sustainable management and devel-
opment it could put positive impacts on the urban and rural

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.09.005
2211-9736/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Ghorbani et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 290–297
transformations (Agrawal, 2012). Ecotourism is a rapidly growing niche
market within one of the world's biggest industries, i.e., tourism (Blangy
& Mehta, 2006; Das, 2011). According to monthly and quarterly data for
2012 included in the UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, international
tourist arrivals worldwide grew at a rate of 5% in the first four months
of 2012, consolidating the growth trend that started in 2010. Ecotour-
ism is an important subset of this global market and studies suggest
its rapid expansion (Duffy, 2006; Telfer & Sharpley, 2007). Ecotourism
activities are gradually becoming popular in a large number of countries
such as Iran, the eighteenth largest country of the world situated in
Southwest Asia. Sustainable ecotourism is one of the subjects that has
not been fully considered in the country despite its importance and ef-
fects on human life and environmental management.
Iran has various natural attractions such as temperate forests in the
north with high humidity and rainfall (1700 mm), deserts and salt
lakes in the central part, high mountains (such as 5604 m-high Mount
Damavand), glaciers and coastal areas (Ghadimi, 2014). Although Iran
has a diverse climate and remarkable biodiversity, major limitations
such as lack of conclusive regulations, educational programs and infra-
structure, have contributed to the slowing of the development of eco-
tourism in the country (Sayyed, Mansoori, & Jaybhaye, 2013). Some
prior studies have been conducted on the development of ecotourism
in Iran using strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT)
technique (Aghajani, 2014; Moosavi, Safania, & Gholami, 2013; Sayyed
et al., 2013). Similarly, Samadzadeh, Bigdeli, and Fathi (2010) analyzed
the potential ecotourism areas in Hashtjin using SWOT technique. They
concluded that the area has high potential for tourism development
and with designing proper plans for tourism development of the region,
the area would not only conserve from threats, but also improve the
region's economic condition. Badri, Rahmani, Sjasy Kedari, and
Hassanpour (2011) emphasized that a variety of strategies and policies
need to be considered for ecotourism sustainable development (ESD).
According to the studies conducted by Taghvaei, Taghizadeh, and
Kiomarsi (2011) and Ebrahimzadeh and Agassizadeh (2009), using
geographic information system (GIS) and SWOT models can help us to
address an appropriate strategy for ESD. Moosavi, Safania, and
Gholami (2013) showed that there is a scope for the improvement of
the SWOT analysis in identifying more options for strategic manage-
ment of sustainable ecotourism. Because of having the dry desert
areas, great mountainous and natural landscapes, many people were
attracted to visit natural landscapes (such as wetlands) in different
provinces of Iran (such as South Khorasan).
South Khorasan is one of the three provinces created after the
division of Khorasan province in 2004. While at the beginning, the
newly created “South Khorasan” included only Birjand county and
some new counties detached from that county (i.e., Nehbandan,
Darmian and Sarbisheh), in subsequent years all northern and western
cities and territories of the old Quhistan (such as Qaen, Ferdows and
Tabas) have been annexed into the South Khorasan. South Khorasan,
with a wide range of tourism attractions, is like a jewel in desert.
South Khorasan has many historical and natural attractions including
Kaji Namakzar Wetland (KNW). A few researches have focused on
KNW (Ramsar Convention, 2005). However, despite the importance of
this region with regard to its ecotourism potentials, no effort has been
made to present its current situation and to analyze ESD strategy and
Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) analysis in KNW. There-
fore, this study focuses on the strengths and weaknesses (internal
factors) as well as opportunities and threats (external factors) in this
wetland using SWOT and QSPM analysis. Achieving sustainable tourism,
defined as the one that is ecologically benign, economically feasible and
socially acceptable, is thus contingent on environmental protection and
reconciling tourism activities with local socio-economical values
(Brown, Turner, Hameed, & Bateman, 1997). Therefore, herewith the
implementation of sustainable tourism was examined through ques-
tionnaire and interviews with experts, eco-tourists, local visitors and
people. Accordingly, the following section provides the methodology
291
of the paper. The analysis method focuses on the strengths and
weaknesses (internal factors) as well as the opportunities and threats
(external factors) in the study of wetland regarding sustainable tourism.
Afterwards, the results are explained, following with a discussion on the
research findings. Finally, a conclusion is drawn with regard to the main
findings of this study.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study site
KNW is located in the north of the city of Nehbandan at a distance of
75 km. It is 1315 m below sea level and has an area of 22,765 ha. Its geo-
graphical coordinates are 59° 50′W to 60° 00′E and 31° 54′S to 31° 54′N
(Fig. 1). KNW is a broad salt marsh and due to its low altitude compared
to other surrounding regions, it has become a gathering point for the
area's drainage. Since the soil salinity is high, Kaji Namakzar has become
a salt lake. In the seasons of fall and winter, the level of water increases
and the place becomes a sanctuary for waterfowl migratory birds.
Indeed, it hosts a large number of migratory birds every year. Annually,
over 5000 migratory birds land in this wetland. KNW lures a large num-
ber of tourists and this white salty lake is thriving in spite of consecutive
drought conditions. Since the wetland has water, it is a secure place for
waterfowls. The other strong points are the beauty of the landscape,
great diversity of environments in a large territory, existence of valuable
natural areas that may be further enhanced in terms of enjoyment in
KNW (Ghorbani, Raufirad, & Jafarian, 2013).
2.2. Study sample
The population of this study comprised experts, local residents and
the visitors of the KNW. According to Eq. (1), the sample size (235)
was calculated based on the Cochran's formula, as follows:
NðtsÞ2
n¼ 2
ð1Þ
Nd þ ðtsÞ2
Where:
n is the sample size,
N is the total number of experts, local residents and visitors in
the selected area (77,128),
T is the t student (t = 1.96; prob. = 0.95),
s is the standard deviation of 30 respondents in the pilot study
(0.94),
d is the preferred likelihood accuracy (0.12). The expert rec-
ommendation was 10% (which is the common level for a
desired precision in the country (Azadi, Samari, Zarafshani,
Hosseininia, & Witlox, 2013) while a slightly more precision
(12%) was considered.
In order to make a proper distribution of the sample among different
groups (experts, local residents and visitors), the elicited sample was
drawn on each group proportionally as shown in Eq. (2):
nE=LR=V ¼ N E=LR=V  n=N ð2Þ
Where, nE/LR/V is the sample size of each group (6 experts, 122 local
residents and 107 visitors), NE/LR/V is the total number of each group
(2100 experts, 40,000 local residents and 35,028 visitors), n is
the total sample size (235) and N is the total number of experts, local
residents and visitors (77,128).
Accordingly, study population (including experts, local residents
and visitors) was selected through a multi-stage stratified random
sampling method. All the interviews were conducted in Persian,
i.e., the native language of both the interviewees and the interviewers.
After a literature review (Aghajani, 2014; Moosavi et al., 2013;
292 A. Ghorbani et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 290–297
Fig. 1. The geographical location of the study area.
Ghorbani et al., 2013; Ghadimi, 2014; Sayyed et al., 2013), a researcher-
made questionnaire was used to collect data from the experts, local res-
idents and visitors. A pilot study was conducted to measure the reliabil-
ity of the questionnaire: 30 questionnaires were filled out by all the
experts, local residents and visitors in the study area. Cronbach's alpha
coefficient was estimated at 0.82, which indicates that the questionnaire
has a high internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951; Streiner, 2003).
2.3. Data collection
To collect data, the primary and secondary data were collected. The
primary data was collected using field observations and face-to-face
interviews with three different groups of stakeholders, i.e. visitors,
experts and local people through unstructured questionnaires and
then SWOT and QSPM analysis carried out to identify the strategies.
The secondary data was collected during different stage of the study.
In May 2013, visitors, experts and local people of the wetland were
selected for the interview due to their familiarity with the KNW. They
were interviewed over a one month period at the end of the summer
and the beginning of fall seasons since these are the best season for
visiting the wetland. After collecting the questionnaires, data were
analyzed using Excel software to determine the satisfaction index,
opinion index, etc. Finally, SWOT were determined and some future
development-related policies and recommendations were suggested
according to the results of SWOT as well as QSPM analyses.
2.4. SWOT analysis
A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analy-
sis (alternatively SWOT matrix) is an efficient structured planning
method used in the case of strategy planning, to identify the potential
and priorities of a project for the accomplishment of the development
strategy (Buta, 2007). Although SWOT analysis is a research method
generally used in business fields, it has now been extended to natural
resource management to assess the decision and policy directive in a
systematic manner and also in assessment of sustainable tourism
(NOAA, 2011). The strengths and weaknesses (local analysis) are the
internal factors while opportunities and threats (global analysis) are
external factors (Harfst, Wirth, Lintz, & Bieberstein, 2010). Evaluation
of internal and external environmental factors is an important part of
strategic planning which is instrumental in adopting the strategies
and becomes a component of sustainable ecotourism management. A
SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry or
person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or
project and identifying the internal and external factors that are favor-
able and unfavorable to achieve that objective. The technique is credited
to Albert Humphrey, who led a convention at the Stanford Research
Institute (now SRI International) in the 1960s and 1970s using data
from Fortune 500 companies. The degree to which the internal environ-
ment of the firm matches with the external environment is expressed
by the concept of strategic fit (NOAA, 2011).
SWOT analysis aims to identify the key internal and external factors
seen as an important aspect in achieving an objective. SWOT analysis
groups key pieces of information into two main categories: internal
factors consist of strengths and weaknesses whereas external factors
consist of opportunities and threats presented by the environment
external to the organization (Harfst et al., 2010).
Scanning the internal and external environmental factors is an
important part of a strategic planning which is in turn considered as a
major component of sustainable development process. Such an analysis
of the strategic environment is instrumental in formulation and selec-
tion of a strategy (Reihanian, Noor Zalina Binti, Kahrom, & Hin, 2012)
as it can help researchers gain insight into the past and think of possible
solutions to existing or potential problems (Ommani, 2011). In
this study, the SOWT analysis was conducted on KNW to examine
the SED. First, the internal factors of the wetland were classified as
strengths (S) or weaknesses (W) and those external were classified as
opportunities (O) or threats (T) (Fig. 2). Accordingly, a list of Ss and
 A. Ghorbani et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 290–297
Fig. 2. The study variables based on SWOT analysis (Moosavi et al., 2013).
Ws and a list of Os and Ts were drawn. The former was tabulated in the
internal factor estimate matrix (IFEM) and the latter was tabulated in
the external factor estimate matrix (EFEM). Next, these factors were
weighed and scored by a panel of experts and the final score was
calculated. The following section elaborates the scoring process for
S and W:
1. The factors were given a coefficient between 0 and 1, standing for
“not important” and “most-important”, respectively. This coefficient
represents the relative significance of the factor in success rate and is
represented by the term “weight in the IFEM”. Despite the fact that
each factor is considered as an internal strength or weakness, the
more effective the factor in sustainable tourism development is, the
higher the allotted weight will be.
2. Each factor was scored between 1 and 4 where 1 stands for fundamen-
tal weakness, 2 for minor weakness, 3 for strength and 4 for great
strength. These scores were based on the activities taking place in
the wetland, coefficients used in the above stage and park's status.
3. To determine the final score of each factor, its weight was multiplied
by its score.
4. Once each factor's total score was calculated, they were summed to
calculate the total final score of IFEM.
5. If this value was less than 2.5, it meant that the strengths were less
than weaknesses and if it was more than 2.5, strengths outweighed
weaknesses (Bohari, Wei Hin, & Fuad, 2013).
These steps were repeated for EFEM as well. If this value was less
than 2.5, it meant that the opportunities were less than threats; if it
was more than 2.5, then the opportunities outweighed threats
(Monavari, Karbasi, & Mogooee, 2007).
2.5. QSPM analysis
The qualitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) provides an ana-
lytical method for comparing feasible alternative actions. QSPM is most-
ly used for making the decisions or problem-solving processes easier. A
QSPM approach attempts to objectively select the best strategy using
input from other management techniques and some easy computations.
It is divided into three stages to make the most objective decision using
as many facts as possible. The first step in the overall strategic manage-
ment analysis identifies key strategic factors. This can be done using the
internal factor estimation (IFE) matrix and external factor estimation
(EFE) matrix. The IFE matrix is a strategic management tool for auditing
or evaluating major strengths and weaknesses in functional areas of a
business. This matrix conceptually relates to the Balanced Scorecard
method in some aspects. The EFE matrix method is a strategic-
293
management tool often used for assessment of current business condi-
tions. The EFE matrix is a good tool to visualize and prioritize the oppor-
tunities and threats that a business is facing. The IFE matrix together
with the EFE matrix is a strategy-formulation tool that can be utilized
to evaluate how a company is performing with regard to its identified
internal strengths and weaknesses. After identifying and analyzing key
strategic factors as inputs for QSPM, the most attractive strategy can
be formulated. This can be done using strategic management tools in
stage 2 which in our case is the SWOT analysis. The strategic manage-
ment methods in stage 1 provided us with key strategic factors. Based
on the analysis results, possible strategies in stage 2 were formulated.
Then, through comparing QSPM alternative strategies the most suitable
ones were selected according to the goals of this study. The strategic
tools in stage 2 provide the needed information for setting up the
QSPM Conceptually, the QSPM in stage 3 determines the relative attrac-
tiveness of various strategies based on the extent to which key external
and internal success factors are capitalized upon or improved. The rela-
tive attractiveness of each strategy is computed by determining the cu-
mulative impact of each external and internal critical success factor.
3. Results
After primary and secondary data collections, SWOT and QSPM anal-
ysis was performed to assess the feasibility of sustainable ecotourism
in KNW through analyzing the results and determining the priorities.
The results of these analyses are accordingly prepared in the following
sections.
3.1. External factor estimation matrix (EFEM)
There were 10 factors pertaining to opportunities and threats
(Table 1) which have weights between 0.01 and 0.07 and effectiveness
scores between 2 and 5 (for opportunities) whereas for threats they
have weights between 0.02 and 0.1 and effectiveness scores between
3 and 5. According to the results, the most important factor that obtain-
ed the highest weight was identified to be “Proximity to the Birjand–
Nehbandan–Zahedan road”. Next important factors respectively include
having unique cultural and natural landscapes comparing to similar
tourism areas and “knowing possibility in the province and country”.
On the contrary, the first least important factor towards ESD was
“proximity to the mineral water mine of Sarbishe, a tourism target
area”, followed by the “potential of becoming a unique tourism hub in
the country” and “cultural exchange”. In case of threats, the highest
weights belong to the following factors: “environmental threats such
as drought”, “inability to compete with the tourism areas in Khorasan
Razavi province” and “negative vision of eco-tourists to the borderline
areas of Iran–Afghanistan”. In contrast, “mining”, “religious and beliefs
issues” and “changes in the social structure of the area” had the lowest
weights. Accordingly, the total value of external factors (4.05) was
more than 2.5 which means that the opportunities overweight the
threats (Table 1).
3.2. Internal factor estimation matrix (IFEM)
Regarding strengths and weaknesses, 10 and 12 factors were respec-
tively selected and surveyed (Table 2). The weights allocated for these
factors were between 0.02 and 0. 11 and the score ranged between
1 and 4 (for strengths) and the weights also allocated for these factors
were between 0.03 and 0.07 and the score ranged between 2 and 4
(for weaknesses). For strengths, “diversity of the natural environment
near the wetland (desert, mountains, lakes, etc.)”, “having variety of
kinds of plant and animal species” and “proximity to the Birjand
Nehbandan–Zabol–Zahedan road” had the highest whereas “having
good condition for internal investment”, “having good weather condition”
and “having quiet environment and away from the bustling city” had the
lowest weights. In relation to the weaknesses, “lack of proper
294 A. Ghorbani et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 290–297

Table 1
External factor estimation matrix (EFEM).

Weight Effectiveness Final score

score

Opportunities
1. Creating residential facilities and increasing acceptance of tourist 0.01 4 0.04
2. Knowing possibility in the province and the country 0.07 4 0.28
3. Having unique cultural and natural landscapes comparing to similar tourism areas 0.06 5 0.3
4. Potential of becoming a unique tourism hub in the country 0.03 2 0.06
5. Investment in infrastructure and superstructure installations 0.03 3 0.09
6. Job creation and revenue to regional and local people 0.05 3 0.15
7. Proximity to the mineral water mine of Sarbishe, a tourism target area 0.03 4 0.03
8. Proximity to the Birjand–Nehbandan–Zahedan road 0.07 5 0.35
9. Cultural exchange 0.03 3 0.09
10. Development of tourist facilities as one of the strategies of ecotourism development 0.03 4 0.12

Threats
1. Environmental threats such as drought 0.1 5 0.5
2. Negative vision of eco-tourists to the borderline areas of Iran–Afghanistan 0.09 4 0.36
3. Severe deprivation and migration 0.05 3 0.15
4. Seasonal unsuitable distribution of visitors due to the climate conditions 0.04 5 0.2
5. Little foreign investment in the tourism sector 0.05 3 0.15
6. Inability to compete with the tourism areas in Khorasan Razavi province 0.1 5 0.5
7. Religious and beliefs issues 0.04 3 0.12
8. Changes in the social structure of the area 0.04 5 0.12
9. Lack of medical and health clinic in the area 0.06 3 0.18
10. Mining 0.02 3 0.06
Total 1 4.05

communication ways to the wetland”, “far distance from the province around the wetland for visitors” had the lowest weights. The total value of
center and Nehbandan city” and “being unknown even for many native internal factors was calculated as 3.4 which is more than 2.5 (3.4), mean-
people due to the lack of ads” and “being away from population centers ing that the strengths were more than the weaknesses (Table 2).
and metropolitan cities” had the highest weights. In contrast, “lack
of suitable cultural condition in the area”, “having good condition for in-
ternal investment”, “Lack of health facilities” and “lack of suitable facilities

Table 2
Internal factor estimation matrix (IFEM).

Weight Effectiveness Final score

score

Strengths
1. Diversity of the natural environment near the wetland (desert, mountain, lake, etc.) 0.11 4 0.44
2. Having quiet environment and away from the bustling city 0.04 2 0.08
3. Having attractive and special vegetation species (e.g. Zygophyllum spp., Atriplex spp., 0.05 3 0.15
Tamarix spp. and so on)
4. Having variety of kinds of plant and animal species 0.06 4 0.24
5. Having no land deprivations for ecotourism 0.02 2 0.04
6. Having suitable location area 0.04 3 0.12
7. Having good weather condition 0.03 2 0.06
8. Proximity to the Birjand Nehbandan–Zabol–Zahedan road 0.05 4 0.2
9. Having good condition for internal investment 0.02 1 0.02
10. Having good condition for external investment 0.04 3 0.12

Weaknesses
1. Being unknown even for many native people due to the lack of advertisements 0.05 4 0.2
2. Far distance from the province center and Nehbandan city 0.06 4 0.24
3. Lack of tourism management 0.04 4 0.16
4. Being away from population centers and metropolitan cities 0.05 4 0.2
5. Lack of suitable facilities around the wetland for visitors 0.03 2 0.06
6. Lack of minimal amenities for visitors 0.04 3 0.12
7. No suitable plans developed by the environmental organization and cultural heritage 0.05 3 0. 15
organization for wetland protection
8. Lack of health facilities 0.03 2 0.06
9. Lack of accommodations for overnight and long stays 0.04 3 0.12
10. Lack of proper communication ways to the wetland 0.07 4 0.28
11. Lack of suitable environmental as well as physical infrastructures in the area 0.05 4 0.2
12. Lack of suitable cultural condition in the area 0.03 2 0.06
Total 1 3.4
 A. Ghorbani et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 290–297
3.3. Developing strategies
3.3.1. SWOT strategies
After selection and evaluation of the most important internal and
external factors and identification of relations existing between internal
and external features, four types of strategies were developed through
SWOT analysis which can be used effectively for ESD. For instance,
strong relations between strengths and opportunities (SO) can represent
good condition of the wetland and allow using aggressive strategies. On
the other hand, strong interactions between weaknesses and threats
(WT) could be considered as a potential warning and advice for using
defensive strategies. Moreover, strong relations between strengths and
threats (ST) can allow using diverse strategies. Last but not least, strong
interactions between weaknesses and opportunities (WO) could be
analyzed as a potential for using review or overview strategies. The results
of this stage are shown in Table 3.
As the SWOT matrix shown in Table 3, by pairwise matching of SO,
WO, ST, and WT, fourteen key strategies were determined for ESD in
KNW. The SO strategies proposed opportunities that fit well with the
wetland's strengths. The best SO strategy was realized as “Planning for
the development of transportation in the region”. The ST strategies
identify the ways that can be used to reduce vulnerability to the external
threats. The best ST strategy was realized as “Development and
improvement of tourism information networks and services for eco-
tourism using well-designed educating packages”. The WO strategies
identify the ways to overcome weaknesses to suggest opportunities.
“Improving and enhancing tourism products” was identified as the
best WO strategy in this study. The WT strategies establish a defensive
plan to prevent the wetland's weaknesses from making it highly suscep-
tible to the external threats. According to the result of Table 3, “Develop-
ment and improvement of tourism information networks and services
for ecotourism using well-designed educating packages” was realized
as the best WT strategy. The detail of the results is illustrated in
the table.
3.3.2. QSPM strategies
To give further guidance for ESD as well as for classifying strategies
according to their priorities, the QSPM analysis was performed. Detailed
computations for each strategy are given in Appendix 1 to 4. Using the
results shown in the Appendixes, the following ranking can be obtained
according to the final results of QSPM analysis shown in Table 4, the
Table 3
Ecotourism development strategies based on SWOT analysis.
SO strategies
1. Planning for the development of transportation in the region
2. Using other potential regions for developing other types of ecotourism such as
desert tourism
3. Development of tourist facilities such as desert camp, desert park and so on in
the region
4. Ecotourism development for attracting tourists, students and researchers from
environmental and earth sciences
ST strategies
1. Development and improvement of tourism information networks and services
for ecotourism using well-designed educating packages
2. Development of informing activities in the media about the wetland attractions
3. Reducing negative views about the insecurity of the region
WO strategies
1. Improving and enhancing tourism products
2. Roads building and development suitable for eco-tourists
3. Providing a comprehensive tourism plan developed by regional authorities,
organizations and other agencies related to the tourism industry
4. Ecotourism development with respect to the environmental impacts
WT strategies
1. Using professional managers in variety parts of tourism and implementations of
short and long term plans related to ecotourism
2. Establishment and promotion of health care centers in the wetland
3. Understanding and solving people's participation problems in ESD using more
applied tourism approaches
295
Table 4
The final result of QSPM analysis for SWOT strategies suggested.
Total
Strategies attractiveness
score
SO1 - Planning for the development of transportation in 2.51
the region
ST2 - Development of informing activities in the media 2.48
about the wetland attractions
WO2 - Roads building and development suitable for 2.39
eco-tourists
WO1 - Improving and enhancing tourism products 2.37
WT1 - Using professional managers in variety parts of 2.28
tourism and implementations of short and long term
plans related to ecotourism
SO4 - Ecotourism development for attracting tourists, 2.26
students and researchers from environmental and
earth sciences
WT2- Establishment and promotion of health care centers 2.11
in the wetland
SO3 - Development of tourist facilities such as desert camp, 2.06
desert park and so on in the region
WT3 - People participations using tourism approaches for 2.05
sustainable management of ecotourism
SO2 - Using other potential regions for developing other types 2.04
of ecotourism such as desert tourism
ST1 - Development and improvement of tourism information 1.55
networks and services for ecotourism using well-designed
educating packages
ST3 - Reducing negative views about the insecurity of the region 1.53
WO4 - Ecotourism development with respect to the 1.63
environmental impacts
WO3 - Providing a comprehensive tourism plan developed by 1.27
regional authorities, organizations and other agencies related
to the tourism industry
QSPM total attractiveness scores are 2.51, 2.48, 2.39, 2.37, 2.28, 2.26,
2.11, 2.06, 2.05, 2.04, 1.55, 1.53, 1.63 and 1.27 for strategies SO1, ST2,
WO2, WO1, WT1, SO4, WT2, SO3, WT3, SO2, ST1, ST3, WO4 and WO3,
respectively. Although all these strategies are noticeable, strategies
SO1, ST2, WO1 which obtained the highest total attractiveness scores
can be the best strategies for ESD in the KNW.
According to the QSPM results, the best strategy for ESD in the study
wetland was determined as SO1 (strategic planning for transportation
development in the region) (Table 4). Afterwards, two other important
strategies are ST2 (development of informing activities in the media
about the wetland attractions) and WO2 (Roads building and develop-
ment suitable for eco-tourists usage). On the other hand, WO3 (provid-
ing a comprehensive tourism plan developed by regional authorities,
organizations and other agencies related to the tourism industry),
WO4 (ecotourism development with respect to the environmental
impacts) and ST3 (reducing negative views about the insecurity of the
region) were realized as the least important strategies influencing
ESD, respectively. The detail of the results is illustrated in the above
table.
4. Discussion
Among different types of tourism, ecotourism is one of the most
proper forms for Iran which has the potential to be managed according
to the sustainable development principles. Although Iran ranks as the
second country attracting the greatest number of tourists in the south-
ern part of Asia (Ebrahimzadeh & Agassizadeh, 2009), this country is
not yet an ecotourism destination for international visitors as most of
the travelers are local people (Tavassoli, 2002). Hence, it is essential to
identify the important constrains and to carefully address them
(Aghajani, 2014). KNW undoubtedly is one of the most important
natural phenomena that could be an effective place for attracting tour-
ists in the southern part of Khorasan. Despite all the potentials of
KNW to become an ecotourism hub in the eastern part of the country,
296 A. Ghorbani et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 290–297
not only the tourists traveling to this province, but also many local
people are not aware of the existence of such place in the region. The
share of this valuable wetland in the tourism industry of the southern
part of Khorasan is very low as very few groups of tourists visit KNW,
seasonally. The results of this study showed that the ecotourism situa-
tion of this area is not very good and KNW is not well-known by all vis-
itors. Therefore, we need to find a better way and develop a practical
solution to improve the ecotourism situation across KNW. Although
ecotourism activities are gradually becoming more popular in Iran, it
has not been developed within a sustainable manner. Hence, ESD is
one of the best ways for tackling with such challenges.
According to the results of SWOT analysis, many factors affect
the current status of KNW. One of the most important factors is the lack
of proper communication way to the wetland. The only road to visit
KNW is a dirty road that is not very favorable to tourists, especially
foreigners. This means that its infrastructure and promotion are
inadequate mainly due to the lack of proper attention of the local
government. This finding is confirmed by Reihanian et al. (2012) who
showed that unsustainable ecotourism activities are caused by the lack
of proper infrastructure. Therefore, to ESD, related authorities of KNW
take a suitable tool for analyzing the problem to be able to determine
the potential improvement actions for developing great ways of commu-
nication to the wetland. It can lead ecotourism in a sustainable manner
and increase standard of living of the local residents and improves infra-
structures, health facilities and so forth (Das & Chatterjee, 2015).
The other factor is its far distance from the province center and
Nehbandan city which made KNW to remain unknown for many
visitors and even for local people. On the other hand, there are many
conflicts between cultural heritage, handicrafts and tourism organiza-
tion (CHHTO) and the environment protection organization (EPO) in
protecting and developing KNW's ecotourism. CHHTO says because
KNW has a high potential in ecotourism, all its managerial issues are
related to us. In contrast, managers of EPO believe that since KNW is a
part of a protected area and has many endangered bird and plant
species, its management refers to us. It seems that ESD in the KNW
cannot occur unless such conflicts are ended. Existing such complex
conflicts among different groups have always been one of the biggest
challenges to deal with sustainable ecotourism in different countries
(Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Hsu & Lin's, 2013). Many authors argue that
co-management should be considered to solve the conflicts among a
variety of stakeholders. The co-operation and local community partici-
pation can be the key to success of ESD and as a remedy to the problem
of unsustainable practices (Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Hsu & Lin's, 2013;
Rio & Nunes, 2012; Salafsky, 2011).
Moreover, it is important to notice that threats like drought, inability
to compete with the tourism areas in Khorasan Razavi province and
negative vision of eco-tourists to the borderline areas of Iran–
Afghanistan are the most important challenges that KNW face with.
In contrast, KNW has many opportunities and strengths as well.
The most important opportunities are proximity to the Birjand–
Nehbandan–Zahedan road, and having unique cultural and natural
landscapes comparing to similar tourism areas. Furthermore, the most
important strengths are diversity of the natural environment near the
wetland (desert, mountains, lakes, etc.), and having a variety of kinds
of plant and animal species. Hence, it can be inferred that although
KNW has an unsustainable situation with regard to the tourism man-
agement and is going to be more unsustainable as a result of the men-
tioned threats and weaknesses in this study, authorities and experts
can use these opportunities and strengths to achieve ESD in KNW.
This part of the finding is confirmed by Ghorbani et al. (2013).
The result of SWOT analysis implies that opportunities and strengths
in KNW overweigh threats and weaknesses, respectively. In other
words, although the wetland seems to have significant potentials for
ecotourism development, the current ecotourism situation of KNW is
not consistent with such potentials. Indeed, it can be concluded that
the wetland does not support sustainable ecotourism based on the
current state of management and conservation plans as well as tourism,
and socio-economic conditions of the area. This finding is confirmed by
Reihanian et al. (2012); Ghorbani et al. (2013) and Ebrahimzadeh and
Agassizadeh (2009) who showed that existing tourism activities in
Iran's natural landscapes such as wetlands and national parks did not
meet the sustainability requirements because of the complexity of ESD
in such areas. Therefore, using techniques such as SWOT can be a
good assistance to identify the required management strategies to
improve the sustainable tourism in such areas (Moosavi et al., 2013;
Reihanian et al., 2012; Sayyed et al., 2013). It is worth to notice that
the unsustainable ecotourism development neither conserves the area
nor benefits the local communities. Therefore, the wetland needs
thoughtful plans in order to achieve ESD.
Moreover, based on the results of QSPM analysis, it can be concluded
that lack of suitable ways to access KNW is the most important challenges
of the area. Afterwards, unknowing KNW and its attractions for visitors is
the second critical challenge. Similarly Sariisik, Turkayb, and Akovac
(2011) showed that unknown landscapes can be considered as a new
destination for eco-tourists. Hence, managers and authorities need to
pay special attentions to the roads' development so that visitors can sim-
ply access the wetland. Our finding is in line with other studies that found
similar findings (Moosavi et al., 2013; Sayyed et al., 2013). More adver-
tisements also need to be developed to assist in addressing such chal-
lenges. Since data were analyzed using both SWOT and QSPM analysis
techniques, these results can be taken under more serious considerations.
Similarly, our field observations confirmed the results of both analysis
techniques. Therefore, more studies, more advertising and informed plan-
ning are needed towards ESD in KNW.
5. Conclusion
This study presents a first attempt for ecotourism assessment in the
KNW using SWOT and QSPM. It examined qualitative and quantitative as-
sessments considering strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats
of KNW to obtain the best strategies for its ESD. An important gap for
the lack of ESD in the region is the lack of data due to not conducting
any previous studies about such environments in the country. The main
issues influencing ecotourism industry development in the wetland
have been identified through quantified SWOT and QSPM analysis. Such
analysis also criticized the current and future situation of the tourism in
KNW. Accordingly, KNW has a noticeable potential as an ecotourism des-
tination. The region has a lot of opportunities to offer considering its out-
standing landscapes, existing a large number of bird and animal species,
having great diversity of its environments across a large territory, and ex-
istence of valuable natural areas that can be integrated with ecotourism.
However, the current situation of its ecotourism is not in line with the sus-
tainability requirements due to the fact that there are no proper manage-
ment activities to ESD in the region. This means that KNW is vulnerable
and fragile to unsustainable ecotourism activities. On the other hand, its
infrastructure and superstructure installations are not adequate due to
the lack of proper attention to ecotourism industry of the KNW. However,
there is much hope to ESD in the rejoin in spite of its unsustainable situ-
ation. In this context, policy makers and the wetland managers try to
solve the current threats (such as conflicts among different groups) and
the weaknesses (such as negative vision of eco-tourists to the borderline
areas of Iran–Afghanistan) by using the opportunities (such as having
unique cultural and natural landscapes comparing to similar tourism
areas) and the strengths (like diversity of the natural environment near
the wetland). Consequently, this paper provides an important valuable
and useful technique for investigation of ESD in the study region. In this
context, our study showed that techniques such as SWOT and QSPM anal-
ysis can be considered as a useful tool to better identify positive and neg-
ative factors affecting ESD in KNW and other similar ecotourism
destinations in the country. These results may help the KNW's managers
and other related organizations to identify sustainable ecotourism activi-
ties in the area.
 A. Ghorbani et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 290–297 297

Appendix A. Supplementary data Sariisik, M., Turkayb, O., & Akovac, O. (2011). How to manage yacht tourism in Turkey: A
SWOT analysis and related strategies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24,
1014–1025.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. Sayyed, M. R. G., Mansoori, M. S., & Jaybhaye, R. G. (2013). SWOT analysis of Tandooreh
doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.09.005. National Park (NE Iran) for sustainable ecotourism. Proceedings of the International
Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 3(4), 296–305.
Streiner, D. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and
internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103.
References Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of
Ecotourism, 6(3), 210–221.
Aghajani, S. (2014). Eco tourism sustainable development and its positive impacts on urban Surendran, A., & Sekhar, C. (2011). A comparative analysis on the socio-economic welfare
and rural transformation (case study: Iran). Hannover, Germany: The ISSRM of dependents of the Anamalai Tiger Reserve (ATR) in India. Margin: The Journal of
Conference. Applied Economic Research, 5(3), 361–379.
Agrawal, K. (2012). Environmental sustainability of ecotourism. Research Journal of Taghvaei, M., Taghizadeh, M. M., & Kiomarsi, H. (2011). Mapping tourist villages using GIS
Economics & Business Studies, 1, 1–54. and SWOT analysis. (case study: Shore Kaftar Lake). Journal of Geography and
Azadi, H., Samari, D., Zarafshani, K., Hosseininia, G. h., & Witlox, F. (2013). Sustainable for- Environmental Planning, 42, 120–199 (In Persian).
est management in Iran: A factor analysis. Sustainable Science, 8, 543–551. Tavassoli, K. (2002). Ecotourism in Iran. In T. Tundloe (Ed.), Linking Green productivity to eco-
Badri, A., Rahmani, K. h., Sjasy Kedari, M., & Hassanpour, A. (2011). Strategies for ecotour- tourism (chapter 12: Ecotourism in Iran. Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization.
ism development in Marivan. Journal of Rural Research, 2, 54-31 (In Persian). Telfer, D. J., & Sharpley, R. (2007). Tourism and development in the developing world.
Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Green, R. E. (2002). Economic Routledge, 133.
reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297(5583), 950–953. Tepelus, C. M., & Cordobci, R. C. (2005). Recognition schemes in tourism — From eco to
Blangy, S., & Mehta, H. (2006). Ecotourism and ecological restoration. Journal for Nature sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(2), 135–140.
Conservation, 3–4(14), 233–236.
Bohari, A. M., Wei Hin, C., & Fuad, N. (2013). The competitiveness of halal food industry in
Malaysia: A SWOT-ICT analysis. Journal of Society and Space, 9(1), 1–9.
Brown, K., Turner, R., Hameed, H., & Bateman, I. (1997). Environmental carrying capacity Amir Ghorbani is a teacher of tourism management of
and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environmental Conservation, heritage and cultural organization of southern Khorasan
24(4), 316–325. province and Payam Nour University. His research interests
Buta, R. (2007). The SWOT analysis in the geographical research, with applicability in the include ecotourism, organization diagnosis in tourism
study of the human settlements from Moldova valley. Present Environment and institute.
Sustainable Development, 1, 239–248.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. The World Conservation Union.
Coria, J., & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the development of indigenous commu-
nities: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecological Economics, 73(15), 47–55.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16, 297–334.
Das, M., & Chatterjee, B. (2015). Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tourism
Management Perspectives, 14, 3–16.
Das, S. (2011). Ecotourism, sustainable development and the Indian state. EPW, XLVI(37).
Duffy, R. (2006). The politics of ecotourism and the developing world. Journal of Valiollah Raufirad is a Ph.D. student in Range Management
Ecotourism, 5(1&2), 1–6. at Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural
Ebrahimzadeh, A., & Agassizadeh, S. (2009). Analysis of the factors affecting tourism Resources, Sari, Iran. His research interests include socio-
development in the coastal area of Chabahr using SWOT strategy. Urban and economic issues of natural resources, ecotourism sustainable
Regional Studies and Research Journal, 1, 128-107. development, natural landscapes and modeling of natural
Ghadimi, N. (2014). Plan for the Land Society. http://plan4land.org/en/AboutUS.aspx ecosystems.
Ghorbani, A., Raufirad, V., & Jafarian, Z. (2013). Investigation the role Tourism industry in
conservation and economic valuation of Kaji wetland of Southern Khorasan Province.
International Conference on Environmental Crises and its Solutions Kish International
Convention Center, Kish Island, on 13 till 14 February.
Harfst, J., Wirth, P., Lintz, G., & Bieberstein, C. (2010). Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats of European mining regions (SWOT Report I). Germany, Dresden: Leibniz
Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), 103.
Higham, J. (2007). Critical issues in ecotourism: Understanding a complex tourism phenom-
enon. Published by Elsevier Ltd, 12.
Holden, A. (2007). Environment and tourism. Routledge introductions to environment series, Parisa Rafiaani Khachak is a graduate student in Environ-
111. mental Sciences from the Gorgan University of Agricultural
Hsu, H., & Lin, J. (2013). Benefits beyond boundaries: A slogan or reality? A case study of Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran. Her research
Taijiang National Park in Taiwan. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 41–52. interests include tourism and agro-environmental studies
Jalani, J. O. (2012). Local people's perception on the impacts and importance of ecotour- using GIS.
ism in Sabang, Palawan, Philippines. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57(9),
247–254.
Monavari, M., Karbasi, A., & Mogooee, R. (2007). Environmental strategic management.
Tehran: Kavoush Qalam, Iran.
Moosavi, S. J., Safania, A. M., & Gholami, S. (2013). Feasibility athletic abilities nature (eco-
tourism, sports) West Mazandaran using SWOT analysis. International Research
Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 5(10), 1238–1244.
NOAA (2011). Assessment for sustainable tourism. Available at: http://sanctuaries.noaa.
gov/management/international/pdfs/day2_assessment_manual.pdf (accessed Nov,
2011)
Ommani, A. R. (2011). Strategies of rural development in Shoushtar Township of Iran Dr. Hossein Azadi is a senior researcher at the Depart-
(applying SWOT method). Journal of American Science, 7(1), 969–972. ment of Geography (UGent), Gent, Belgium. His research
Ramsar Convention (2005). Information sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) - 2009–2012. interests include decision support systems and spatial
Version. Available at: http://www.ramsar.org/ris/key_ris_e.pdf (accessed 2011) modeling in socio-economic aspects of environmental
Reihanian, A., Noor Zalina Binti, M., Kahrom, E., & Hin, T. W. (2012). Sustainable tourism impact assessment.
development strategy by SWOT analysis: Boujagh National Park, Iran. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 4, 223–228.
Rio, D., & Nunes, L. M. (2012). Monitoring and evaluation tool for tourism destinations.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 64–66.
Sadry, B. N. (2009). Fundamentals of geotourism: With a special emphasis on Iran. Tehran:
Samt Organization publishers (220 pp. English Summary available Online at: http://
physio-geo.revues.org/3159?file=1).
Salafsky, N. (2011). Integrating development with conservation: A means to a conservation
end or a mean end to conservation? Biological Conservation, 144(3), 973–978.
Samadzadeh, B., Bigdeli, A., & Fathi, B. (2010). Analysis techniques the ecotourism power of
khalkhal Hshjyn using SWOT. Geographical landscape Journal, 12, 60-40 (In Persian).