Development of Evaluation Indicators and Weight Estimation for Restoration Projects in Degraded Areas of National Parks

Background and objective: National parks are increasingly vulnerable to ecological degradation caused by excessive visitor use, development pressures from local economies, and the intensifying effects of climate change, including wildfires and landslides. These threats underscore the urgent need for active ecological restoration efforts. However, there is a lack of a standardized framework to assess the progress of restoration sites toward recovery. This study aims to establish a set of ecological indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration in national parks and to determine the relative importance of these indicators using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).Methods: To develop a comprehensive evaluation system, the study used a multi-step approach combining a literature review, expert consultations, and open-ended surveys. Through this process, 18 indicators were selected: 8 related to vegetation (e.g., invasive species coverage, tree volume), 7 to soil (e.g., electrical conductivity, soil hardness), and 3 to landscape characteristics (e.g., visual continuity). The AHP method was then applied to assign relative weights to each indicator based on expert input and pairwise comparisons.Results: The AHP analysis revealed that the indicators in the landscape category received the highest overall weight (0.640), likely due to the smaller number of indicators in this category, which may have led to disproportionate weighting. Among the indicators in the vegetation category, the invasive species coverage and simplified tree volume were considered most significant. In the soil category, electrical conductivity (EC) and soil hardness emerged as key indicators.Conclusion: This study presents a structured and weighted indicator framework for assessing ecological recovery in restoration sites in national parks. While the framework offers valuable insights, it also has certain limitations, such as limited discussion time and a one-directional decision-making process. Future research should adopt more iterative and participatory approaches to improve indicator selection and weighting.