An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11

Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites Jin Su Jeong a,∗ , Lorenzo García-Moruno a , Julio Hernández-Blanco b , Francisco Javier Jaraíz-Cabanillas c a

Dpto. de Expresión Gráfica, Centro Universitario de Mérida, Universidad de Extremadura, Calle Santa Teresa de Jornet 38, 06800 Mérida, Spain Dpto. de Expresión Gráfica, Centro Universitario de Plasencia, Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida Virgen del Puerto 2, 10600 Plasencia, Spain c Dpto. de Ciencias del Territorio, Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida de la Universidad s/n, 10071 Cáceres, Spain b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 20 May 2013 Received in revised form 18 February 2014 Accepted 19 April 2014 Keywords: Rural second home Sustainable tourism MADM Residents’ attitude AHP/OWA

a b s t r a c t Due to inadequate environmental assessments, many sustainable tourism destinations have not contributed to both conservation and development as expected. This paper describes an operational spatial planning method to evaluate the suitability of an ecotourism site. As using the multi-attribute decisionmaking (MADM) based on the understanding of all possible aspects and implications of the existing regional planning, this work presents a process to siting second home countryside in the study area, La Vera County, Spain. Accordingly, this study explores the criteria using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) with the primary screening and supporting opportunities of environmental conservation and economic growth as well. To reach a consensus criteria weight, a field survey to local residents and group discussion with a panel of experts were conducted for an analytical procedure, making them more objective. Then, it evaluated the suitability of the study area in order to optimally site a rural second home based on the previous constraints and criteria with the aid of the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operator weighing functions with constant value of orness and maximum entropy. The assessment results provide a new empirical approach and valuable management tool to evaluate the existing infrastructure and environment and to predict their future improvements that can be reapplied to other destinations. These strongly emphasize benefits to the local community and effective ecotourism with its integration. Particularly, this model analysis proposes a method to demonstrate the participatory attitude of local residents in the sustainable planning assessment. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Ecotourism is a significant topic, which has been identified as a sustainable tourism form expected to contribute to both environmental conservation and economy development. Thus it is recognized as a sustainable way to develop regions with abundant tourism resources (Ross and Wall, 1999b, Wall, 1996; Vincent and Thompson, 2002; Weaver, 2001; Weaver and Lawton, 2007). However, due to inadequate environmental and practical assessments, many ecotourism destinations are inclinable to be both dangerous

∗ Corresponding author. Present address: Dpto. de Expresión Gráfica, Centro Universitario de Mérida, Universidad de Extremadura, Calle Santa Teresa de Jornet 38, 06800 Mérida, Spain. Tel.: +34 924 387 068; fax: +34 924 303 782. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (J.S. Jeong), [email protected] (L. García-Moruno), [email protected] (J. Hernández-Blanco), [email protected] (F.J. Jaraíz-Cabanillas).

and self-destructive. In tourism sector, sustainable development has been extensively considered because such development can meet the tourists’ demands, can protect physical locations and can supply opportunities to improve economic growth and the residents’ life quality through the coexistence of tourism development and environmental quality (Eagles et al., 2002). With growing ecological interests and cultural heritages, local environment quality improvements increase visual attraction and also enhance esthetic and recreational values of its environments (Zhang and Lei, 2012). Consequently, local residents have benefits from their improved local environment leading to the residents’ quality life (Allen et al., 1993). The man-made constructions’ cluttering, on the other hand, is being introduced into the Extremadura region together with the growth of its recreational potential and human movements to rural areas (Dwyer and Childs, 2004; Jeong et al., 2012; Van der Wulp, 2009). The popular discourse on second home is tightly entwined with the rural environment, considered as the location of second home as well as the environment for its living and activities

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012 0264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11 2

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

(Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones, 2000; Pitkänen and Vepsäläinen, 2008; Vepsäläinen and Pitkänen, 2010; Tewdwr-Jones et al., 2002). The current regional planning has not evolved to deal with new rural environment changes; affecting the location of new buildings countryside which follows and meets certain criteria could mitigate the negative impacts on rural environments (Bell, 1995; Tandy, 1979). There have been also only few practical assessments of the ecotourism status at specific locations due to partly standardized and yet developed evaluative criteria (Ross and Wall, 1999a). From current local development modeling, the emphasis on second homes of a local community is to conserve local resources and to increase local benefits. It focuses the close association between ecotourism and local residents who are one of the essential stakeholders groups (experts and non-experts, all interest groups) (Byrd et al., 2009; Ryan, 2002). Residents’ attitude has been closely examined to understand the support level for tourism, its relationship with perceived impact from tourism being among the most studied (Andereck et al., 2005; Teye et al., 2002). Taking account of residents’ attitude toward ecotourism is a prerequisite to incorporate their participation (Page and Dowling, 2002). Environmental perception and attitude of stakeholders can all affect their inclination to the local landscapes and developments (Hanley et al., 2009; Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002). Understanding the attitude of the residents toward ecotourism management principles can support decision-makers (planners and local authorities) who devise more efficient and appropriate management strategies and handle possible conflicts between local resources conservation and economic developments (Lai and Nepal, 2006). Henning (1990) emphasized the necessity to measure residents’ attitude for decision-makers when considering alternative tourism development strategies. Correspondingly, reflecting on these facts, decision-makers can find the current state of affairs and some ideas of future conditions. Ideally the possible consequences of the plans and policies under consideration and residents’ participation are to contribute a distinguishing quality in ecotourism management (Blaschke, 2006; Drumm, 1998). To study the spatial modeling, the geographic information system (GIS) is particularly useful tool for analyzing large volume of spatial data related with the economical, social, cultural and ecological policies of societies (Böhme and Schön, 2006; Hermann and Osinski, 1999). The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) incorporated with the GIS technology produces a flexible way of combining various criteria in the siting process (Pavlikakis and Tsihrintzis, 2003; Saaty, 1977). Multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) is one particular type of spatial planning to support decision-makers explore and solve its multiple and complicated problems (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Malczewski, 1999; Roy, 1996). Only few studies have been focused on the presented subject, including the evaluation of various criteria and the aggregation of these criteria in different processes (De Vriesa et al., 2012; Jeong et al., 2012; Tassinari and Torreggiani, 2006; Jeong et al., 2013). The present paper describes a spatial planning method for determining suitable sites for new single dispersed rural second home based on the understanding of the limitations of the existing regional planning in the northern Extremadura region, La Vera County, Spain. The proposed methodology uses the AHP and the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) functions with constant value of orness and maximum entropy of multi-attribute modeling. It is to evaluating the entire study region using a common grading scale in a GIS environment (Eastman, 2003; Filev and Yager, 1998; Fuller and Majlender, 2001; Yager, 1988). Evaluation criteria identify a spatial data treatment based on constraints, tourism resource, environmental and socio-economic aspects supporting environmental conservation, economic opportunities, local community benefits and effective management of ecotourism. They are determined by the authors based on European planning policy (Council of the European Union, 2001) and regional planning

law on Extremadura (LESOTEX, Law 15/2001 of land and landscape planning of Extremadura) and the relevant literature review, which make the innovation of the evaluation criteria used. To verify the weights generated and reach the consensus criteria weights, we conducted two analytical procedures: (a) the use of field surveys to local residents (Aguilar-Manjarrez, 1996) and (b) the discussion with a group of experts (Eastman et al., 1993; Kapetsky and Nath, 1997), reducing possible authors’ subjectivity. The research goal is to show a new empirical approach to analyzing the existing ecosystems, infrastructure and environments for integrating new rural second home based on the presented methods. Also, this is to explain different decision alternatives and patterns, which evaluate a reasonable method of ecotourism sustainability with its integration. Accordingly, the mechanism behind participation intention can be identified through the results and is instructive toward demonstrating the participatory attitude of local residents in ecotourism site’s planning.

Study area and materials The case study area (see Fig. 1), the County of La Vera (888 square kilometer), is located in the province of Cáceres, particularly in the southern slope of Sierra de Gredos and the north-east of Extremadura region of Spain. The study area is encompassed in Jerte Valley area to the north-west (Extremadura), in Castilla y León region to the north, in Toledo province to the east (Castilla-La Man˜ cha region), in Campo Aranuelo area to the south (Extremadura) and by the river Tiétar to the south. The La Vera County has 19 municipalities: Aldeanueva de la Vera, Arroyomolinos de la Vera, Collado de la Vera, Cuacos de Yuste, Garganta la Olla, Gargüera de la Vera, Guijo de Santa Bárbara, Jaraíz de la Vera (the principal town of the study area), Jarandilla de la Vera, Losar de la Vera, Madrigal de la Vera, Pasarón de la Vera, Robledillo de la Vera, Talaveruela de la Vera, Tejeda de Tiétar, Torremenga, Valverde de la Vera, Viandar de la Vera, and Villanueva de la Vera. Its proximity to Madrid, the capital of Spain, has turned the region for the place increasingly destined for weekend residence. The second home countryside thus is an integral part of the historical and contemporary rural recreational countryside (Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones, 2000; Vepsäläinen and Pitkänen, 2010). This growth has prompted major changes in land use patterns, leading to widespread, which cause their consequent impacts. In this region, a multifunctional agrosylvopastoral system, the Dehesa, dominates the land use types corresponding to specific cultural landscape: plain corn, pepper, raspberry and snuff in the overall area; oak and chestnut trees in the middle hillside; terraced orchards of fruit trees and poplars along the gorges. In terms of geographical and landscapes features, water resources in this region are essential for both the agrarian and leisure activities, corresponding to high biological, scenic and recreational value that respond to tourist destinations especially for summer season. Besides, the socio-economic and political transformations in Extremadura including the study area made it difficult to maintain low-cost manual shrub clearing due to increased agricultural wages and traditional management affecting the migration from the countryside management (Jaraíz et al., 2013). According to Terluin (2003), development in rural regions depends on complex economic, social and political processes. As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, these transformations affected to the age structure and population trends for the case study area (INE, 2011). From the early nineties, several European initiatives in Extremadura (LEADER and PRODER projects) made new tendency to change this region for achieving the sustainable rural development. These programs were more focused on those rural municipalities, which had higher economic imbalances. The

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

3

Fig. 1. Location map of La Vera County. The light green area depicts the extent of study area with 19 municipalities by are numbered: (1) Gargüera; (2) Arroyomolinos de la Vera; (3) Tejeda de Tiétar; (4) Pasarón de la Vera; (5) Torremenga; (6) Garganta la Olla; (7) Jaraíz de la Vera; (8) Cuacos de Yuste; (9) Collado; (10) Aldeanueva de la Vera; (11) Jarandilla de la Vera; (12) Guijo de Santa Bárbara; (13) Losar de la Vera; (14) Robledillo de la Vera; (15) Viandar de la Vera; (16) Valverde de la Vera; (17) Talaveruela de la Vera; (18) Villanueva de la Vera; and (19) Madrigal de la Vera. (For interpretation of the references to color in this legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

LEADER (91/C180/12) and the PRODER (Royal Decree 206/1996 dated 9 February 1996) projects were both public programs, which adopted a local initiative approach. They targeted rural areas as their fields of intervention. Both programs aimed to support a rural development, which was in local base and with local partners, and to pursue a development model not based only on agricultural activities. During the last decades, rural buildings’ developments due to the holiday residences’ growths and its natural environments has increased for tourist activities which showed the results of significantly increased constructions of new hotels and rural

houses (Jaraíz et al., 2013). Especially, in the data on housings, it represents that total numbers of second homes have been increased, whereas formal housings’ numbers have been decreasing and empty dwellings have been grown as shown in Fig. 3 (INE, 2011). Since the work is concerned with housing construction integrated with the rural environments, it is necessary at the outset to define the basic concepts of the rural residential building. The term, residential building, in turn denotes premises of one or several rooms plus auxiliary quarters, which have been specially built or made over to serve residential living functions. In the proposed rural

Fig. 2. Age structure diagram for the case study area between the 2001 and 2011 censuses.

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11 4

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Population trends and divers housings diagram in the case study area for the 2001 and 2011 censuses.

areas, it should be stressed that it is a single-family construction at which the intensity is very much a function of the size to the adjacent urban center and the area’s distance from it. Housing construction also focuses on the main transport arteries, along which a belt of enhanced economic activity is to be found. In addition, local planning laws give building design guidelines directly and restrictions as well, regarding to maximum building area, maximum building height and maximum number of floors. Based on the information, we define that the general characteristics of the building, a single-family residential building, have the construction size: 40% building to land ratio and 100% floor area ratio of 100 square kilometer land (based on 10 × 10 m grading cell) with minimum 2.4 m floor height. The regional law (LESOTEX, Law 15/2001 of land and landscape planning of Extremadura) is connected with territorial and regional planning: plans, programs and different actions including

territorial repercussion. Especially, the territorial plan for La Vera County is related with urban development dynamics and municipalities structure, but is not come with the implementation of the building ordinance (Jaraíz et al., 2013). The strategies in regard to natural and cultural heritage are not strong enough and also are not realistic enough to the current rural changes for fostering patrimonial value. Notwithstanding, many municipalities are still awaiting their general planning approval by the administration in agreement with this regional legislation (LESOTEX, 2001). Rural development changes are progressing faster than the rise of their understanding and awareness as we can see similar issues in other countries (Pinto-Correia, 2000; Tassinari et al., 2008; Wascher et al., 1999). The current unsuccessful planning policies and instruments need modifications and/or new alternatives, which are necessary to be developed and to be implemented. Also, the planning process is put forward for public debate to obtain alternative suggestions,

Fig. 4. Flowchart of rural second home siting modeling.

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11

J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

5

Table 1 A pair-wise comparison matrix for calculation criteria numerical weights. Pair-wise comparison 9 point continuous rating scale Less important intensity 1/9 Extremely

1/8 1/7 Very strongly

More important intensity 1/6 Strongly

1/5

1/4 1/3 Moderately

objections and views and for collaboration with other associations and individuals. Therefore, we apply the methodology descried in the following section, intended to illustrate the weighting flexibility of the OWA methodology. This methodology presents analytic forms of OWA operator weighting functions, rank-based weights and constant value of orness, irrespective of number of objectives aggregated. The proposed OWA operator weights display just a few discrepancies in terms of dispersion with weights derived by maximum entropy OWA method. Research methodology In order to identify the suitable locations for rural second homes in the case study area, we determined a substantial multidisciplinary evaluation process with multiple sets of criteria as shown in Fig. 4. They formed a hierarchical multi-criteria structure toward sustainable planning assessment. Evaluation criteria were determined by authors based on European planning policy (Council of the European Union, 2001) and regional planning law on Extremadura (LESOTEX, 2001) and the relevant literature review, which make the innovation of the evaluation criteria used. Although criteria weights are objectively based upon real data, the weights assignment in the process of MADM are considered partly subjective because it is dependent upon decisions made by the authors. To reach consensus criteria weighting, a field survey to local residents and a group discussion with a panel of experts were conducted for an analytical procedure, making them more objective. The household survey of local residents was targeted to get their preference/attitude for the criteria weighting. Basically, this survey is a group of questions to be completed by each interviewee on a sheet of paper. The respondents determined 9 points continuous rating scale using pair-wise comparison (PCM) (see Table 1). A total of 41 usable responses were obtained from an effective population of 54. Among them, 23 were second home owners. In the case of experts’ discussion, an expert panel including professors, regional policy makers, planners and local authorities that are one of decision-makers for regional projects was involved in the weighting process with local residents’ field survey results for this application. The OWA technique, a class of multi-criteria operators, was used for ranking criteria and addressing the uncertainty from their interactions (Yager, 1988). Accordingly, the aggregation of the criteria weights and attribute values in the OWA can yield suitability scores of the study areas and can represent the suitable areas solving the multiple criteria problem (Malczewski, 2004). The methodology presented here initially excluded unsuitable areas, which limit analysis to particular geographic areas. The methodology, therefore, resulted as the land evaluation based on the suitability indexes except the primary screening. Evaluation of site suitability criteria A sound rural second home siting process requires consideration of extensive criteria and evaluation steps to identify the best available locations and to eliminate subsequent impacts (i.e. debasement of visual attraction and recreational value and degradation of ecosystem) and adverse long term effects (i.e. substantial changes to land use, loss of traditional landscape and quality

1/2 Equally

1

2 3 Moderately

4 5 Strongly

6 7 Very strongly

8 9 Extremely

Table 2 Sub-criteria of exclusionary criteria. Exclusionary criteria Sub-criteria

Context of sub-criteria

Sensitive ecosystem

Areas environmentally protected by the European commission regulation for nature & biodiversity policy, NATURA 2000. Areas prohibited for constructing buildings, which can degrade natural environments or cultural areas by the local building ordinance legislation. Areas in springs and ground water wells with high groundwater pollution risk (Gemitzi et al., 2007). Areas with minimum distance from main and secondary stream to prevent water surface pollution followed by EU Water Framework Directive (WFD, Directive 2000/60/EC) obligations. Areas with dense vegetation formation using the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) based on the Landsat satellite images of the digital elevation model (DEM). Areas followed by legal limits for minimum distance from highways and railways.

Local building ordinance

Important aquifers

Surface water bodies

Specific vegetation and land use types

Highways and railways

deterioration of local environment). The evaluation criteria were classified into four main categories, namely, constraints (exclusionary criteria), tourism resource, environmental and socio-economic criteria. Especially, to assess residents’ attitude to find out the proper criteria weighting of rural second home planning, participants were interviewed to express their opinion and to rate their intention to participate in different levels of decision-making process. Residents’ participation can happen on different levels providing input for ecotourism planning and management and they partaking in decision-making on the management committee (Guevara, 1996). As shown in Tables 2–5, they briefly describe each sub-criterion and its detailed characteristics with the calculated weight. Eighteen criteria were involved in the computation process, distinguished in four main groups. The first group includes constraining criteria that limit the analysis to the particular geographic areas. The second group comprises criteria relevant to tourism resource parameters. The third group relates with criteria relevant to environmental parameters, whereas the fourth group includes criteria relevant to socio-economic parameters. Six constraining criteria were evaluated as shown in Table 2: (1) environmentally protected areas, sensitive ecosystem following European commission regulation for nature & biodiversity policy (NATURA 2000); (2) areas prohibited to construct residential buildings by the regional building ordinance; (3) important aquifers; (4) surface water bodies; (5) specific vegetation and land use types; (6) highways and railways. Four criteria relevant to the tourism resource parameters were analyzed as depicted in Table 3: (1) vegetation type; (2) proximity of surface water; (3) proximity of water bodies; (4) visibility from roads and railroads. Four criteria relevant to the environmental parameters were assessed as described in Table 4: (1) proximity of sensitive ecosystem; (2) land use and cover type; (3) slope of the land surface; (4) elevation. Four criteria relevant to socio-economic parameters were examined as explained in Table 5: (1) proximity to residential

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11

J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

6

Table 3 Sub-criteria of tourism resource characteristics of the case study area with the calculated factor weights. Tourism resource criteria

Socio-economic criteria

Sub-criteria

Context of sub-criteria

Vegetation type

Areas including an evaluation based on .57 the ecological uniqueness of the deforested vegetation and spatial spread of these natural formations based on the NDVI with the DEM. .25 Areas calculated using Euclidean distance functions, the radial distance from surface water resources, lakes and rivers with continuous water flows. .12 Areas calculated using Euclidean distance functions, the straight distance from water bodies, springs and wells. Areas aiming to the esthetic protection .06 using the radial and visible distances from site accessing points such as roads (highways and local roads) and railroads. max = 4.225, CI = 0.075, RI4 = 0.9 and CR = 0.083 < 0.1

Proximity of surface water

Proximity of water bodies

Visibility from roads and railroads

Calculated weights

Table 4 Sub-criteria of environmental characteristics of the case study area with the calculated factor weights. Environmental criteria Sub-criteria

Context of sub-criteria

Proximity of sensitive ecosystem

.56 Areas calculated using Euclidean distance functions, the radial distance from sensitive ecosystem according to the European commission regulation for nature & biodiversity policy (NATURA 2000). .25 Areas aiming economic development covering different land use and cover types (LESOTEX). .07 Areas showing environmental attributes’ derivation and landscape processes of land surface flow, expressed in degrees. Areas showing the basic parameter of .12 land surface and atmospheric process for environmental attributes’ derivation. max = 4.158, CI = 0.053, RI4 = 0.9 and CR = 0.059 < 0.1

Land use and cover type Slope of the land surface

Elevation

Table 5 Sub-criteria of socio-economic characteristics of the case study area with the calculated factor weights.

Calculated weights

areas; (2) proximity to urban areas; (3) site access; (4) population density. The hierarchical structure of spatial planning process consists of four levels: first step shows the main objective, a sound second home planning suitability; second step represents criteria which need to be excluded based on the first screening and to be evaluated, and to support the main objective; third step is sub-criteria of each criterion; final level demonstrates the spatial attributes of each sub-criterion. The process is focused on presenting the implementation of the OWA within the multi-criteria evaluation framework rather than fully accounting for all of the important criteria. Procedure of assigning weights and aggregating criteria According to the selected extensive criteria, the weights indicate a criterion’s importance relative to all other criteria and control how criteria compensate for each other in each criterion group based on the residents’ attitude and expert panel discussion. After standardizing all criteria to a common 0–255 scale using fuzzy membership

Sub-criteria

Context of sub-criteria

Proximity to residential areas

Areas calculated using Euclidean .13 distance functions, the radial distance from towns and villages representing a high concentration of human activities. .26 Areas calculated using Euclidean distance functions, the direct distance from urban areas based on land use and cover type. Areas calculated using Euclidean .56 distance functions, the direct distance from the sources of site access infrastructure such as highways, local roads and train railways. .05 Areas showing the influence zone around city, town and human settlement associated with economic distance based on the national statistical institute (INE: instituto nacional de estadística, 2011) of Spain. max = 4.247, CI = 0.082, RI4 = 0.9 and CR = 0.091 < 0.1

Proximity to urban areas

Site access

Population density

Calculated weights

functions, criteria weights were given to all criteria in each group. Starting with the AHP, we got the relative importance weight using the PCM, and obtained the grading values as examining and judging the current condition of the indicators under each criterion along with their participation. Then, the OWA weighting method was utilized for the suitability index calculations (Eastman, 2003; Gemitzi et al., 2007). First screening using exclusionary criteria of group 1 can represent the study area in two land categories: suitable (suitability index 1) and unsuitable (suitability index 0). The mathematical formation for area selection, using constraining criteria only, is in Eq. (1): SI =

l k=1

yk

(1)

where SI is overall suitability index value which is 0 or 1; yk is criterion score of constraint k; l is number of constraining criteria. As depicted in Fig. 5, six constraining criteria were evaluated in the case study area. The value of 0 colored in the dark green stands for the areas which are excluded from consideration, while the assigned value of 1 colored in the light green has a possibility for further assessment. The method, the OWA operator (Yager, 1988), is a technique for ranking criteria and addressing the uncertainty from its interaction and for aggregating multiple inputs that lie between max and min operators. This operator as the term ‘ordered’ signifies aims a nonlinear aggregation of objects considered, which is different from the existent multi-attribute aggregation methods (Hwang and Lin, 1986; von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986). The main reason for using this method in many different areas is its great flexibility to model a wide variety of aggregators, as its nature is defined by a weighting vector, and not by a single parameter (Fernandez-Salido and Murakami, 2003). By appropriately selecting the weighting vector, it is possible to model different kinds of relations among criteria aggregated. In the spatial implementation, OWA is defined with an i-th location (raster cell) and a set of ordered weighted w = w1 , w2 ,.., wn such that wj [0, 1] where 1, 2, . . ., n and

n

j=1

wj = 1

(2)

In each criterion group, weights were assigned according to how important each criterion was considered to be. Given the set of attribute values ai1 , ai2 ,.., ain at the ith location of a set of n criterion

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11

J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

7

Fig. 5. Resulted areas after conducting six constraining criteria assessment. The dark green colored areas indicate the exclusionary areas where have not the possibility for further evaluation. (For interpretation of the references to color in this legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

Table 6 OWA weights used to control the suggested criteria. Order weights Orness (2/3) Maximum entropy (2/3) Orness (3/4) Maximum entropy (3/4) Rank

.4000 .4210 .5208 .5260 1st

.3000 .2770 .2708 .2680 2nd

.2000 .1820 .1458 .1370 3rd

.1000 .1200 .0625 .0690 4th

maps were represented by raster. The mathematical equation for the assignment of the overall suitability index, applying both exclusionary and non-exclusionary criteria, is: SIi =

n 

wj xij ·

j=1

l 

yk

(3)

The benefits as using these weights over other weighting schemes can be mentioned in a couple of ways: firstly, the analytic forms of weighting functions can be efficiently utilized without solving complicated mathematical programs once the degree of orness is specified a priori by decision-makers; secondly, as combined with well-known OWA operator weights (max, min, and average), a desired value of orness as being independent of the number of objectives can be generated. Using the convex combinations of predetermined weighting functions, this can have the constant values of orness: finally, the proposed OWA operator weights with constant level of orness display just a few discrepancies in terms of dispersion with weights derived by maximum entropy OWA (MEOWA) method. Further, this statement applies to the weights generated from predetermined weighting vectors with constant values of orness.

k=1

where SIi is overall suitability index value; wj is weight of factor j xij is criterion score of factor j; yk is criterion score of constraint k; n is number of factors; l is number of constraining criteria. This aggregation technique multiplies factor scores by their factor weight and then sums the products to yield the suitability score as described by Eq. (3). Based on Eq. (3), we introduce the concept of orness and the definition of an orness measure that can establish how ‘orlike’ a certain operator is, using the values of its weighting function. Thus the measure can be interpreted as the mode of decision-making circumstances by conferring the semantic meant to the weights used in aggregation process (Fernandez-Salido and Murakami, 2003). The ‘orlike’ aggregation pursues to the maximum of the ordered objects. This concept perfectly coincides with the traditional decision-making theory in which max decision principle denotes the optimistic decision context, and min decision principle denotes the pessimistic decision context. In this research, we present analytic forms of OWA operator weighting functions that each of them has such properties as rank-based weights and constant value of orness, regardless of objectives’ number aggregated (see Table 6). Specifically, we propose the analytic forms of OWA weighting functions that can be positioned at 0.667 (2/3) and 0.75 (3/4) on the orness scale as described by Eqs. (4) and (5). wj =

2(n + 1 − j) n(n + 1)

(4)

wj =

1 n 1 n mm

(5)

Results and discussion Several recent approaches have been presented for rural buildings’ integration using the GIS and multi-criteria evaluation (De Vriesa et al., 2012; Jeong et al., 2012, 2013; Tassinari and Torreggiani, 2006). In this study, however, besides offering all the advantages of the above-mentioned techniques, an important contribution has been achieved through the application of the order weights, which offers rank-based weights and constant value of orness that is irrespective of number of objectives aggregated. Moreover, the distinction of the parameters was involved in the siting process into four groups, i.e., constraints, which were not included in the weighting process, tourism resource, environmental and socio-economic criteria. The procedure was repeated once for each group of factors with the data of residents’ attitude and expert panel, which results three intermediate suitability location maps. First, tourism resource criteria already excluded the constraints were calculated and then aggregated as shown in Fig. 6. The assigned order weights, orness and maximum entropy, were applied to each criterion based on Tables 3 and 6 in the order of vegetation type, proximity of surface water, proximity of water bodies and visibility from roads and railroads. Second, environmental criteria already excluded the constraints were weighted and then aggregated as shown in Fig. 7. The assigned order weights in Tables 4 and 6 were applied to each criterion in the order of proximity of sensitive ecosystem, land use and cover type, elevation and slope of the land surface. Third and last, socio-economic criteria already excluded the constraints were calculated and then aggregated as shown Fig. 8. The assigned order

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. Suitability maps from tourism resource criteria derived by OWA method based on the data of residents’ attitude and expert group discussion presenting in Tables 3 and 6: the intermediate result composite map using 2/3 orness and maximum entropy order weights.

Fig. 7. Suitability maps from environmental criteria derived by OWA method based on the data of the residents’ attitude and expert group discussion presenting in Tables 4 and 6: the intermediate result composite map using 2/3 orness and maximum entropy order weights.

weights were applied to each criterion using Tables 5 and 6 in the order of site access, proximity to urban areas, proximity to residential areas and population density. Here, based on the previous field survey and expert group discussion, we found out participants’ attitude to the specific criteria assignment as summing in Tables 3–5: they gave more important weight to tourism resource among

criteria; vegetation type in tourism resource, sensitive ecosystem in environmental and site access in socio-economic criteria. Together with the previous intermediate results, the final suitability map was produced by aggregating the same procedure as shown in Fig. 9. The constraints always remained as Boolean masks and were not involved in any weight assignment process.

Fig. 8. Suitability maps from socio-economic criteria derived by OWA method based on the data of the residents’ attitude and expert group discussion presenting in Tables 5 and 6: the intermediate result composite map using 2/3 orness and maximum entropy order weights.

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

9

Fig. 9. Possible composite suitability map and each highest suitability map presenting each municipalities with OWA orness 2/3 and 3/4 derived by three criteria groups based on the data of the residents’ attitude and expert group discussion.

The intermediate suitability maps were used as the weighting functions of 0.667 (2/3) and 0.750 (3/4) on the orness scale and maximum entropy. The four different order weights were assigned as the same way of the intermediate results: 1st rank is 0.5000, 2nd rank is 0.3330 and 3rd rank is 0.1670 (2/3 orness weights); 1st rank is 0.0514, 2nd rank is 0.3050 and 3rd rank is 0.1810 (2/3 maximum entropy weights); 1st rank is 0.6110, 2nd rank is 0.2780 and 3rd rank is 0.1110 (3/4 orness weights); 1st rank is 0.6160, 2nd rank is 0.2680 and 3rd rank is 0.1160 (3/4 maximum entropy weights). The assigned order weights show a low level of risk. Aggregation is skewed toward the criterion with the highest suitability score. The possible clustering scenarios were illustrated as using three major criteria, which were combined with 12 sub-criteria and 6 constraint criteria as shown in Fig. 9. The methods of OWA were selected as the proper way to dissolve the multiple criteria problem of the rural second home siting. For instance, alternative (a) applied 2/3 orness and alternative (b) applied 3/4 orness in the order of tourism resource, environmental and socio-economic criteria. It shows the categorized percentage areas: the best area in alternative (a) is 7.00% with high membership values of 200 to 255 from total area; alternative (b) assigns the most suitable areas of 7.99% with high membership values of 200 to 255 from the total area. In the context of municipalities, the results show how much percentage area was allocated to each area as shown in Fig. 9. Among the nineteen municipalities in La Vera County, Villanueva de la Vera has the highest suitability area rate for both alternatives’ assessment. The results of the aggregation process were interesting to point out that different spatial patterns were generated by the weights assigned to the tourism resource, environmental and socioeconomic factors and excluded 6 constraints. They indicated that the presented methodology was able to reveal the most suitable areas for new rural second home into its landscape toward sustainable tourism development, as well as to give an initial ranking of the suitable areas. It is thus quite simple to explore different siting scenarios, as far as an ecotourism approach will be desired, or a more sensitive environmental alternative will be aimed. According to the estimated required study area of 888 square kilometer, suitable

sites must be at least the study area size using a post aggregation constraint if only one rural second home is to serve the entire study area. This needs to be selected in a fixed quantity of top-ranked locations, which belongs to the fifth suitability category (200 to 255), equivalent to the required area. With respect to the field survey, the interviewers showed the final suitability map based on their selection to the respondents and asked how affected to their attitude about the determination of suitable locations. 36 from 41 usable responses answered their changed attitude to the integration after the survey. It should be mentioned herein that the presented work not offers a final decision for locating rural second homes but a decisionmaking process based on a siting methodology approach. The selection of criteria was limited to minimal data that is currently available from different sources, thus we recognize that some key factors have been omitted which could potentially yield different decision alternatives. However, the siting process, with the proposed methodology outlined in the present study, could be very useful for multiple participants, especially residents’ attitude, related siting of human activities related to rural second home planning. Conclusions In this study, the AHP/OWA approach was used in combination with GIS capabilities. The research findings indicate the effectiveness of this method for determining the suitable locations to integrate rural second homes based on the understanding of the limitations the existing regional in the La Vera County, Spain. Six exclusionary criteria and twelve non-exclusionary criteria were examined in the computation process, categorized in four groups based on a field survey and an expert group discussion. From the survey, the respondents showed their preference of criteria and sub-criteria as follows: the tourism resource criterion was the most important one; vegetation type, sensitive ecosystem and site access were the most important sub-criterion in tourism resource, environmental and socio-economic criteria respectively. Three

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

intermediate suitability maps (tourism resource, environmental and socio-economic) were produced along with the previous results and then were combined to create the composite suitability map. The AHP was used and offered a quite objective weights assignment process. Furthermore, the use of the second set of weights, order weights, provided great flexibility in the aggregation procedure, offering as rank-based weights and constant value of orness and maximum entropy OWA that is irrespective of number of objectives aggregated. The main focus of these preliminary results is the envisioned implementation of this flexible methodology rather than fully accounting for all possible evaluation criteria and parameters. Likewise, the results from this study demonstrate that the aim of the approach is not to find a single “optimal” solution, but to show other strengths associated with the weighting flexibility of the OWA approach. Other strengths of this approach include the ability to integrate heterogeneous datasets such as quantitative and qualitative criteria using expert knowledge and field surveys. Their flexibility is to weight specific criteria for different study areas or different problems under consideration, to implement a single or a group decision-making. Also, the flexibility is to change the importance level of criteria, and has the freedom to develop various modeling scenarios for acceptable levels of decision risks. Particularly, in this study, it showed that 87.8% local residents had changed their attitude of rural second home selection after checked the final suitability map with their own weighting process. Since new rural second home integration depends on regional planning policy and public opinion forces in conjunction with scientific analysis, we posit that this methodology holds significant potential to support the complexity of decision-making in real world applications. Therefore, the methodology and analyses presented here can be adapted to other regions requiring more efficient and integrated planning for the management of sustainable development for ecotourism sites. The assessment results also provide a new empirical approach to evaluating the existing infrastructure and environment and to predicting their future improvements. Acknowledgements This research is supported by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (BIA 2007-61166) and Captación y Formación de Recursos Humanos de Excelencia en Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación (Universidad de Extremadura, Spain). The authors are grateful to both institutions that made this work possible. References Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., (PhD Thesis) 1996. Development and Evaluation of GIS-based Models for Planning and Management of Coastal Aquaculture: A Case Study in Sinaloa, México. Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. Allen, L.R., Hafer, H.R., Long, P.T., Perdue, R.R., 1993. Rural residents’ attitudes toward recreation and tourism development. J. Travel Res. 31 (4), 27–33. Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C., Vogt, C.A., 2005. Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Ann. Tourism Res. 32 (4), 1056–1076. Bell, S., 1995. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. E&FN Spon, London. Blaschke, T., 2006. The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, 198–226. Böhme, K., Schön, P., 2006. From Leipzig to Leipzig: territorial research delivers evidence for the new territorial agenda of the European Union. disP 165 (2), 61–70. Byrd, E.T., Cardenas, D.A., Dregalla, S.E., 2009. Differences in stakeholder attitudes of tourism development and the natural environment. e-Rev. Tourism Res. 7 (2), 39–51. Council of the European Union, 2001. Council resolution on architectural quality in urban and rural environments (2001/C 73/04). Official Journal of the European Communities, n. C73, 6/3/2001. De Vriesa, S., de Grootb, M., Boersb, J., 2012. Eyesores in sight: quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 118–127. Drumm, A., 1998. New approaches to community-based ecotourism management. Learning from Ecuador. In: Lindberg, K., Wood, M.E., Hawkins, D.E. (Eds.),

Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers. The Ecotourism Society, Vermont, pp. 197–213. Dwyer, J.F., Childs, G.M., 2004. Movement of people across the landscape; a blurring of distinctions between area, interests, and issues affecting natural resource management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69, 153–164. Eagles, P.F.J., McCool, S.F., Haynes, C.F., 2002. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Eastman, J.R., 2003. IDRISI Kilimanjaro: Guide to GIS and Image Processing. Clark Laboratories, Clark University, Worcester. Eastman, J.R., Kyem, P.A.K., Toledano, J., Jin, W., 1993. GIS and Decision Making, United Nations Institute for Training and Research. Explorations in Geographic Information Systems Technology. The Clarks Labs for Cartographic Technology and Geographic Analysis, Clark University, Worcester. Fernandez-Salido, J.M., Murakami, S., 2003. Extending Yager’s orness concept for the OWA aggregators to other mean operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 139, 515– 542. Filev, D., Yager, R.R., 1998. On the issue of obtaining OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 94, 157–169. Fuller, R., Majlender, P., 2001. An analytic approach for obtaining maximal entropy OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 124, 53–57. Gallent, N., Tewdwr-Jones, M., 2000. Rural Second Homes in Europe – Examining Housing Supply and Planning Control. Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire, UK. Gemitzi, A., Petalas, C., Tsihrintzis, V., Pisinaras, V., 2007. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: a combination of GIS, fuzzy logic and decision making techniques. Environ. Geol. 51, 797–811. Guevara, J.R.Q., 1996. Learning through participatory action research for community ecotourism planning. Convergence 29 (3), 24–40. Hanley, N., Ready, R., Colombo, S., Watson, F., Stewart, M., Bergmann, E.A., 2009. The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (3), 1404–1412. Henning, S.A., 1990. Measuring Leadership Perceptions of Recreation and 1990 Tourism Development in Rural Coastal Zones. Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA. Hermann, S., Osinski, E., 1999. Planning sustainable land use in rural areas at different spatial levels using GIS and modelling tools. Landsc. Urban Plan. 46, 93–101. Hwang, C.L., Lin, M.J., 1986. Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical System. Springer-Verlag, New York. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.L., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York. INE, 2011. Instituto nacional de estadística. National Statistical Institute http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=%2Ft20%2Fe260%2Fa2011 %2F&file=pcaxis&N=&L=0 (accessed 09.08.12). Jaraíz, F.J., Mora, J., Gutiérrez, J.A., Jeong, J.S., 2013. Comparison of regional planning strategies: countywide general plans in USA and territorial plans in Spain. Land Use Pol. 30 (1), 758–773. Jeong, J.S., García-Moruno, L., Hernández-Blanco, J., 2012. Integrating buildings into a rural landscape using a multi-criteria spatial decision analysis in GIS-enabled web environment. Biosyst. Eng. 112 (2), 82–92. Jeong, J.S., García-Moruno, L., Hernández-Blanco, J., 2013. A site planning approach for rural buildings into a landscape using a spatial multi-criteria decision analysis methodology. Land Use Pol. 32, 108–118. Kaltenborn, B.P., Bjerke, T., 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59 (1), 1–11. Kapetsky, J.M., Nath, S.S., 1997. A strategic assessment of the potential for freshwater fish farming in Latin America. COPESCAL Technical Paper, Rome, no. 10. Lai, P.H., Nepal, S.K., 2006. Local perspectives of ecotourism development in Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Manage. 27 (6), 1117–1129. LEADER and PRODER, 2011. Las políticas europeas LEADER y PRODER en ˜ el desarrollo rural en Extremadura: las políticas euroExtremadura (Espana): peas y el impacto de los programas LEADER y PRODER (European policies LEADER and PRODER in Extremadura (Spain): the rural development in Extremadura: European policies and the impact of LEADER and PRODER pro˜ Mérida, Spain. gram. Editorial Académica Espanola, LESOTEX, 2001. Guía práctica de aplicación de la Ley 15/2001 del suelo y ordenación territorial de Extremadura (Practical guide of the Law 15/2001 application of the soil and land in Extremadura). http://sitex.juntaex.es/sias/ Documentacion/guia practica.pdf (accessed 26.06.12). Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Malczewski, J., 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Prog. Plan. 67, 3–65. NATURA 2000, 2000. European commission environment for nature & biodiversity policy, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index en.htm (accessed 29.06.12). Pavlikakis, G.E., Tsihrintzis, V.A., 2003. A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management. J. Environ. Manage. 68, 193–205. Pinto-Correia, T., 2000. Future development in Portuguese rural areas: how to manage agricultural support for landscape conservation? Landsc. Urban Plan. 50, 95–106. Pitkänen, K., Vepsäläinen, M., 2008. Foreseeing the future of second home tourism. Case Finnish media and policy discourse. Scand. J. Hosp. Tourism 8, 1–24. Ross, S., Wall, G., 1999a. Evaluating ecotourism: the case of North Sulawasi, Indonesia. Tourism Manage. 20 (6), 673–682.

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012

G Model JLUP-1615; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.S. Jeong et al. / Land Use Policy xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Ross, S., Wall, G., 1999b. Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Manage. 20 (1), 123–132. Roy, B., 1996. Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Ryan, C., 2002. Equity, management, power sharing and sustainability – issues of the ‘new tourism’. Tourism Manage. 23 (1), 17–26. Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15, 234–281. Tandy, C., 1979. Industria y paisaje (Industry and Landscape). Ed Leonard Hill Books, Madrid, Spain. Tassinari, P., Carfagna, E., Benni, S., Torreggiani, D., 2008. Wide-area spatial analysis: a first methodological contribution for the study of changes in the rural built environment. Biosyst. Eng. 100, 435–447. Tassinari, P., Torreggiani, D., 2006. Location planning: a methodological approach for agro-industrial buildings in rural territory. Trans. ASAE 49 (2), 505–516. Terluin, I.J., 2003. Differences in economic development in rural regional of advanced countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories. J. Rural Stud. 19, 327–344. Teye, V., Sirakaya, E., Sönmez, S., 2002. Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Ann. Tourism Res. 29 (3), 668–688. Tewdwr-Jones, M., Gallent, N., Mace, A., 2002. Second Homes and Holiday Homes and the Land Use Planning System. Welsh Assembly, Cardiff. Van der Wulp, N.Y., 2009. Verrommeling van het landschap, de rol van storende elementen (Landscape clutter: The role of disturbing elements). Landscape 26, 132–144.

11

Vepsäläinen, M., Pitkänen, K., 2010. Second home countryside. Representations of the rural in Finnish popular discourses. J. Rural Stud. 26, 194–204. Vincent, V.C., Thompson, W., 2002. Assessing community support and sustainability for ecotourism development. J. Travel Res. 41 (2), 153–160. Wascher, D., Múgica, M., Gulinck, H., 1999. Establishing targets to assess agricultural impacts on European landscapes. In: Brouwer, F., Crabtree, B. (Eds.), Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy. Wageningen, pp. 73–87. Wall, G., 1996. Ecotourism: change, impacts and opportunities. In: Malek- Zadeh, E. (Ed.), The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impact. Bulletin Series 99. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, pp. 206– 216. Weaver, D.B., 2001. Ecotourism. Milton. John Wiley & Sons, Qld, Australia. Weaver, D.B., Lawton, L.J., 2007. Twenty years on: the state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Manage. 28 (5), 1168–1179. von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W., 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. WFD, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= CELEX32000L0060:EN:N OT (accessed 18.09.12). Yager, R.R., 1988. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 8, 183–190. Zhang, H., Lei, S.L., 2012. A structural model of residents’ intention to participate in ecotourism: the case of a wetland community. Tourism Manage. 33, 916–925.

Please cite this article in press as: Jeong, J.S., et al., An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012