IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/mgrsod/v26y2022i1p42-51n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planning for Sustainable Development of Tourism in the Tatra National Park Buffer Zone Using the MCDA Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Adamczyk Joanna
  • Wałdykowski Piotr

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

This study aims to develop practice guidelines for the preparation of local regulations promoting sustainable tourism planning for the area located at the entrance to the Tatra National Park, Poland. Included in the study was a set of tourism activities put forward by the local community. These activities were divided into two priorities: sustainable tourist activities (hiking and walking, cycling, horseback riding) and investments that would have an environmental impact (downhill skiing, recreational infrastructure, commerce, catering). The analysis criteria covered the tourist attractiveness of the area and its suitability for a given activity (benefit), as well as requirements concerning the protection of nature, topographical relief, landscape, and traditional land use (cost). These criteria were evaluated using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and summarized using the Weighted Linear Combination (WLC). The results showed the high attractiveness of the area for both priorities. However, due to the area's unique nature, investments having an environmental impact must be limited to the vicinity of the existing built-up areas. The use of MCDA supports decision-making at the local scale, significantly enhances the transparency of the results, and facilitates communication with local communities. The comparison with the current local law provisions showed the shortcomings of the methods used to date when preparing planning instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Adamczyk Joanna & Wałdykowski Piotr, 2022. "Planning for Sustainable Development of Tourism in the Tatra National Park Buffer Zone Using the MCDA Approach," Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development, Sciendo, vol. 26(1), pages 42-51, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:mgrsod:v:26:y:2022:i:1:p:42-51:n:5
    DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2020-0067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2020-0067
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/mgrsd-2020-0067?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Weber & Franz Eisenführ & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1988. "The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 431-445, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Craig R. Fox & Robert T. Clemen, 2005. "Subjective Probability Assessment in Decision Analysis: Partition Dependence and Bias Toward the Ignorance Prior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1417-1432, September.
    2. Humphrey, Steven J., 2000. "The common consequence effect: testing a unified explanation of recent mixed evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 239-262, March.
    3. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2015. "Violations of first-order stochastic dominance as salience effects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 42-46.
    4. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 890-898.
    5. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    6. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    7. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1993. "Testing for Juxtaposition and Event-Splitting Effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 235-254, June.
    8. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    9. Montibeller, Gilberto & Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan & Iglesias, Aline, 2009. "Structuring resource allocation decisions: A framework for building multi-criteria portfolio models with area-grouped options," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 846-856, December.
    10. Harry Otway & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1992. "Expert Judgment in Risk Analysis and Management: Process, Context, and Pitfalls," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 83-93, March.
    11. Mika Marttunen & Jyri Mustajoki, 2018. "Use of Analyst-Generated Stakeholder Preference Profiles in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis — Experiences from an Urban Planning Case," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-29, September.
    12. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    13. Steven J. Humphrey & Luke Lindsay & Chris Starmer, 2017. "Consumption experience, choice experience and the endowment effect," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(2), pages 109-120, December.
    14. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    15. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    16. Henrik Sattler, 2006. "Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(54), pages 154-176, January.
    17. Francesco Galioto & Chiara Paffarini & Massimo Chiorri & Biancamaria Torquati & Lucio Cecchini, 2017. "Economic, Environmental, and Animal Welfare Performance on Livestock Farms: Conceptual Model and Application to Some Case Studies in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-22, September.
    18. A Morton & B Fasolo, 2009. "Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 268-275, February.
    19. Sarah K. Jacobi & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2007. "Quantifying and Mitigating the Splitting Bias and Other Value Tree-Induced Weighting Biases," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 194-210, December.
    20. Doyle, J. R. & Arthurs, A. J. & Green, R. H. & McAulay, L. & Pitt, M. R. & Bottomley, P. A. & Evans, W., 1996. "The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of the judged as judge: Analyses of the UK 1992 research assessment exercise data for business and management studies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 13-28, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:mgrsod:v:26:y:2022:i:1:p:42-51:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.