IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v43y2016i4p640-662.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecotourism planning in Lantau Island using multiple criteria decision analysis with geographic information system

Author

Listed:
  • Frankie KK Wong
  • Tung Fung

Abstract

Hong Kong has great potential to develop ecotourism as an alternate tourism experience. In order to provide visitors with satisfaction and conserve and sustain natural resources, a comprehensive zoning plan is indispensable to identify areas for various purposes and activities. Geographic information system combined with multi-criteria decision analysis procedure can be used to formulate these plans in an objective and efficient way. This study used this approach to objectively identify potential sites for various ecotourism activities and tourism development potential in Lantau Island, Hong Kong SAR. The results were then used to evaluate the Lantau development plan proposed by the government. By integrating with quality conservation information, the island was further classified into four zones namely sanctuary, nature conservation, outdoor recreation, and tourism development through multi-objective analysis. The results showed that proposed sites for various recreational activities are of medium to high suitability, while other potential sites with high suitability were revealed. In addition, sites with conflicting objectives and those required further protection were also identified. The results can be used as an unbiased guide for Lantau development. This study also demonstrated ecotourism planning and development can be practically supported by geo-information tools combined with proper multi-criteria decision analysis procedures based on which better decision can be made.

Suggested Citation

  • Frankie KK Wong & Tung Fung, 2016. "Ecotourism planning in Lantau Island using multiple criteria decision analysis with geographic information system," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(4), pages 640-662, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:43:y:2016:i:4:p:640-662
    DOI: 10.1177/0265813515618583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265813515618583
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0265813515618583?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. Stewart, Theodor J. & French, Simon & Rios, Jesus, 2013. "Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—Review and extension," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 679-688.
    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. Al-Ebbini, Lina & Oztekin, Asil & Chen, Yao, 2016. "FLAS: Fuzzy lung allocation system for US-based transplantations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 1051-1065.
    2. Böyükaslan, Adem & Ecer, Fatih, 2021. "Determination of drivers for investing in cryptocurrencies through a fuzzy full consistency method-Bonferroni (FUCOM-F’B) framework," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Arbrie Jashari & Victor Tiberius & Marina Dabić, 2022. "Tracing the progress of scenario research in business and management," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), June.
    4. Durbach, Ian N., 2014. "Outranking under uncertainty using scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 98-108.
    5. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch & Dominik Gawroński, 2024. "How can one improve SAW and max-min multi-criteria rankings based on uncertain decision rules?," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(1), pages 131-148.
    6. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    7. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    8. Darko Božanić & Dragan Pamucar & Ibrahim Badi & Duško Tešić, 2023. "A decision support tool for oil spill response strategy selection: application of LBWA and Z MABAC methods," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(1), pages 24-58, March.
    9. Poli, Giuliano & Cuntò, Stefano & Muccio, Eugenio & Cerreta, Maria, 2024. "A spatial decision support system for multi-dimensional sustainability assessment of river basin districts: the case study of Sarno river, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    10. Dias, Luis C. & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Dantas, Guilherme & de Castro, Nivalde & Zamboni, Lucca, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach to sort and rank policies based on Delphi qualitative assessments and ELECTRE TRI: The case of smart grids in Brazil," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 100-111.
    11. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    12. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    13. Philip Mayer & Christopher Stephen Ball & Stefan Vögele & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs & Dirk Rübbelke, 2019. "Analyzing Brexit: Implications for the Electricity System of Great Britain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-27, August.
    14. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2020. "A New Application for the Goal Programming—The Target Decision Rule for Uncertain Problems," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
    15. Simon French & Nikolaos Argyris & Stephanie M. Haywood & Matthew C. Hort & Jim Q. Smith, 2019. "Communicating Geographical Risks in Crisis Management: The Need for Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 9-16, January.
    16. Lehr, Thomas & Lorenz, Ullrich & Willert, Markus & Rohrbeck, René, 2017. "Scenario-based strategizing: Advancing the applicability in strategists' teams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 214-224.
    17. Thomas P. Bostick & Thomas H. Holzer & Shahryar Sarkani, 2017. "Enabling Stakeholder Involvement in Coastal Disaster Resilience Planning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1181-1200, June.
    18. Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Mohammad Aslam Uqaili & Khanji Harijan & Mohd Wazir Mustafa & Md. Mizanur Rahman & M. Waris Ali Khan, 2018. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electricity Generation Scenarios for Sustainable Energy Planning in Pakistan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-33, March.
    19. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    20. Tobias Witt & Matthias Klumpp, 2021. "Multi-Period Multi-Criteria Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Renewable Energy Transition Case from Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.

    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:sae:envirb:v:43:y:2016:i:4:p:640-662. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.