A GIS-MCDA-Based Analysis for Spatial Ecotourism Suitability Assessment in Saudi Arabia’s Hail Province

Abstract

Ecotourism was developed to combine culture, education, and tourism, but it has now evolved into a fundamental idea for global ecological sustainability. Ecotourism has the potential to help protect natural assets while also fostering beneficial synergies among tourism sector agents, visitors, and local residents. Low-density communities gain from rising interest in low-impact tourist products that assist the local economy. Based on this approach, the current research aims to assess the potential of existing natural and rural characteristics in the Hail area, situated in the center of Saudi Arabia, to underpin the development of sustainable tourist goods. In the research, natural ecotourism locations in Saudi Arabia’s Hail province were evaluated for their spatial suitability. The methodology of the research included a number of steps and procedures, beginning with the creation of a geographic database on the area’s natural resources for tourists. After extracting data from various sources and determining the criteria for the spatial suitability of natural tourist sites, which are represented in a set of natural and human criteria that directly affect the success of any tourist site based on the standards of the Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage, the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs and Housing, and standards derived from literary references, a total of 27 highly suitable sites were identified. Based on GIS (Geographic Information System)-based multicriteria decision analysis (GIS-MCDA) methodology, nine criteria were identified and represented in the form of layers, which were merged with each other through the overlay mechanism, after assigning a weight to each criterion based on its importance, to create a map identifying relevant natural environment tourist locations in the research region. The locate region for ecotourism, which covers 24501.225 km2, produced by the suitability modeler tool within ArcGIS Pro software and defined by the presence of ecotourism sites that fulfill the needs and standards of environmental tourism sites according to four degrees of suitability (high, moderate, marginal, and low). From a total of 64 sites, 27 exhibit a high suitability for ecotourism, accounting for 42.18% of all sites. While the number of sites with a moderate suitability rating reached 37 sites, representing 57.81% of all sites.

Keywords

• Ecotourism
• Suitability Map
• Geographic Information System
• GIS-MCDA
• Hail
• Saudi Arabia

References

1. Abdullah, N. W. (1996). Geological and Geomorphological: Saudi Arabia: Forms of the Earth’s Surface. Research in the Natural Geography of Saudi Arabia. King Fahd National Library.
2. Ahmad, A. A., Hama, A. R., & Alawn, I. A. (2022). Ecotourist and Picnic Area Assessment Using AHP Analytical Tools in Sulaimani– Tourism Region, Iraq. Engineering and Technology Journal, 40(11), 1560-1572.
3. Al-Balawi, A. B., & Ouerghi, S. A.-H. (2022). Assessment of spatial suitability of ecotourism sites in Al-Ahsa governorate, Saudi Arabia, by using GIS. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(1), 64-87. doi:10.26389/AJSRP.L180921
4. Atici, K. B., Simsek, A. B., Ulucan, A., & Tosun, M. U. (2015). A GIS-based Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis approach for wind power plant site selection. Utilities Policy, 37, 86–96. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2015.06.001
5. Bakirman, T., & Gumusay, M. U. (2020). A novel GIS-MCDA-based spatial habitat suitability model for Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 192(4), 231. doi:10.1007/s10661-020-8198-1
6. Baniya, N. (2008). Land Suitability Evaluation Using GIS for Vegetable Crops in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. PhD Thesis, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin.
7. Bishop, I. D., & Hulse, D. W. (1994). Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 30(1-2), 59–70. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)90067-1
8. Bojórquez-Tapia, L. A., Diaz-Mondragón, S., & Ezcurra, E. (2001). GIS-based approach for participatory decision making and land suitability assessment. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(2), 129–151. doi:10.1080/13658810010005534

9. Bottero, M., D’Alpaos, C., & Oppio, A. (2018). Multicriteria Evaluation of Urban Regeneration Processes: An Application of PROMETHEE Method in Northern Italy. Advances in Operations Research, 9276075. doi:10.1155/2018/9276075
10. Bunruamkaew, K., & Murayam, Y. (2011). Site Suitability Evaluation for Ecotourism Using GIS & AHP: A Case Study of Surat Thani Province, Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 269–278. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.07.024
11. Burkart, K., Meier, F., Schneider, A., Breitner, S., Canário, P., Alcoforado, M. J., Scherer, D., & Endlicher, W. (2016). Modification of Heat-Related Mortality in an Elderly Urban Population by Vegetation (Urban Green) and Proximity to Water (Urban Blue): Evidence from Lisbon, Portugal. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(7), 927–934. doi:10.1289/ehp.1409529
12. Carter, B., & Rinner, C. (2014). Locally weighted linear combination in a vector geographic information system. Journal of Geographical Systems, 16(3), 343–361. doi:10.1007/s10109-013-0194-3
13. Çetinkaya, C., Kabak, M., Erbaş, M., & Özceylan, E. (2018). Evaluation of ecotourism sites: a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis. Kybernetes, 47(8), 1664-1686. doi:10.1108/K-10-2017-0392
14. Chakrabarty, A. (2011). Ecotourism Development and Security Restructuring: A GI Based Planning for Peaceful Dissuasion of Anarchism in Forest Provinces of India. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 108–115. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.07.006
15. Chen, Y., Yu, J., & Khan, S. (2010). Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(12), 1582–1591. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.06.001
16. Deribew, K. T., Mihretu, Y., Abreha, G., & Gemeda, D. O. (2022). Spatial analysis of potential ecological sites in the northeastern parts of Ethiopia using multi-criteria decision-making models. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 6(3), 961–991. doi:10.1007/s41685-022-00248-5
17. Doljak, D., Stanojević, G., & Miljanović, D. (2021). A GIS-MCDA based assessment for siting wind farms and estimation of the technical generation potential for wind power in Serbia. International Journal of Green Energy, 18(4), 363–380. doi:10.1080/15435075.2020.1865363
18. Domazetović, F., Šiljeg, A., Lončar, N., & Marić, I. (2019). GIS automated multicriteria analysis (GAMA) method for susceptibility modelling. MethodsX, 6, 2553–2561. doi:10.1016/j.mex.2019.10.031
19. Drobne, S., & Lisec, A. (2009). Multi-attribute Decision Analysis in GIS: Weighted Linear Combination and Ordered Weighted Averaging. Informatica, 33(4), 459-474.
20. Eastman, J. R. (1999). Multi-criteria evaluation and GIS. In: P. A. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, & D. W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems (pp. 493–502), John Wiley & Sons, New York.
21. El-Harami, J. (2014, December 9-11). The Diversity of Ecology and Nature Reserves as an Ecotourism Attraction in Jordan. In: M.A. Othuman Mydin & A. Marzuki (Eds.), 4th International Conference on Tourism Research (4ICTR), SHS Web of Conferences, (vol. 12, 01056), Kola Kinabalu, Malaysia. doi:10.1051/shsconf/20141201056
22. Fang, Q., Tong, Z., Qiao, M., & Ren, L. (2017). The Evaluation System of Online P2P Lending Platforms Based on AHP -- in the Perspective of Lenders. In: The Sixteenth Wuhan International Conference on E-Business－Social Network and Commerce (pp. 507-514).
23. Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Lukić, D., & Marković, S. (2016). GIS-Fuzzy DEMATEL MCDA model for the evaluation of the sites for ecotourism development: A case study of “Dunavski ključ” region, Serbia. Land Use Policy, 58, 348–365. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.030
24. Gourabi, B. R., & Rad, T. G. (2013). The analysis of ecotourism potential in Boujagh wetland with AHP method. Life Science Journal, 10(2s), 251–258.
25. Goyal, P., Kumar, D., & Kumar, V. (2020). Application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the area of sustainability: a literature review. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 12(3), 512-545. doi:10.13033/ijahp.v12i3.720
26. Greene, R., Devillers, R., Luther, J. E., & Eddy, B. G. (2011). GIS-Based Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis. Geography Compass, 5(6), 412–432. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00431.x
27. Islam, N., Sarkar, B., Basak, A., Das, P., Paul, I., Debnath, M., & Roy, R. (2022). A novel GIS-based MCDM approach to identify the potential eco-tourism sites in the Eastern Dooars region (Himalayan foothill) of West Bengal, India. Geocarto International, 37(26), 13145-13175. doi:10.1080/10106049.2022.2076917
28. Khalili, N. R., & Duecker, S. (2013). Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in design of sustainable environmental management system framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 188–198. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.044
29. Kiker, G. A., Bridges, T. S., Varghese, A., Seager, T. P., & Linkov, I. (2005). Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(2), 95–108. doi:10.1897/IEAM_2004a-015.1
30. Laskar, A. (2003). Integrating GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques for Land Resource Planning. MSc Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede.
31. Mahdavi, A., & Niknejad, M. (2014). Site suitability evaluation for ecotourism using MCDM methods and GIS: case study - Lorestan province, Iran. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, 4(6), 425–437.
32. Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
33. Malczewski, J. (2006). GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(7), 703–726. doi:10.1080/13658810600661508
34. Malczewski, J. (2011). Local weighted linear combination. Transactions in GIS, 15(4), 439–455. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2011.01275.x
35. Malczewski, J., & Rinner, C. (2015). Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74757-4
36. Mansour, S., Al-Awhadi, T., & Al-Hatrushi, S. (2020). Geospatial based multi-criteria analysis for ecotourism land suitability using GIS & AHP: a case study of Masirah Island, Oman. Journal of Ecotourism, 19(2), 148–167. doi:10.1080/14724049.2019.1663202
37. Matić, B., Jovanović, S., Das, D. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Stević, Ž., Sremac, S., & Marinković, M. (2019). A New Hybrid MCDM Model: Sustainable Supplier Selection in a Construction Company. Symmetry, 11(3), 353. doi:10.3390/sym11030353
38. Mendadhala, R. G. (2018). Automating Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) of housing development sites in Richardson, TX using ArcGIS Pro SDK for .Net - An accessibility level perspective. MSc Thesis, The University of Texas at Dallas.
39. Mentzafou, A., Blagojević, M., & Dimitriou, E. (2021). A GIS-MCDA-Based Suitability Analysis for Meeting Targets 6.3 and 6.5 of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 13(8), 4153. doi:10.3390/su13084153
40. Modica, G., Laudari, L., Barreca, F., & Fichera, C. R. (2014). A GIS-MCDA Based Model for the Suitability Evaluation of Traditional Grape Varieties: The Case-Study of ‘Mantonico' Grape (Calabria, Italy). International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS), 5(3), 1–16.
41. Nahuelhual, L., Carmona, A., Lozada, P., Jaramillo, A., & Aguayo, M. (2013). Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: An application at the local level in Southern Chile. Applied Geography, 40, 71–82. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.004
42. Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. doi:10.3390/sym10090393
43. Pereira, J. M. C., & Duckstein, L. (1993). A multiple criteria decision-making approach to GIS-based land suitability evaluation. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 7(5), 407–424. doi:10.1080/02693799308901971
44. Piran, H., Maleknia, R., Akbari, H., Soosani, J., & Karami O. (2013). Site selection for local forest park using analytic hierarchy process and geographic information system (case study: Badreh County). International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 6(7), 930–935.
45. Primavera, J. H., Friess, D. A., Van Lavieren, H., & Lee, S. Y. (2019). The Mangrove Ecosystem. In: C. Sheppard (Eds.), World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation (Second Edition), (pp. 1-34). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00001-2
46. Rinner, C. (2007). A geographic visualization approach to multi-criteria evaluation of urban quality of life. International International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(8), 907–919. doi:10.1080/13658810701349060
47. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
48. Saaty, T. L. (2001). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. RWS Publications.
49. Saaty, T. L. (2002). How to make and justify a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Part 1. Examples and Applications System Research and Information Technologies, 2002(1), 95-108.
50. Saaty, T. L. (2006). The Analytic Network Process. In: T. L. Saaty, & L. G. Vargas (Eds.), Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks (pp. 1-26). Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-33987-6_1
51. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. (2012). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6
52. Sahani, N. (2019). Assessment of ecotourism potentiality in GHNPCA, Himachal Pradesh, India, using remote sensing, GIS and MCDA techniques. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 3(2), 623–646. doi:10.1007/s41685-019-00116-9
53. Sahani, N. (2020). Application of analytical hierarchy process and GIS for ecotourism potentiality mapping in Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(7), 6187–6211. doi:10.1007/s10668-019-00470-w
54. Salabun, W., Ziemba, P., & Wątróbski, J. (2016, June 15-17). The Rank Reversals Paradox in Management Decisions: The Comparison of the AHP and COMET Methods In: I. Czarnowski, A. M. Caballero, R. J. Howlett, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International KES Conference on INTELLIGENT DECISION TECHNOLOGIES KES-IDT-16 (pp. 181–191), Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39630-9_15
55. Shorabeh, S. N., Firozjaei, H. K., Firozjaei, M. K., Jelokhani-Niaraki, M., Homaee, M., & Nematollahi, O. (2022). The site selection of wind energy power plant using GIS-multi-criteria evaluation from economic perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112778. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.112778
56. Stubelj Ars, M. (2014). Decision support in the implementation of sustainable development in protected areas regarding environmental education and ecotourism. PhD Thesis, Univerze v Novi Gorici.
57. Suryabhagavan, K. V., Tamirat, H., & Balakrishinan, M. (2015). Multi-criteria evaluation in identification of potential ecotourism sites in Hawassa town and its surroundings, Ethiopia. Journal of Geomatics, 9(1), 86–92.
58. Teknomo, K. (2006). Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Tutorial. URL: https://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/AHP/
59. Tian, M., & Yan, S. (2021). Study on the Assessment of Internet-Financial Risk Based on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Simulation, 9, 121-126.
60. Tjader, Y., May, J. H., Shang, J., Vargas, L. G., & Gao, N. (2014). Firm-level outsourcing decision making: A balanced scorecard-based analytic network process model. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, Part C, 614–623. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.017
61. Tjiong, G. P., Supriatna, J., Takarina, N. D., & Tambunan, R. P. (2021). Mangrove diversity and suitability assessments for ecotourism in Cimalaya Wetan Coast, Karawang District, Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity, 22(2), 803-810. doi:10.13057/biodiv/d220234
62. Voogd, H. (1983). Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. Pion.
63. Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., & Zhao, J.-H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2263–2278. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021
64. Watson, J. J. W., & Hudson, M. D. (2015). Regional Scale wind farm and solar farm suitability assessment using GIS-assisted multi-criteria evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 20–31. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.001
65. Weaver, D. B. (2005). Mass and Urban Ecotourism: New Manifestions of an Old Concept. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(1), 19–26. doi:10.1080/02508281.2005.11081230
66. Xu, L., & Zhang, Y. (2017). A Credit Rating Model for Online P2P Lending Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. In: J. Xu, A. Hajiyev, S. Nickel, & M. Gen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, (pp. 537–549). doi:10.1007/978-981-10-1837-4_46
67. Zabihi, H., Alizadeh, M., Wolf, I. D., Karami, M., Ahmad, A., & Salamian, H. (2020). A GIS-based fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) for ecotourism suitability decision making: A case study of Babol in Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100726. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100726
68. Žižović, M., & Pamučar, D. (2019). New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2), 126–137. doi:10.31181/dmame1902102z
69. Zoghi, M., Houshang Ehsani, A., Sadat, M., javad Amiri, M., & Karimi, S. (2017). Optimization solar site selection by fuzzy logic model and weighted linear combination method in arid and semi-arid region: A case study Isfahan-IRAN. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, Part 2, 986–996. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.014