Next Article in Journal
Characterizing Harbor Dredged Sediment for Sustainable Reuse as Construction Material
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Customs Supervision Competitiveness Using Principal Component Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/su15031835
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Sustainable Rural Tourism Development with an Integrated Approach Using MDS and ANP Methods: Case Study in Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia

by
Ketut Eko Ari Saputro
1,
Hasim
2,*,
Lina Karlinasari
3 and
Irfan Syauqi Beik
4
1
Study Program of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, Graduate School, IPB University, Bogor 16114, Indonesia
2
Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, IPB University, Bogor 16114, Indonesia
3
Department of Forestry Products, Faculty of Forestry, IPB University, Bogor 16114, Indonesia
4
Department of Islamic Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, IPB University, Bogor 16114, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 1835; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031835
Submission received: 17 December 2022 / Revised: 10 January 2023 / Accepted: 13 January 2023 / Published: 18 January 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Indonesia is an agricultural country, and most of its territory is in the form of villages that have the potential to be developed as rural tourism centers. One area that has the potential to be developed into rural tourism centers is Panjalu, Indonesia. However, the sustainable development of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia, still needs to be improved, so the community cannot enjoy the benefits of this rural tourism. This study aimed to analyze the sustainability strategy of rural tourism development in Panjalu, Ciamis, Indonesia. This study combined two methods, consisting of the Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) and the Analytic Network Process (ANP). The MDS results show that rural tourism sustainability in Panjalu, Indonesia is included in the sufficient category, with a sustainability index of 57,998; 66,278; and 51,862, for ecological, socio-cultural and economic criteria, respectively. The MDS also analyzes which attributes are sensitive to the sustainability status. The most sensitive attributes for each criterion include Biodiversity for ecological criteria (RMS 2.224), Local Community Involvement for the social-culture criteria (1.147), and Livelihood Diversification for the economic criteria (1.245). These most sensitive attributes are, then, used as a reference for developing sustainable rural tourism development strategies. As a result, the strategic priority ranking for rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia is rural tourism based on culture and community development.

1. Introduction

Sustainable rural development is currently a widely discussed issue facing several challenges, such as environmental degradation, poverty, and cultural decline [1,2,3,4,5,6]. One model of sustainable rural development that many countries have adopted is rural tourism [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Rural tourism has been proven to create benefits for rural communities, such as livelihood diversification, enhancing the residents’ quality of life, uplifting cultural values, and promoting environmental preservation awareness [12,13,14]. On the demand side, trends in tourism show an increasing demand for rural outdoor recreation, interaction with local people and their culture, experiencing a nostalgic rural atmosphere, and relaxing in low-stress areas [15,16,17,18].
Regardless of the high demand and the availability of enticement from rural tourism, not all rural tourism runs sustainably. Several countries, such as China and Tanzania, face conflict as a significant challenge that interferes with sustainable rural tourism development [19,20,21,22]. This sustainable development depends on the rural area’s condition, the community’s condition, and the relationship between stakeholders. Thus, a different sustainability strategy approach is needed in each rural area [23]. The necessity of a sustainability strategy in rural tourism can take the following form: limiting the economic success of tourism [24] in order to maintain social stability and environmental sustainability. Meanwhile, in other locations, the necessary sustainability strategy is in the form of developing rural tourism that is oriented towards quality agriculture [25], in order to prevent the degradation of agricultural land [26].
Indonesia is an agricultural country, and most of its territory is in the form of villages that have the potential to be developed as rural tourism centers. One area that has the potential to be developed into a rural tourism center is Panjalu, Ciamis Regency, West Java Province, Indonesia. However, the sustainable development of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia, still needs to be improved, so the community cannot enjoy the benefits of this rural tourism. The Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) methods have been proven to develop a strategic analysis and sustainability status for sustainable business development. MDS is used to examine the sustainability status of rural tourism development [27,28]. Leverage analysis, in addition to the sustainability status, is a significant outcome of the MDS. ANP is one of the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. MCDM is a popular method used to develop a strategic analysis, and it is used for selecting the best alternative, depending on several specific criteria [29,30]. The most sensitive attributes of rural tourism development are shown through this leverage analysis. From these sensitive attributes, a sustainability strategy for rural tourism development in Panjalu, Indonesia, is then developed using the integration of the MDS and ANP methods. The integration of the two methods is expected to create an optimal strategy for developing rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the sustainability strategy of rural tourism development in Panjalu, Ciamis, Indonesia.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Rural Tourism Development

Rural development is a complicated process that raises a community’s income, and generally increases people’s living standards in areas such as food, education, health, housing, security, public services and facilities [31,32]. Rural development is based on local development, but its influence is significant for national development [33,34]. That is why, in several countries, rural development has become a concern of the national development program [31,35]; this is the case in Britain, with a series of agricultural development policies [36], Japan, with the “one village, one product” movement [37], China, with a rural revitalization movement [38], and Indonesia, with a special rural fund program [39,40,41]. In its implementation, rural development has consequences for rural areas and their communities, such as the deterioration of the environment, the decline of regional cultural values, and the escalation of social inequality [42,43,44,45]. Therefore, sustainable rural development is an inevitability [46]. Rural development is said to be sustainable when it can accommodate the current requirements of the area, while preserving the capacity to accommodate the needs of future generations [47,48]. At least three criteria must be considered in sustainable rural development, including the social and economic environment [49].
Rural tourism has been widely studied as an alternative to sustainable rural development, especially in European and Asian countries [50]. Sustainable rural tourism has been proven, both in the long and short term, to positively and significantly contribute to the promotion of rural development [51]. There are several activities, part of rural tourism, are compatible with the residents’ environment, local culture, and way of life [52]. The form of sustainable rural tourism can be different based on the potential of the rural area. Rural areas with a broad agricultural land base can develop a rural agro-tourism industry that supports rural agricultural activities, while making landscapes and agricultural activities tourist attractions [53]. In this way, rural tourism can provide additional benefits to local communities without disrupting existing traditional livelihood activities [54].
Support for sustainable rural tourism is based on its perceived benefits, such as creating jobs, increasing public awareness of environmental conservation and promoting local cultural values [55]. However, previous studies have identified challenges to realizing sustainable rural tourism. Several challenges are related to the need for qualified human resources, the difficulty of obtaining investors for funding, and the inability to carry out sustainable management [56,57,58]. In developing sustainable rural tourism, synergy of every sustainability criteria is necessary; however, these criterion also interfere with each other [59,60]. Rural tourism is an example of how this might enhance the off-farm income of farmers, but from an environmental standpoint, it can be challenging to prevent environmental damage. Thus, in formulating a rural tourism development strategy, it is essential to consider the factors that will benefit residents the most and determine how long rural tourism will be viable [55,61].

2.2. The Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS)

This sustainability analysis was carried out to determine rural tourism’s sustainability level. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) is a multivariate method that can handle metric data on an ordinal or nominal scale [27,28]. This method is also known as an ordination method in reduced space. MDS is a multivariate analysis technique (many components) that transforms multidimensional data into a lower-dimensional space. The similarity and dissimilarity of the data measure the input data. The data output is spatial, which describes adjacent data as an interpretation of data similarity, and data that is far apart as an interpretation of dissimilar data. MDS uses a scale to map the perceptual distance between one unit and another. In the sustainability analysis, the dimensions measured are then used on a scale from continuous to discontinuous. The measure of sustainability concerns the ordination or position of the unit, which is determined by the following principles:
  • Attributes or indicators according to their dimensions.
  • A total of 9–12 attributes or indicators indicate good ordination in each dimension.
  • The number of units analyzed is at least the same as the number of attributes.
  • Attributes can be easily ranked objectively.
  • The selected attribute allows good and bad scores.
  • Based scoring.
  • The goodness of fit with the stress of indicator ≤ 0.25.

2.3. The Analytical Network Process (ANP)

As a powerful decision-making technique, MCDM usually helps develop the best options for complex decision-making situations [29]. Furthermore, MCDM methods are used in performance measurement, and the results obtained can be used to rank, choose, and classify alternatives [30]. MCDM is a popular method used to develop a strategic analysis, and it is used for selecting the best alternative, depending on several specific criteria [29,30]. ANP is one of the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. The strategy for developing sustainable rural tourism management, used in formulating this development strategy, is the Analytic Network Process (ANP). The analytic network process (ANP) is a more general form of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) used in multi-criteria decision analysis. AHP structures a decision problem into a hierarchy with a goal, decision criteria, and alternatives, while the ANP structures it as a network. Both, then, use a system of pairwise comparisons to measure the weights of the components of the structure and finally to rank the alternatives in the decision. The ANP method is a development of AHP and, in principle, emphasizes interaction and feedback from elements within the cluster (inner dependency) and between clusters (outer dependency). Previous studies have combined ANP with other methods to increase the research accuracy, as shown in Table 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Case Area

This study was conducted in Panjalu, West Java, Indonesia. Panjalu is blessed with beautiful natural landscapes, natural lakes, animal conservation areas, historical sites and distinctive culture, which makes Panjalu an attractive rural tourism destination. Panjalu has a tropical climate and stretches over an area of 906.91 Ha. Panjalu is located at 7.13° S and 108.37° E, with an altitude of 733 masl (Figure 1). Currently, the main economic activities of the people in Panjalu are agriculture, trade, and the tourism industry [68].
Panjalu was designated as an agropolitan area by the Regional Government [69]. Agropolitan is a development strategy that refocuses investment on community development and agriculture [70]. There is 467.81 Ha of agricultural land in Panjalu, managed by local farmers in collaboration with the Local Government. The Local Government established “Land Contract” and “Agribusiness Partners” programs to support local farmers. Both systems aim to provide facilities for agricultural activities and market access for agricultural products. In the other sector, Panjalu was confirmed as a rural tourism by the Regional Government [71]. Therefore, the local and national governments have given Panjalu much attention, in order to support the development of rural tourism [72].

3.2. Data Collection

The data employed in this study were gathered through two phases of in-depth interviews. The first phase aimed to obtain respondents’ assessments of the sustainability criteria for rural tourism in Panjalu. These criteria consist of ecological, socio-cultural, and economic criteria. Data collection in this phase was carried out in 5 sub-regions of Panjalu Village. Among them were Simpar, Banjarwaru, Ciater, Cukangpadung, and Paricariang. Data collection used randomized in-depth interviews with 50 respondents representing farmers, residents, rural tourism service providers, and tourists, all involved in and affected by rural tourism development. The questionnaire was administered in person to respondents between January 2022 and March 2022.
The second phase aimed to obtain an assessment regarding the comparison of the level of influence between elements in the preparation of rural tourism development strategies. In-depth interviews were conducted using purposive sampling of four groups of experts from various sectors with backgrounds in agriculture, community development, and rural tourism. Among them were three government experts, three academic experts, two industry experts, and three community development associations. Questionnaires were administered face-to-face to experts between April 2022 and May 2022.

3.3. Data Analysis Methods

This study combined two methods consisting of MDS and ANP. The MDS method was used to obtain information regarding the sustainability status of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia. Furthermore, the ANP method was used to get priority on the sustainability strategy of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia.

3.3.1. MDS Method

The MDS method measured the distance between one point and another using scaling. The technique that was used by RAPFISH (Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries) was a statistical computation that simplifies multidimensional simplification [73]. RAPFISH is a tool created by a group from the University of British Columbia Fisheries Center to determine the sustainability of fisheries [73,74,75]. RAPFISH uses the Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) principle. Although RAPFISH is designed for sustainability analysis in the fisheries sector, the essence of sustainable development can be applied in other sectors. As in this study, RAPFISH was used to conduct a sustainability analysis in rural tourism.
The stages of analyzing the sustainability of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia are presented in Figure 2. The analysis of the RAPFISH Ordination in this study was carried out through several stages: (1) Determination of attributes, which includes three dimensions (ecological, socio-cultural, and economic) (Table 2); (2) Assessment of each attribute on an ordinal scale (scoring) based on the sustainability criteria of each dimension; (3) Ordination analysis of RAPFISH method to determine ordinance; (4) Assessment of the index and sustainability status of rural tourism development in Panjalu, Indonesia, in each dimension and multidimensionally; (5) Leverage Analysis used to determine sensitive variables affecting sustainability; and (6) Monte Carlo analysis used to take into account the uncertainty aspect.
The most important results of the RAPFISH are the ordination analysis, leverage analysis and Monte Carlo analysis. The ordination analysis shows the sustainability status of each dimension by grouping the scales, as shown in Table 3. The leverage analysis shows the most sensitive sub-criteria, based on the RMS (Root Mean Square) value. The greater the RMS value, the greater the sensitivity of a subcriteria. The Monte Carlo analysis is then carried out to detect sources of error from the diversity. A good RAPFISH model is indicated by a stress value of 0.25 and R2 close to 1.

3.3.2. ANP Method

This study used the Analytical Network Process (ANP) to develop a sustainable strategy for developing rural tourism in Panjalu. ANP is a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method proposed by Saaty [102]. The ANP is a development method of the previous method, called AHP. Both methods are used to determine strategic priorities in specific fields [103]. This method has a higher complexity than the AHP and is considered capable of accommodating the linkages between criteria or alternatives, which is the AHP method’s weakness [103]. ANP considers that not all decisions can be determined by a hierarchical structure because, in these decisions, there are elements that interact and are dependent on each other [96]. There are two linkages analyzed in ANP, namely, the linkages within one cluster (inner dependence) and the linkages between clusters (external dependence) [96].
In conducting ANP, the steps that must be carried out include model construction, creating a pairwise comparison matrix between groups/clusters, and synthesis of priorities for each cluster [104]. Model construction aims to define the problem and determine the desired solution criteria. Four clusters are analyzed: the goal, dimensions, attributes, and alternatives. Then, the weighting of the components is carried out as a guideline in giving values at the pairwise comparison stage. The weighting uses a quantitative scale of 1 to 9, which describes the level of importance of an element to other elements [105].
The ANP stage consists of 6 steps:
  • In the first step, the decision problem is defined. In the early stages, the goal is to state the main criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives clearly. Next, the interactions between criteria, the internal and external dependencies and, if any, the feedback between criteria are determined.
  • At this stage, priority vectors are determined by pairwise comparisons between criteria. Pairwise comparison and local priority vector calculation: in this step, the nodes of each cluster are compared in pairs according to the inner and outer dependencies, in order to obtain the priority scale ratio for the influence distribution of different network nodes. Priority vectors are calculated from pairwise comparisons between criteria. This matrix was obtained using data provided by experts.
  • The consistency of the comparison matrix obtained in the previous step is questionable. After calculating each matrix’s consistency ratio (CR), pairwise comparisons are considered consistent if the resulting value is less than or equal to 0.10; otherwise, comparisons should be reviewed.
  • Supermatrix formation: the supermatrix is a partitioned matrix where each sub-matrix consists of a set of relationships between nodes from each cluster, according to specific dependencies. Each part of the supermatrix shows the relationship between two factors in a system. The long-run relative effect of the criteria on each other is determined by taking the power of the supermatrix.
  • Global priority vector calculation: the weighted super-matrix is converged into a boundary supermatrix to provide a long-term stable set of weights representing the relative influence of nodes on each other.
  • The last stage determines the importance level (weight) of alternatives and criteria. The alternative with the highest weight in the selection problem is the best; in a weighting problem, the criterion with the highest weight is determined as the most crucial criterion.
After weighting, a pairwise comparison matrix describing each element’s effect is compiled. A comparison matrix is declared consistent if the Consistency Ratio value is not more than 10%. The final step in ANP is to create a supermatrix representing the effect of a component’s criteria on single elements of the same or different components at the top of the supermatrix. Three steps must be completed in preparing the supermatrix: the unweighted supermatrix, the weighted supermatrix, and the limiting supermatrix.

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. Sustainability Status

The sustainability index values are 57.998 for ecological criteria (sufficient), 66.278 for socio-cultural criteria (sufficient), and 51.862 for economic criteria (sufficient) (Table 4). The Monte Carlo analysis results, with a 95% confidence level, show that the sustainability index of rural tourism in Panjalu does not significantly differ from the MDS result. This result means that the effect of errors or the effects of scoring mistakes are minor [106]. In addition to the sustainability index, other results from the MDS are the coefficient of determination and the stress value to show that the research data are valid and scientifically justifiable. Based on the validation results in Table 5, the R2 value is close to 1, and the stress value is lower than 0.25, indicating that the three criteria’s components can describe the status of rural tourism sustainability in Panjalu, Indonesia. However, the status of sufficiently sustainable in these three dimensions is still at the lower threshold, namely in the range of 51–75%, so the category of sufficiently sustainable in these three dimensions is still considered not safe for the sustainability of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia. This shows that the attributes in these three dimensions must be further improved to support the sustainable management of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia.
Another important result of MDS is the leverage analysis. The leverage analysis results show which attributes are most sensitive in influencing rural tourism sustainability in Panjalu. The greater the Root Mean Square (RMS) value, the more sensitive an attribute. Based on the results of the leverage analysis, of the ten attributes of the ecological dimension, there are 4 (four) sensitive attributes that are leveraging attributes and require policy intervention; this is because the changes will later have an effect on the value of the sustainability index in the ecological dimension, namely on Natural Landscape (1389), Land Use (1387), Biodiversity (1262), and Agriculture (1154) (Figure 3a). Based on the results of the analysis of leverage factors on this ecological dimension, planning for the management of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia, must prioritize and guarantee the management of natural landscapes, land use, biodiversity and agriculture in the area around the development of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia. These policies include prioritizing and ensuring the availability of fertile agricultural land and controlling the conversion of organic agricultural land to other uses. With this planning and management, the sustainability of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia, is hopeful.
The results of leverage analysis on the socio-cultural dimension show that there are 4 (four) attributes that are leveraging attributes are are sensitive to the sustainability of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia; these require appropriate policy interventions because the changes affect the sustainability index value in the socio-cultural dimension. The sensitive attributes are local community involvement (1.245), hospitality of local people (0.956), peaceful and restful atmosphere (0.932), and cultural preservation (0.782) (Figure 3c). If the lever attributes are not managed properly in the future, it will have a negative impact on the sustainability of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia. The factor of local community involvement in developing rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia is the spearhead of success in managing the area’s rural tourism in a sustainable manner. Currently, the involvement of the local community involved in the tourism village development program in Panjalu, Indonesia, is the educational community. Various processes of assistance and education for the local community have been carried out by the education community, especially those related to the importance of rural tourism.
Based on the results of leverage analysis, of the ten attributes in the ecological dimension, there are 4 (four) sensitive attributes that become leveraging attributes and require policy intervention; this is because the changes will later have an effect on the value of the sustainability index in the economic dimension, namely, livelihood diversification (1.290), tourism accommodation (1.118), agricultural product market (1.112), and tourism expenditure (1.009) (Figure 3c). The most sensitive attributes are, then, included in the framework nodes to analyze the sustainable rural tourism development strategy in Panjalu, Indonesia.

4.2. Sustainability Strategy Analysis

The preparation of the network strategy was carried out through FGDs involving experts. The network consists of goals, criteria, subcriteria, and alternatives. The goal is to analyze the sustainable rural tourism strategy. The criteria cluster consists of ecological, socio-cultural, and economic criteria. Sub-criteria clusters are the main characteristics that affect the sustainability of each criterion. The sub-criteria of ecology consists of agriculture, land use, biodiversity and natural landscape. The sub-criteria of socio-culture consist of cultural preservation, local community involvement, peaceful and restful atmosphere, and the hospitality of local people. The sub-criteria of the economy consists of livelihood diversification, agricultural product market, tourism accommodation, and tourism expenditure. Alternative clusters consist of several rural tourism strategies that follow the study case area. Alternative clusters consist of the following:
  • Rural tourism based on agriculture and economic development and rural areas closely related to agriculture. Unfortunately, agriculture has yet to increase residents’ economic activities. Many villagers prefer to work in the industrial sector in cities. This condition results in the depopulation and degradation of agricultural land. This strategy encourages optimizing land dedication for agricultural activities, while simultaneously encouraging the diversification of residents’ livelihoods through rural tourism.
  • Rural tourism is based on culture and community development; rural community life is closely related to a traditional culture that is unique and far different from urban society. The development of rural tourism, oriented towards material gain, tends to erode the existence of culture in rural areas. This strategy makes rural culture and society the main attractions of rural tourism. Therefore, this results in the emergence of encouragement for cultural preservation and community empowerment.
  • Rural tourism is based on environmental education and conservation; the rural area, full of beautiful natural scenery with less pollution, is appealing as a tourist destination. This strategy ensures that rural tourism development does not damage the biodiversity and environmental quality of the rural area.
The pairwise comparison matrix consists of the criteria comparison matrix and the internal sub-criteria comparison matrix. The consistency of the expert’s judgment is confirmed by applying a consistency check to the pairwise comparison matrix. The consistency check finds that the consistency ratio (CR) value is less than 0.1, indicating that the experts’ evaluation satisfies the required standards for acceptable consistency.
The next step is the construction of a weighted supermatrix. The weighted supermatrix is created by multiplying the local priority vector of the unweighted supermatrix for the relevant cluster priority vectors. The weighted supermatrix is shown in Figure 4, which helps analyze the ranking of subcriteria concerning a particular cluster because these rankings provide a synthesis of the entire network; this is useful as a first step to identifying the requalification quota.
In particular, in the ecological sustainability cluster shown in Figure 5, Land Use is the most significant sub-criteria for maintaining ecological sustainability in the study area. This result supports the idea that changes in forest cover lead to the loss of millions of ecosystem service values, as previous research has shown [78]. Land use affects ecosystems, human welfare, and livelihoods, directly and indirectly [79,107]. The weight value of this sub-criteria is 0.425, followed by Biodiversity (weight 0.263), Natural Landscape (weight 0.169), and Agriculture (weight 0.143).
The ranking of the socio-culture criteria is shown in Figure 6. Local Community Involvement is the most important sub-criteria influencing social sustainability, with a weight of 0.428. Previous research has shown the various influences of community involvement in tourism [108]. Among them are the revival of tourism after disasters [109], pro-environmental behavior, and small business rural tourism [88]. Other sub-criteria are distributed between Cultural Preservation (weight 0.283), Hospitality of Local People (weight 0.167), and Peaceful and Restful Atmosphere (weight 0.122).
The ranking of the economic criteria is shown in Figure 7. Tourism expenditure is the most significant sub-criteria for increasing economic development in the study area (weight 0.385). Previous studies have shown that tourism receipts, spending, and the number of tourist visits contribute to rural areas’ economic growth [110]. Other sub-criteria are Livelihood Diversification (weight 0.304), followed by Agricultural Product Market (weight 0.203), and Tourism Accommodation (0.108).
The weighted supermatrix is then merged with the boundary matrix, and its normalization yields the alternative rankings. The aggregate weighting of the alternative clusters is transformed into a percentage value to provide an alternative rating, as shown in Figure 8. Of the three proposed alternatives, “rural tourism based on culture and community development” is a priority strategy in developing rural tourism, with a percentage of 48.61%. This result is similar to previous studies that propound that a very interesting rural tourism attraction is the unique local culture of the rural area itself. Tourists, especially rural–urban migrants, crave a unique and authentic atmosphere that reminds them of their childhood in the rural area [16,17]. In addition, rural tourism is a good effort to promote local culture and rural products [111]. With this, both can be said to have positive reciprocity so that the sustainability of rural tourism and rural culture can be maintained [112]. Furthermore, the sustainability of rural tourism is significantly affected by the state of the people in the rural tourism destination area. Community attachment and the good self-efficacy of residents are important elements in the development of sustainable rural tourism from an economic, socio-cultural and environmental perspective [82,108]. Community involvement and community support are crucial factors in the quality of service in rural tourism [10].
The next priority strategy is “rural tourism based on environmental education and conservation”, with a percentage of 34.64%. Previous researchers have formulated many rural tourism strategies based on environmental conservation; one study proposed the term “ecology-based tourism” in Turkey, a strategy that is expected to safeguard the region’s ecological framework [113]. Apart from that, Malaysia has also designed a community-based ecotourism management strategy that helps policymakers in conservation practice [114]. The “rural tourism based on agriculture and economic development” strategy is in third priority, with a percentage of 16.75%. This strategy was applied in several countries, such as China and Spain [87,115], by considering the strength of each region. Previous studies have proven that this strategy has an effect on economic growth and is an alternative to poverty alleviation [78,116].

5. Conclusions and Implication

This study analyzes the sustainability status of rural tourism development in Panjalu, using the MDS method. The MDS results show that rural tourism sustainability in Panjalu, Indonesia is included in the sufficient category with a sustainability index of 57,998, 66,278, and 51,862, for ecological, socio-cultural and economic criteria, respectively. The leverage attributes, which are very sensitive to the sustainability of rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia, included natural landscape, biodiversity, agriculture land, local community involvement, cultural preservation, livelihood diversification, tourism accommodation, agricultural product market, and tourism expenditure.
The MDS also analyzes which attributes are sensitive to sustainability status. The most sensitive attributes for each criterion include Biodiversity for ecological criteria (RMS 2.224), Local Community Involvement for social-culture criteria (1.147), and Livelihood Diversification for economy criteria (1.245). These most sensitive attributes are then used as a reference for developing sustainable rural tourism development strategies. As a result, the strategic priority ranking for rural tourism in Panjalu is “rural tourism based on culture and community development” (weight 48.61%), followed by “rural tourism based on education and environmental conservation” (weight 34.64%), and “rural tourism based on agriculture and economy development” (weight 16.75%).

Author Contributions

K.E.A.S. contributed to the conditioning and assembly of the methodological procedures, to the analysis of the experimental results, and in the writing of the final manuscript; H. was the research leader, supervisor, participated in the conceptualization and in the writing of the final manuscript; L.K. contributed to the definition of the methodological aspects in the laboratory, in the analysis and validation of the results; I.S.B. contributed to the definition of the methodological aspects in the laboratory, in the analysis and validation of the results. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cohen, B.; Ohls, J.; Andrews, M.; Ponza, M.; Moreno, L.; Zambrowski, A.; Cohen, R. Food Stamp Participants’ Food Security and Nutrient Availability: Final Report; USDA Food and Nutrition Service: Juneau, AK, USA, 1999.
  2. Beaumont, S. OECD’s Rural Agenda for Climate Action Climate Action. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/regional/rural-development/Rural-Agenda-for-Climate-Action.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  3. Uysal, M.; Sirgy, M.J.; Woo, E.; Kim, H.L. Quality of Life (QOL) and Well-Being Research in Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2016, 53, 244–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Michalska-Zyła, A.; Marks-Krzyszkowska, M. Quality of Life and Quality of Living in Rural Communes in Poland. Eur. Countrys. 2018, 10, 280–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Chen, B.; Qiu, Z.; Usio, N.; Nakamura, K. Tourism’s Impacts on Rural Livelihood in the Sustainability of an Aging Community in Japan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Usher, L.E.; Kerstetter, D. Residents’ Perceptions of Quality of Life in a Surf Tourism Destination: A Case Study of Las Salinas, Nicaragua. Prog. Dev. Stud. 2014, 14, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lane, B.; Kastenholz, E. Rural Tourism: The Evolution of Practice and Research Approaches—Towards a New Generation Concept? J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1133–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yang, X.; Hung, K.; Xiao, H. A Dynamic View on Tourism and Rural Development: A Tale of Two Villages in Yunnan Province, China. J. China Tour. Res. 2019, 15, 240–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hwang, J.H.; Lee, S.W. The Effect of the Rural Tourism Policy on Non-Farm Income in South Korea. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 501–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Chin, C.H.; Lo, M.C. Rural Tourism Quality of Services: Fundamental Contributive Factors from Tourists’ Perceptions. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 22, 465–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Teng, Y.-M.; Wu, K.-S.; Wang, W.-C. Exploring Rural Winery Loyalty: The Effect of Visitors’ Experience in Taiwan Rural Winery Tourism. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 96, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nordbø, I. Female Entrepreneurs and Path-Dependency in Rural Tourism. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 96, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martins, A.R.O.; Shackleton, C.M. The Contribution of Wild Palms to the Livelihoods and Diversification of Rural Households in Southern Mozambique. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 142, 102793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Weyland, F.; Colacci, P.; Cardoni, A.; Estavillo, C. Can Rural Tourism Stimulate Biodiversity Conservation and Influence Farmer’s Management Decisions? J. Nat. Conserv. 2021, 64, 126071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kastenholz, E.; João, M.; Peixeira, C.; Lima, J. Understanding and Managing the Rural Tourism Experience—The Case of a Historical Village in Portugal. TMP 2012, 4, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Meng, Z.; Cai, L.A.; Day, J.; Tang, C.H.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, H. Authenticity and Nostalgia–Subjective Well-Being of Chinese Rural-Urban Migrants. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 506–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. López-sanz, J.M.; Penelas-leguía, A.; Gutiérrez-rodríguez, P. Rural Tourism and the Sustainable Development Goals. A Study of the Variables That Most Influence the Behavior of the Tourist. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 722973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Qiu, S.; Cai, L.; Lehto, X.; Huang, Z.; Gordon, S.; Gartner, W. Reliving Self-Presentational Concerns in Rural Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 74, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Su, Y.; Li, R.; Ma, H.; Huang, L. Adaptive Change of Institutions and Dynamic Governance of the Tragedy of the Tourism Commons: Evidence from Rural China. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 53, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gardner, B. Tourism and the Politics of the Global Land Grab in Tanzania: Markets, Appropriation and Recognition. J. Peasant Stud. 2012, 39, 377–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xue, L.; Kerstetter, D. Discourse and Power Relations in Community Tourism. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. An, W.; Alarcón, S. Rural Tourism Preferences in Spain: Best-Worst Choices. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 89, 103210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, X.; Zhang, Z. How Do Smart Villages Become a Way to Achieve Sustainable Development in Rural Areas? Smart Village Planning and Practices in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Christou, P.; Sharpley, R. Philoxenia offered to tourists? A rural tourism perspective. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shen, S.; Wang, H.; Quan, Q.; Xu, J. Rurality and Rural Tourism Development in China. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 30, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lane, B.; Kastenholz, E.; Carneiro, M.J. Rural Tourism and Sustainability: A Special Issue, Review and Update for the Opening Years of the Twenty-First Century. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nurhayati, A.; Aisah, I.; Supriatna, A.K. Model Development of A Synergistic Sustainable Marine Ecotourism—A Case Study in Pangandaran Region, West Java Province, Indonesia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Harahab, N.; Riniwati, H.; Utami, T.N.; Abidin, Z.; Wati, L.A. Sustainability Analysis of Marine Ecotourism Management for Preserving Natural Resources and Coastal Ecosystem Functions. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2021, 77, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, J. Evaluating Regional Low-Carbon Tourism Strategies Using the Fuzzy Delphi- Analytic Network Process Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Morteza, Z.; Reza, F.M.; Seddiq, M.M.; Sharareh, P.; Jamal, G. Selection of the Optimal Tourism Site Using the ANP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in the Framework of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Case of Qeshm Island. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 130, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Omran, A.; Schwarz-Herion, O. (Eds.) Sustaining Our Environment for Better Future; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 9789811371578. [Google Scholar]
  32. Moseley, M.J. Rural Development Principles and Practice; SAGE Publication Ltd.: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gebre, T.; Gebremedhin, B. The Mutual Benefits of Promoting Rural-Urban Interdependence through Linked Ecosystem Services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 20, e00707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hong, J.Y.; Park, S.; Yang, H. In Strongman We Trust: The Political Legacy of the New Village Movement in South Korea. Am. J. Political Sci. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Natsuda, K.; Igusa, K.; Wiboonpongse, A.; Thoburn, J. One Village One Product—Rural Development Strategy in Asia: The Case of OTOP in Thailand. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 2012, 33, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Curry, N. Sustainable rural development in England: Policy problems and equity consequences. Local Econ. 2012, 27, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Mukai, K.; Fujikura, R. One Village One Product: Evaluations and Lessons Learnt from OVOP Aid Projects. Dev. Pract. 2015, 25, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, Y.; Zang, Y.; Yang, Y. China’s Rural Revitalization and Development: Theory, Technology and Management. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 30, 1923–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lembaran, T.; Republik, N. Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia No 60 Tahun 2014 Tentang Dana Desa Yang Bersumber Dari APBN; BPK RI: Central Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  40. Presiden Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 Tentang Desa; BPK RI: Central Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Permatasari, P.; Ilman, A.S.; Tilt, C.A.; Lestari, D.; Islam, S.; Tenrini, R.H.; Rahman, A.B.; Samosir, A.P.; Wardhana, I.W. The Village Fund Program in Indonesia: Measuring the Effectiveness and Alignment to Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, Z.; Deng, X.; Yin, F.; Yang, C. Analysis of Climate and Land Use Changes Impacts on Land Degradation in the North China Plain. Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 2015, 976370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Sharpley, R.; Sharpley, R. Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Theoretical Divide: 20 Years on 20 Years On. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1932–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Van Wesenbeeck, C.F.A.; Keyzer, M.A.; van Veen, W.C.M.; Qiu, H. Can China’s Overuse of Fertilizer Be Reduced without Threatening Food Security and Farm Incomes? Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lu, J.; Lora-Wainwright, A. Historicizing Sustainable Livelihoods: A Pathways Approach to Lead Mining in Rural Central China. World Dev. 2014, 62, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pašakarnis, G.; Morley, D.; Maliene, V. Rural Development and Challenges Establishing Sustainable Land Use in Eastern European Countries. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 703–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Burton, I. Report on Reports: Our Common Future. Environment 1987, 29, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mensah, J. Sustainable Development: Meaning, History, Principles, Pillars, and Implications for Human Action: Literature Review. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1683296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Elkington, J. Cannibal with Folks—Tripple Bottom Line 21st Century Business; New Society Publishers: Stoney Creek, CT, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  50. An, W.; Alarcón, S. How Can Rural Tourism Be Sustainable? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. He, Y.; Gao, X.; Wu, R.; Wang, Y.; Choi, B.R. How Does Sustainable Rural Tourism Cause Rural Community Development? Sustainability 2021, 13, 13516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lane, B. Rural Tourism: An Overview; SAGE Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ferreira, D.I.R.; Sánchez-Martín, J.M. Agricultural Landscapes as a Basis for Promoting Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions. Agriculture 2022, 12, 716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ming, M.; Wall, G.; Wang, Y.; Jin, M. Livelihood Sustainability in a Rural Tourism Destination—Hetu Town, Anhui. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Eslami, S.; Khalifah, Z.; Mardani, A.; Streimikiene, D.; Han, H. Community Attachment, Tourism Impacts, Quality of Life and Residents’ Support for Sustainable Tourism Development. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 1061–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yang, Q.; Li, J.; Tang, Y. The Dilemma of the Great Development of Rural Tourism from the Sustainable Environment Perspective. J. Environ. Public Health 2022, 2022, 7195813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lehmann, U.; Dieleman, M.; Martineau, T. Staffing Remote Rural Areas in Middle- and Low-Income Countries: A Literature Review of Attraction and Retention. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2008, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Rosalina, P.D.; Dupre, K.; Wang, Y. Rural Tourism: A Systematic Literature Review on Definitions and Challenges. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 134–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Juma, L.O.; Khademi-Vidra, A. Community-Based Tourism and Sustainable Development of Rural Regions in Kenya; Perceptions of the Citizenry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Worlds Tourism Organization. UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2013th ed.; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ngo, T.H.; Creutz, S. Assessing the Sustainability of Community-Based Tourism: A Case Study in Rural Areas of Hoi An, Vietnam. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2022, 8, 2116812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. García-Melón, M.; Gómez-Navarro, T.; Acuña-Dutra, S. A Combined ANP-Delphi Approach to Evaluate Sustainable Tourism. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 34, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sanela, A.; Djordje, D.; Živković, Ž. Hybrid SWOT-ANP-FANP Model for Prioritization Strategies of Sustainable Development of Ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 80, 11–26. [Google Scholar]
  64. Peng, K.H.; Tzeng, G.H. Exploring Heritage Tourism Performance Improvement for Making Sustainable Development Strategies Using the Hybrid-Modified MADM Model. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 921–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhou, W.; Chen, L.Y.; Chou, R.J. Important Factors Affecting Rural Tourists’ Aesthetic Experience: A Case Study of Zoumatang Village in Ningbo. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Teniwut, W.A.; Hamid, S.K.; Makailipessy, M.M. Developing a Masterplan for a Sustainable Marine Sector in a Small Islands Region: Integrated MCE Spatial Analysis for Decision Making. Land Use Policy 2022, 122, 106356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Hedayatnezhad Kashi, S.M.; Baharvandi, S. The Assessment of Ecological Livability for Agricultural, Pasture, Forestry, Residential, and Tourism Activities; Study Area: North of Iran. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Panjalu Center Statistik Desa Panjalu. Available online: https://panjalu.id/index.php/first/statistik/1 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  69. Ciamis Regency Government. Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Tahun 2011–2031; Ciamis Regency Government: Ciamis Regency, Indonesian, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  70. Abramson, D.B. Ancient and Current Resilience in the Chengdu Plain: Agropolitan Development Re-‘Revisited’. Urban Stud. 2020, 57, 1372–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Fatimah, W.; Winoto, Y.; Khadijah, U.L.S. Makna Dan Fungsi Ngarumat Pusaka Sebagai Tradisi Budaya Leluhur Di Panjalu Kab Ciamis. J. Artefak 2022, 9, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ciamis Regency Government. Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten Ciamis; Ciamis Regency Government: Ciamis Regency, Indonesian, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pitcher, T.J. Rapfish, a Rapid Appraisal Technique for Fisheries, and Its Application to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO Fish. Cicular 1999, 947, 52. [Google Scholar]
  74. Pitcher, T.J.; Preikshot, D. RAPFISH: A Rapid Appraisal Technique to Evaluate the Sustainability Status of Fisheries. Fish. Res. 2001, 49, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Alder, J.; Pitcher, T.J.; Preikshot, D.; Kaschner, K.; Feriss, B. How Good Is Good? A Rapid Appraisal Technique for Evaluation of the Sustainability Status of Fisheries of the North Atlantic. Fish. Cent. Res. Rep. 2000, 8, 136–182. [Google Scholar]
  76. Shen, C.; Chang, Y.; Liu, D. Rural Tourism and Environmental Sustainability—A Study on a Model for Assessing the Developmental Potential of Organic Agritourism. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bottero, M.; Comino, E.; Anna, F.D.; Dominici, L.; Rosso, M. Strategic Assessment and Economic Evaluation: The Case Study of Yanzhou Island (China). Sustainability 2019, 11, 1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Tolessa, T.; Senbeta, F.; Kidane, M. The Impact of Land Use/Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhou, Y.; Guo, L.; Liu, Y. Land Consolidation Boosting Poverty Alleviation in China: Theory and Practice. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, Y.; Wu, W.; Liu, Y. Land Consolidation for Rural Sustainability in China: Practical Reflections and Policy Implications. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 137–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Su, J.; García-moruno, L.; Hernández-blanco, J.; Jaraíz-cabanillas, F.J. An Operational Method to Supporting Siting Decisions for Sustainable Rural Second Home Planning in Ecotourism Sites. Land Use Policy 2014, 41, 550–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Radosavac, A.; Tretiakova, T.N.; Syromiatnikova, Y.A. Determinants of Residents ’ Support for Sustainable Tourism Development: Implications for Rural Communities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9438. [Google Scholar]
  83. Bramwell, B.; Higham, J.; Lane, B.; Miller, G.; Bramwell, B.; Higham, J.; Lane, B.; Twenty-, G.M. Twenty-Five Years of Sustainable Tourism and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism: Looking Back and Moving Forward. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 9582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Cho, H.; Choi, M.J. Effects of Compact Urban Development on Air Pollution: Empirical Evidence from Korea. Sustainability 2014, 6, 5968–5982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Puška, A.; Pamucar, D.; Stojanović, I.; Cavallaro, F. Examination of the Sustainable Rural Tourism Potential of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina Using a Fuzzy Approach Based on Group Decision Making. Sustainability 2021, 13, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ottomano, G.; Loisi, R.V.; Ruggiero, G.; Rocchi, L.; Boggia, A.; Roma, R.; Dal, P. Land Use Policy Using Analytic Network Process and Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach for Sustainable Requalification of Traditional Farm Buildings in Southern Italy. Land Use Policy 2020, 59, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Prevolšek, B.; Maksimović, A.; Puška, A.; Pažek, K.; Žibert, M.; Rozman, Č. Sustainable Development of Ethno-Villages in Bosnia and Herzegovina-A Multi Criteria Assessment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Zhu, Z.; Wang, R.; Hu, J.; Jiang, Z. Can Protection Motivation Theory Predict Pro-Environmental Behaviour of Small Rural Tourism Enterprises? An Extended Model Including Community Involvement. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2022, 27, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tsai, C.-H.; Chen, C.-W. An Earthquake Disaster Management Mechanism Based on Risk Assessment Information for the Tourism Industry—A Case Study from the Island of Taiwan. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 470–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Eckert, C.; Pechlaner, H. Alternative Product Development as Strategy towards Sustainability in Tourism: The Case of Lanzarote. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Chèze, B.; David, M.; Martinet, V. Understanding Farmers’ Reluctance to Reduce Pesticide Use: A Choice Experiment. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 167, 106349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Li, Y.; Westlund, H.; Liu, Y. Why Some Rural Areas Decline While Some Others Not: An Overview of Rural Evolution in the World. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Situmorang, R.; Trilaksono, T.; Japutra, A. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management Friend or Foe ? The Complex Relationship between Indigenous People and Policymakers Regarding Rural Tourism in Indonesia. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2019, 39, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Alrawadieh, Z.; Alrawadieh, Z.; Kozak, M. Exploring the Impact of Tourist Harassment on Destination Image, Tourist Expenditure, and Destination Loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2019, 73, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Neumann, P.; Mason, C.W. The Influence of Transportation and Digital Technologies on Backcountry Tourism and Recreation in British Columbia, Canada. Tour. Geogr. 2022, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Measurement Processes: Applications to Decisions under Risk. Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2007, 1, 122–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bhaktikul, K.; Aroonsrimorakot, S.; Laiphrakpam, M.; Paisantanakij, W. Toward a Low-Carbon Tourism for Sustainable Development: A Study Based on a Royal Project for Highland Community Development in Chiang Rai, Thailand. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 10743–10762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Cho, H.-S.; Byun, B.; Shin, S. An Examination of the Relationship between Rural Tourists’ Satisfaction, Revisitation and Information Preferences: A Korean Case Study. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6293–6311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Li, H.; Nijkamp, P.; Xie, X.; Liu, J. A New Livelihood Sustainability Index for Rural Revitalization Assessment-a Modelling Study on Smart Tourism Specialization in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M.; Raso, C.; Pansera, B.A.; Violi, A. Agritourism and Sustainability: What We Can Learn from a Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Alkheder, S.A. Transportation and Tourism Sustainability in Major Jordanian Tourism Cities. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2016, 13, 253–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation (Decision Making Series); McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  103. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Decision Making with the Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks; Springer: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2006; ISBN 9780387338590. [Google Scholar]
  104. Smith-Perera, A.; García-Melón, M.; Poveda-Bautista, R.; Pastor-Ferrando, J.P. A Project Strategic Index Proposal for Portfolio Selection in Electrical Company Based on the Analytic Network Process. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1569–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Saaty, T.L. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, AR, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  106. For Rapfish, S. Implementing Microsoft Excel. Fish. Cent. Res. Rep. 2004, 12. [Google Scholar]
  107. Sannigrahi, S.; Chakraborti, S.; Joshi, P.K.; Keesstra, S.; Sen, S.; Paul, S.K.; Kreuter, U.; Sutton, P.C.; Jha, S.; Dang, K.B. Ecosystem Service Value Assessment of a Natural Reserve Region for Strengthening Protection and Conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 244, 208–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lee, T.H. Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support for Sustainable Tourism Development. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tan, X.; Ying, T.; Mariska, D.; Liu-Lastres, B.; Ye, S.; Kim, H. Residents’ Involvement in Disaster Tourism as a Practice: The Case of an Islam Destination, Aceh. Ann. Tour. Res. 2022, 96, 103467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Naseem, S. The Role of Tourism in Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Economies 2021, 9, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). Tourism and the Sustainable Development Goals; World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  112. Csurgó, B.; Smith, M.K. Cultural Heritage, Sense of Place and Tourism: An Analysis of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Rural Hungary. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Pirselimoğlu Batman, Z.; Demirel, Ö. Ecology-Based Tourism Potential with Regard to Alternative Tourism Activities in Altindere Valley (Trabzon–Maçka). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2015, 22, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Masud, M.M.; Aldakhil, A.M.; Nassani, A.A.; Azam, M.N. Community-Based Ecotourism Management for Sustainable Development of Marine Protected Areas in Malaysia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 136, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chen, Z.; Diao, B. Regional Planning of Modern Agricultural Tourism Base Based on Rural Culture. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2022, 72, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lak, A.; Khairabadi, O. Leveraging Agritourism in Rural Areas in Developing Countries: The Case of Iran. Front. Sustain. Cities 2022, 4, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 01835 g001 550
Figure 1. The geographical position of the study area within Indonesia, especially within Panjalu, Ciamis District, West Java Province.
Figure 1. The geographical position of the study area within Indonesia, especially within Panjalu, Ciamis District, West Java Province.
Sustainability 15 01835 g001
Sustainability 15 01835 g002 550
Figure 2. Stages of sustainability analysis in rural tourism Panjalu, West Java, Indonesia by ANP method.
Figure 2. Stages of sustainability analysis in rural tourism Panjalu, West Java, Indonesia by ANP method.
Sustainability 15 01835 g002
Sustainability 15 01835 g003a 550Sustainability 15 01835 g003b 550
Figure 3. Leverage analysis: (a) RMS value of ecological attribute; (b) RMS value of socio cultural attribute; (c) RMS value of economic attribute.
Figure 3. Leverage analysis: (a) RMS value of ecological attribute; (b) RMS value of socio cultural attribute; (c) RMS value of economic attribute.
Sustainability 15 01835 g003aSustainability 15 01835 g003b
Sustainability 15 01835 g004 550
Figure 4. The weighted supermatrix of the whole network.
Figure 4. The weighted supermatrix of the whole network.
Sustainability 15 01835 g004
Sustainability 15 01835 g005 550
Figure 5. The ranking of each sub-criteria of ecological criteria.
Figure 5. The ranking of each sub-criteria of ecological criteria.
Sustainability 15 01835 g005
Sustainability 15 01835 g006 550
Figure 6. The ranking of each sub-criteria of social cultural criteria.
Figure 6. The ranking of each sub-criteria of social cultural criteria.
Sustainability 15 01835 g006
Sustainability 15 01835 g007 550
Figure 7. The ranking of each sub-criteria of economic criteria.
Figure 7. The ranking of each sub-criteria of economic criteria.
Sustainability 15 01835 g007
Sustainability 15 01835 g008 550
Figure 8. The ranking of alternatives.
Figure 8. The ranking of alternatives.
Sustainability 15 01835 g008
Table
Table 1. Literature review of earlier studies concerning the study topic.
Table 1. Literature review of earlier studies concerning the study topic.
YearStateAuthor(s)Specific AreaMethodologies Used
(2012)VenezuelaGarcía-Melón et al. [62]Evaluation of sustainable tourism strategiesANP-Delphi
(2016)IranMorteza et al. [30]Developing a model for evaluating potential tourist destinationsANP and fuzzy TOPSIS
(2017)ChinaZhang et al. [29]Developing an approach to suggest which tourism strategy should be adoptedFuzzy Delphi-ANP
(2017)SerbiaArsić et al. [63]Identifying strategy priorities for sustainable ecotourism developmentSWOT-ANP-FANP
(2017)TaiwanPeng & Tzeng [64]Exploring the feasibility of performance-improving strategies(MADM) based on the DEMATEL, influential network relation map (INRM), DANP, VIKOR
(2021)ChinaZhou et al. [65]Framework development of important criteriaDEMATEL-based ANP method
(2022)IndonesiaHamida et al. [66]Formulating a masterplan for a sustainable marine sector in a small islands regionmulti-criteria evaluation (MCE) combined with spatial analysis, ANP
(2022)IranHashemkhani et al. [67]Assesing livabilityDelphi-ANP
Table
Table 2. Dimensions and attributes of sustainable rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia.
Table 2. Dimensions and attributes of sustainable rural tourism in Panjalu, Indonesia.
DimensionDefinision
Ecological
Agriculture (AGR) [76,77]Agriculture experiences such as land, farming activity, diversity of agriculture product, and other experiences
Land use (LDU) [78,79,80,81]Land use management to minimize the damaging impact
Protection of the natural resources (PNR) [82]Protective measures are taken, in order to preserve natural resources
Biodiversity (BDS) [83]Wide range of flora and fauna
Natural landscape (NLS) [84]Original landscapes. such as mountains, hills, streams, lakes, and other landscapes
Water quality (WQY) [85,86]Water quality related to surface water, irrigation, and water use for tourism accommodation
Waste management (WMN) [87]Cleanliness and waste management
Disaster Mitigation (DSM) [88,89]Preparedness of residents to minimize the impact of disasters
Renewable Energy (REY) [90]the use of renewable energy for residents’ activities, including tourism activities
Pesticide Reduction (PRN) [91]Farmers’ efforts to reduce the use of pesticides
Socio Cultural
Cultural preservation (CPN) [86,92,93,94]Preservation of the values, beliefs, lifestyle, and other cultural elements of the local community
Local community involvement (LCI) [95,96]Community involvement in managing and making decisions
Community education level (CEL) [85]Community access to formal education
Community health (CHH) [97]Community access to health facilities
Security (SCY) [94,98]Free of crime and terrorism
Peaceful and restful atmosphere (PRA) [98]Experiences of feeling calm, relaxed, and peaceful
Hospitality of local people (HLP) [98]The friendly, polite, positive and welcoming attitude of residents
Population Density (PDY)Amount of people residing in rural areas per km2
Social Capital (SCL) [5,99]The network of relationships among residents
Women Involvement (WIT) [100]Women’s involvement in managing and receiving benefits from tourism impacts
Economic
Livelihood diversification (LDN) [54]Diversity of residents’ activities to meet life’s need
Agricultural product market (APM) [76]Market access for residents’ agricultural products
Access to capital (ATC) [92]Access to capital from the government or private sector
Tourism accomodation (TAN) [86]Facilities to support the needs of tourists to sleep, stay, and live
Tourism expenditure (TEE) [94]Total consumption expenditure made by tourists
Promotion (PRM) [91]Tourism destination publicity activities
Accessibility (ACS) [98]Ease of access to destination
Infrastructure Investment (INI) [100]Development of adequate infrastructure to support the community’s economic activities
Transportation (TSP) [95,101]Facilities to support tourist mobility from their place to tourist destinations and vice versa
Destination Image (DSI) [92,101]Associations formed in the minds of tourists regarding destinations
Table
Table 3. Sustainability status for rural tourism according to the category index.
Table 3. Sustainability status for rural tourism according to the category index.
Index ValueCategory
0–25Bad (not sustainable)
26–50Low (almost unsustainable)
51–75Sufficient (simply sustainable)
76–100Good (very sustainable)
Table
Table 4. Result of MDS and Monte Carlo Analysis.
Table 4. Result of MDS and Monte Carlo Analysis.
CriteriaSustainability Index (MDS)Monte CarloDifferencesCategory
Ecological57.99858.2620.264Sufficient
Socio cultural66.27866.8750.597Sufficient
Economic51.86251.4100.452Sufficient
Table
Table 5. Stress and R2 Value.
Table 5. Stress and R2 Value.
CriteriaR2Stress
Ecological0.9820.144
Social cultural0.9830.141
Economic0.9970.060
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saputro, K.E.A.; Hasim; Karlinasari, L.; Beik, I.S. Evaluation of Sustainable Rural Tourism Development with an Integrated Approach Using MDS and ANP Methods: Case Study in Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031835

AMA Style

Saputro KEA, Hasim, Karlinasari L, Beik IS. Evaluation of Sustainable Rural Tourism Development with an Integrated Approach Using MDS and ANP Methods: Case Study in Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031835

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saputro, Ketut Eko Ari, Hasim, Lina Karlinasari, and Irfan Syauqi Beik. 2023. "Evaluation of Sustainable Rural Tourism Development with an Integrated Approach Using MDS and ANP Methods: Case Study in Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031835

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop