An Integrated Indicator Based Knowledge Evaluation System for Sustainable Tourism Management in Greece: Empirical Approach of Multiple-criteria Decision Analysis Making for Future Tourism Spatial Planning Georgios Apostolidis Department of Spatial Planning and Development, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GR-54124, Greece; e-mail: gapostolidis@plandevel.auth.gr Abstract. Indicators are a modern tool for measuring and identifying the quality of goods such as tourism and recreation in a region. Index systems have been established throughout Europe and almost all over the world to present thematic directions through an evaluation of the current situation and analysis of the features that relate to prospects for sustainable development. The purpose of this paper is to present a system of tourism sustainability indicators for Greece which is the only one available that is highly detailed and shows the diversity and the new dimensions for tourism projects and studies. The results of this study highlight the importance of such a system for a country, especially concerning an area with tourist attraction to make it possible for the area to endure in the future, based on institutionalized strategies and goals. Keywords: Tourism Management; Operation research; Decision Support System; AHP; Delphi. 1 Introduction Leisure activities and tourism concepts, which comprise part of the developmental process of the Greek state, according to Soutsas et al. (2006) can be used for the regional development and the evaluation of the factors contributing to the development and design of an area. The tourist characteristics of the Greek Prefectures present a dynamic attraction for visitors and lead to the formation of tourist flows, thus, creating a spatial background of cross-regional policy with economic, social, ecological, environmental, and cultural cohesion (Polyzos and Arabatzis 2008a,2008b). It is now perceived that spatial analysis and sustainability surveys for tourism (Curry and Luiz, 1992) have been applied in countries around the world since tourism is identified as a key to the multi-thematic development (cultural, residential, environmental, urban planning etc.) of a region (Xiao, 2013). Taking into account the United Nations Agenda (2030), which is a plan of actions and salvation for humanity, the planet and prosperity, Environmental Resources comprise one of the 17 statutory goals (GOALS) of sustainable development on which the Member States must focus at both the local and global level and in turn, exploit 385 sustainably and rationally by preserving and restoring sound ecosystems (services, functions, values), to contribute to the mitigation of the chain of values of life and the phenomenon of climate change (United Nations General Assembly, 2015;United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Program, 2016;The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). It should be noted that sustainable tourism and sustainable tourism development are the most important cross-cutting objectives and comprise an integral part of the United Nations Agenda 2030. More specifically, a tool that the Institution anticipates and encourages to be developed and used is that of the indicators which reflect a milestone in the success of a global shift towards sustainable development (Economic and Social Council United Nations, 2017;The Sustainable Tourism Program of the 10-Year Framework of Programs on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns; The Sustainable Tourism Program committed to driving the change, 2015). According to the guidelines and Special Indicator Charts issued by the European Commission (2020), research models can be identified as social, environmental, tourism, and financial ones reflecting tailored country-specific impact strategy analysis criteria. What is more, Greece must proceed to a tourist portfolio by creating landscape levels and systems, spatial analysis, modelling of tourism demand, and economic environmental valuation in order to be able to defend itself by preserving its identity in line with what commands the future of Europe, the next scientific development and generation, as well as the economy. In addition, not only direction models have to be followed but also the relevant directives and regulations of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, should be updated by the Greek state. From Greek Ministry of Environment Energy and Climate Change (2013), it can be inferred that areas with special forms of tourism and sophisticated features need to be rebuilt and supported in order to achieve sustainable development and avoid the mythology and degradation of the product. Therefore, modification and revision of Greek Ministry of Environment Energy and Climate Change (2013) should bring the desired effect and curb weaknesses in the country. It is the aim of this research to create a system of tourism sustainability indicators for Greece in order to forecast and define the strategies to be followed in particular areas. After all, the ultimate goal of this research is the introduction and establishment of a new tourism assessment tool for the future management of the tourist product considered, as well as for purposes of decision making of suitable scenarios for interventions in recreational areas and in the natural landscape. 2 Methodology - Sample The sample size for the population of the Prefecture of Pella was estimated based on the types of Simple Random Sampling (Zerva et al. 2018; Tsiantikoudis et al. 2013). In effect, the sample size is 382 people and is representative of the general socio- economic conditions of the local population. 386 2.1 Sustainability Indicators In this section we present the evaluation of impact (AHP) in pairs along with the analysis of effect (Delphi) that were constructed by encompassing the variables used and which are the following with a consistency of significance of incidence more or less (Srdjevic and Srdjevic 2011;Chen et al. 2013;Latinopoulos and Vagiona 2013;Srdjevic et al. 2017;Vasileiou et al. 2017) A) Larger significant impact has values of: 1-3-5-7-9 (higher significance): 1=equal incidence, 3=weak effect & 9=absolute prevalence of incidence when the evaluation takes place bottom up. B) Less significant impact is given by:1-1/3-1/5-1/7-1/9 (lower significance) when the evaluation takes place top down. For the evaluation of the above we constructed the following: C) Vulnerability indicators showing whether there will be endurance and resistance in the scenario, take values: (-1,0,+1). D) Insight indicators reflecting the respondent's sense of how the scenario should be applied in the near future, take values: (0 and+1). E) Objective Crisis Indicators referring to the confidence interval of the survey, receive values: (-1,0,+1). G) Sustainability indicators referring to the sustainable application of the scenario over time, take values: (-1,0,+1). Finally, CI & CR and λmax were estimated according to the following formulas (Gao and Hailu, 2012;Etongo et al. 2018): CI = (λmax-n)/(n-1) (2) CR = Cl/RI (3) It is worth mentioning that other methods of multicriteria analysis have been rejected (such as the PROMETHEE Group, the ELECTRE Group, the DEA Method & Linear Programming) as they are mostly applied according to the available literature with the financial data and the quantitative data that they deal with. It needs hardly be argued that TOPSIS was rejected on the grounds that it is the MCDM method that is used for the formation and mechanism of food production, supply and logistics of the food market, and not for tourism and sustainable tourism development, and economics of the environment, and values & preferences (Arabatzis and Grigoroudis 2010;Arabatzis et al. 2010;Velasquez and Hester 2013;Lima et al. 2014); Vlontzos et al. 2014). Finally, for the influence matrices, the positive and negative effects scale (Jose, 1996) was used with ascending and descending order respectively of panel values of (high negative effect) -4,-3,-2,-1,0 (no effect) and (high positive effect) +4,+3,+2,+1 (Siomkos, 2004). The decision-making system implemented could not have been completed without the significant presence and extraction of the indicators for tourism, which ultimately paved the way and the light to be given to the region so as to bring significant benefits to users and to smooth out environmental, social, and 387 economic problems. After all, land use transformations in a spatial framework of analysis encompass the contribution and presence of human activity as a whole. The following figure shows the analytical scopes for the sustainability indicators for tourism at all levels, that were applied and followed in order to produce the best intervention scenarios eventually. Fig. 1. Decision Making System of Sustainability Indicators. Coding of DSS, Level1 = Sustainability Level2 = inENV, inSOC, inTOUR, inPOL Level 3 = Environmental Indicators, Socio-Economic Indicators, Tourism Indicators, Policy Indicators Level4 = (1,2…n) Choice Strategy Strategy1: Creating Jobs and Employment. Strategy2: Absorption and Increase of Investments. Strategy3: Reconstruction of Cultural and Natural Heritage Identity. Strategy4: Land Usage & Sustainable Management of Environmental Resources. Strategy5: Planning and Landscaping. Strategy6: Development of projects and programs. Strategy7: Programming of Recreational Values. 3 Research Area The research area selected was the Thermal Springs of Pozar and the Voras Ski Center (Pella Regional Unit-Greece). What follows is the analysis of the area concerning its spatial design combined with the natural environment, tourism, 388 economy, society and the characteristics forming a comprehensive background of an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Table 1. Spatial Planning of alternative forms of tourism in the research area. Strengths (S) * Alternative forms of tourism and leisure activities Opportunities (Ο) activities*Areas with high natural value and importance * Altitude * Natural Resources (Forestry, Healing, Grassland, Aquatic, *Image formatting by the media Herbs, Therams) *Geothermy * Annual management *Hydropower * Funding from European Programs *Traditional and preserved settlements with a high cultural ID *Saving energy *Nodal geographic location and location *Improving the quality of human life *Modern transport networks * Synthesis of uses of land and natural landscapes *Local Tourist Networking of Tourist Destinations *Scheduling visitation * Wind power Threats (T) * Solar power * High quality tourist product by competitors *Expensive destination due to the economic crisis in relation to the Spatial Planning services provided SWOT *Insufficient promotion *Thefts Weaknesses (W) * Bureaucracy * Loss of demand abroad * Electricity problems *Bulky European markets * Climatic conditions *A decline in traditional characteristics over the years * Lack of skilled human resources *Same day visits from nearby destinations * Insufficient legislative design and environment * Low Quality of tourism infrastructure * High competition from Balkan countries * Non-promoted local products *Pollution * Missing cartographic data * Natural disasters-extreme phenomena (fires, floods, landslides, * Inaccurate display of visitation erosion, avalanches snow, storms,ice) *Fuzzy logic and sense of direction of site layout *Extensive-illegal logging *Deficient management 4 Results Τhe corresponding indicator weights and the Consistency Index & Consistency Ratio estimators according to mathematical modelling and the Random Consistency Index parameters for each indicator are presented. In the results of Level2 of the AHP analysis, social indicators are identified as having the most weighing and priority with the ones of the environment following next. However, moving to a next stage, it is found that new criteria have to be taken into account in shaping the area. The indicators of the scenario showed a promising outcome for the region. 389 priority vector (Weights) inENV 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 priority vector inPOL 0,00 inSOC (Weights) inTOUR Fig. 2. Weights of four-dimensional Indicators. The results from level 3, highlighted not only the critical parameters that were taken into account in the planning of the tourist package and plan but also the interventions that need to be implemented. Particular attention needs to be paid to the outcome of the results on environmental indicators, and especially on RES which showed a consistency of responses and high weight of sustainable choice for the region. Also, concerning the tourist indicators, the second strand of each market and labor indicator offered an important finding while the policy indicators highlighted the importance of the state on this issue. Finally, the scales of insights, viability, objective judgment, and vulnerability have graphically depicted the implementation of the scenarios and the kilometer distance on index impact. What is also noteworthy, is the last core which was formed with reference to all the indicators in an application with the corresponding λmax & CI & CR. The last part of the AHP analysis was completed with the analysis strategies for each indicator. At this stage, the highest level of details is presented, with the results being valuable to the design of the product. Most of the indicators have shown consistent and sustainable results with a sustainable CR estimate of <10%, which also highlights the involvement of the respondents in the project coordination. In particular, the following environmental indicators did not receive high weighing: inFOR1, inFOR3, inFOR7, inFOR9, inFOR12, inFOR14, inFOR17, inRAN1, inRAN2, inRAN3, inGAME1, inGAME3, inWET1, inWET3, inWET5, inWET7, inWET8, inWET9, inRES2, inRES4, inSPA1, inSPA2, inSPA3, inSPA5. From the Social and Economic Indicators, the inSOC7, inSOC8, inSOC10, inSOC11 did not indicate consistency and impact weighing. However, only one parameter, the one of competition, inTOUR1, seems to be of no particular concern to the respondents, which 390 highlights a high-quality tourist product without the risk of competition. Finally, concerning the policy indicators, inPOL13 & inPOL15, the responses provided suggest that no strategy is needed. The remaining criteria have demonstrated strong interpretable components of the direction that should be given to the region. It is worth mentioning that this research is the only one that examines the tourist status of a region and provides the maximum level of detail on the goals to be set for sustainable development in Greece. 391 GOAL inFOR1 inPOL16 inPOL15 inPOL14 inPOL13 inFOR2 inFOR3 inFOR4 inFOR5 inPOL12 0,35 inFOR6 inPOL11 inPOL10 inFOR7 inFOR8 inPOL9 0,30 inFOR9 inPOL8 inFOR10 inPOL7 inFOR11 inPOL6 inFOR12 inPOL5 0,25 inFOR13 inPOL4 inFOR14 inPOL3 0,20 inFOR15 inPOL2 inFOR16 inPOL1 inFOR17 inTOUR15 0,15 inRAN1 S1 inTOUR14 inRAN2 inTOUR13 0,10 inRAN3 S2 inTOUR12 inRAN4 inTOUR11 0,05 inRAN5 S3 inTOUR10 inGAME1 inTOUR9 0,00 inGAME2 S4 inTOUR8 inGAME3 inTOUR7 inGAME4 S5 inTOUR6 inGAME5 S6 inTOUR5 inWET1 inTOUR4 inWET2 S7 inTOUR3 inWET3 inTOUR2 inWET4 inTOUR1 inWET5 inSOC12 inWET6 inSOC11 inWET7 inSOC10 inWET8 inSOC9 inWET9 inSOC8 inWET10 inSOC7 inSOC6 inRES1 inRES2 inSOC5 inSOC4 inRES3 inRES4 inSOC3 inSOC2 inSOC1 inRES5 inSPA1 inSPA2 inSPA6 inSPA3 inSPA5 inSPA4 Fig. 3. Indicators of inSTORM Strategy Action. The results showing the effects of the Delphi method at the specific analysis level in the area of tourist interest under consideration are presented graphically in the light of the dimensions of each indicator which was applied. Of the six regions in total, the 3, the Ski Center, the Airport and the Wetland, appear to be influenced by the system 392 of indicators applied. In particular, the R2 values showed high correlations between the kilometer distances and the effects exercised according to the sample responses (0.865 and 0.8824, respectively). 140 120 y = 21,8x + 23 100 R² = 0,865 Effect (km) 80 Ski Resort_inENV_km 60 Ski Resort_inSOC_km 40 Ski Resort_inTOUR_km 20 Ski Resort_inPOL_km 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 indicators Fig. 4. Effect of Indicators on kilometer distance to the ski center. 45 40 35 y = 7,5x + 2,5 Airport of Panagitsa (Flight Effect (km) 30 R² = 0,8824 Center)_inENV_km 25 Airport of Panagitsa (Flight 20 Center)_inSOC_km 15 Airport of Panagitsa (Flight 10 Center)_inTOUR_km 5 Airport of Panagitsa (Flight 0 Center)_inPOL_km 0 1 2 3 4 5 indicators Fig. 5. Effect of indicators on kilometer distance from the airport. 393 70 60 50 Wetland of Effect (km) Agras_inENV_km 40 Wetland of 30 Agras_inSOC_km Wetland of 20 Agras_inTOUR_km y = -15x + 70 Wetland of 10 Agras_inPOL_km R² = 0,8824 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 indicators Fig. 6. Effect of Indicators on Kilometer Distance to the Agra Wetland. 5 Conclusions The results show how sustainable management of the Voras Mountain can be achieved through different scenarios of tourism intervention, which are in line with the European model and strategies set by the European Commission concerning climate change. The results of this research present new knowledge about the region and the Greek area, but also updated, and improved the existing ones informing the international literature on the subject as well. It has, therefore, become clear that a unified plan should be created for these areas with particular tourist patterns. Over the years, local regulation and society are regarded as the key to change and reform. The findings have a key role and significant value for research, management, environment, economy, spatial planning and policy since demand for recreation has a significant impact on the market and sustainability indicators for tourism have been unknown in these areas so far (future research paths). The present research presents some key credible and valid supremacies such as the focus of research planning and the research contribution, the motivation of the study, the methodological support of the findings, its position in the existing subject field. Furthermore, there is strong consistency between the goals, the findings and the subsequent discussion (theoretical and empirical integration). In particular, the research presented the tourist value of a leisure pole, that had never been investigated previously, introducing a massive pillar of indicators (indicators for Sustainable 394 Tourism Management-inSTORM) with different dimensions and offering an excellent design of interventions in the area along with their organization, resulting in the contribution of the results to the initiation of a new dialogue and the development of a new framework for tourism. Currently, all public services have the knowledge and expertise as well as all the necessary information tools which enable them to make their own tourism management studies and intergovernmental tourism boards. Not only in Greece at the local and regional level but also internationally, all countries should adopt legislation (Horizon Europe 2021-2027), a standard management system for tourism and sustainability, the same way that it has taken place for the forest, water and climate. Acknowledgements. Fundings: -General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) -Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) of the Greek Ministry of Education Research and Religious Affairs. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki-A.U.TH Research Committee, National Project/95157/AUTh/GREECE. Title: The role of economic assessment of environmental resources in planning sustainable tourism development. References 1. Arabatzis, G., Aggelopoulos, S. and Tsiantikoudis, S. (2010). “Rural Development and LEADER+in Greece: Evaluation of Local Action Groups.” Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 8 (1): 302–7. 2. Arabatzis, G. and Grigoroudis, E. (2010). “Visitors’ Satisfaction, Perceptions and Gap Analysis: The Case of Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National Park.” Forest Policy and Economics 12 (3): 163–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.008. 3. Chen, Y., Yu, J. and Khan, S. (2013). “The Spatial Framework for Weight Sensitivity Analysis in AHP-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Making.” Environmental Modelling and Software 48: 129–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.06.010. 4. Curry, B. and Luiz, M. (1992). “Environmental Issues in Tourism Management Computer Modelling for Judgemental Decisions.” International Journal of Service Industry Management 3 (1): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310474165 Hierarchical. 5. Economic and Social Council United Nations. (2017). “Progress report on the 10- year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns”, United Nations. 6. Etongo, D., Kanninen, M., Epule, T.E. and Fobissie, K. 2018. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Joint Forest Management in Southern Burkina Faso: A SWOTAHP Analysis.” Forest Policy and Economics 90: 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.008. 395 7. European Union social indicators - Europe. (2020). "Poverty and social exclusion target", European Commission. 8. Europe Targets. (2020). 9. Gao, L. and Hailu, A. (2012). “Ranking Management Strategies with Complex Outcomes: An AHP-Fuzzy Evaluation of Recreational Fishing Using an Integrated Agent-Based Model of a Coral Reef Ecosystem.” Environmental Modelling and Software 31: 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.12.002. 10. Greek Ministry of Environment Energy and Climate Change. (2013). “Approval of Changes Special Framework for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development for Tourism and Strategic Environmental Impact Study That.” 11. Jose, P. D. (1996). “Corporate Strategy and the Environment: A Portfolio Approach.” Long Range Planning 29 (4): 462–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024- 6301(96)00038-6. 12. Latinopoulos, D. and Vagiona, D. (2013). “Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism Development in Protected Areas: An Indicator-Based Approach.” International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 7(3): 233. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2013.056942. 13. Lima J., Rodrigues, F., Osiro, L. and Carpinetti, L.C.R. (2014). “A Comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods to Supplier Selection.” Applied Soft Computing Journal 21: 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.014. 14. Polyzos, S. and Arabatzis, G. (2008a). “Determinant Factors of Tourist Attractiveness of Greek Prefectures.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 3 (4): 343–66. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V3-N4- 343-366. 15. Polyzos, S. and Arabatzis, G. (2008b). “SPatial Distribution of Natural Resources and Their Contribution to Regional DeveloPment. the Case of Greece.” Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 9 (1): 183–99. 16. Siomkos, G. (2004). “Strategic marketing”. Stamouli, Athens, 2004. 17. Soutsas, K., Tsantopoulos, G., Arabatzis, G. and Christopoulou, O. (2006). “Characteristics of Tourism Development in Mountainous Regions Using Categorical Regression: The Case of Metsovo (Greece).” International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 1 (1): 32–45. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP- V1-N1-32-45. 18. Srdjevic, B. and Srdjevic, Z. (2011). “Bi-Criteria Evolution Strategy in Estimating Weights from the AHP Ratio-Scale Matrices.” Applied Mathematics and Computation 218 (4): 1254–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.06.006. 19. Srdjevic, B., Srdjevic, Z., Dantas, Y. and Medeiros, P. (2017). “Multicriteria and Social Choice Methods in Assessing Water Management Plans.” In HAICTA 2017, 541–53. 20. The Sustainable Tourism Programme committed to drive the change. (2015). "Setting the Foundations for Collective Impact", Annual Magazine for 2015. 21. The Sustainable Tourism Programme of the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, UNEP. 396 22. Tsiantikoudis, S., Soutsas, K. and Apostolidis, G. (2013). “Contribution of Game Resources to the Quality of Life : The Case of the Evros Prefecture.” Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 14 (1): 240–46. 23. United Nations General Assembly. (2015). "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development", United Nations. 24. United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme. (2016). "Sustainable consumption and production", United Nations. 25. United Nations Agenda (2030). 26. Vasileiou, M., Loukogeorgaki, E. and Vagiona, D. (2017). “GIS-Based Multi- Criteria Decision Analysis for Site Selection of Hybrid Offshore Wind and Wave Energy Systems in Greece.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73: 745– 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.161. 27. Velasquez, M. and Hester, P. (2013). “An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods.” International Journal of Operations Research 10 (2): 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2. 28. Vlontzos, G., Arabatzis, G. and Manos, B. (2014). “Investigation of the relative efficiency of LEADER + in rural areas of Northern Greece”. International Journal of Green Economics, 8(1), p. 37-48. 29. Xiao, H. (2013). “Key Concepts in Tourism Research.” Annals of Tourism Research 42: 449–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.05.007. 30. Zerva, A., Tsantopoulos, G. Grigoroudis, E. and Arabatzis, G. (2018). “Perceived Citizens’ Satisfaction with Climate Change Stakeholders Using a Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach.” Environmental Science and Policy 82: 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.008. 397