Creating Maps of Alternative

Land suitability class range: 240 – 72 4 = 42 The suitability class of index X where 198 X ≤ 240 are Highly suitable 156 X ≤ 198 are Suitable 114 X ≤ 156 are Marginal suitable 72 X ≤ 114 are Not suitable 4.2.3.2 Areas of Conflict Geographic Information System GIS technology allows the matching of recreation potential with the characteristics of the regions. The capability of a GIS on analysis land use planning here, by consideration of sustainable development concept. Spatial analysis approach is more enhance for measuring wide, area and site selection that are suitable for particularly purpose. The area conflicts were identified through land suitability analysis and existing land use, which is one area may be suitable for tourism, paddy field, or another combination. It was identified also by matching of existing land use with land use planning, where often the conservation area uses for other activities that its opposites each others.

4.2.4 Creating Maps of Alternative

The alternative maps were defined using spatial analysis functions such as overlay, query and proximity. Overlay is to combine data layers onto one layer, deriving new useful information. The attributes from the input data layers are still kept in the output data layers. This research overlaid land suitability map for tourism, paddy field, corn and the existing land use map with all attributes. Based on this overlaid map, land use alternative map were defined using spatial query. The steps used are 1. to define a query expression in a query language, 33 2. to execute the query to assign new combination codes from old land use category to obtain new land use category, and 3. to display the result. An example of query expression is shown below: [Landform] = Sand dune and [Land use type] = bush and [Bufferdist] = 500 . Then execute in new data set to obtain the new code, for instance: [Land use type] = open space” The steps of doing this can be seen in Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4 Map of alternative diagram. 4.2.5 Decision Making and Multi Criteria Analysis MCA Multiple-Criteria Analysis is a decision making tool developed for complex multi-criteria problems that include qualitative andor quantitative aspects of the problem in the decision-making process. It needed in situation where multiple criteria are involved, confusion can arise if logical well-structured decision-making process is 34 not followed. The decision maker trying to decide whether to chose three objective scheme as follow: economic development, sand dune conservation and sustainable development during land use planning of tourism development. To arrive at preferred option in this situation the importance of each criterion relative to the decision being made must be evaluated and included in the decision-making process. Relevant criteria have to be identified, analyzed, combined and evaluated in order to meet specific objectives. The process of evaluating several criteria is called Multi Criteria Analysis MCA Figure 4.4. Multi criteria methods provide a flexible way of dealing with land allocation decision. Figure 4.4 Flowchart of Multi Criteria Analysis. 4.2.5.1 Formulation of Policy Alternatives The policy alternative was done by assume that there are permanent existing land use could not change to other uses, for instance settlement. Therefore, changing certain existing condition to others were used for simulation to derive best alternative land uses. 35 To achieve best recommended land uses, the proper policy is needed to fit sustainable coastal tourism planning. Policy measures, site selection and autonomous development together lead to the formulation of policy alternatives. A set of measures will determine a combination of activities for each alternative. For the formulation of policy alternative, the conflict map will be crossed with existing land used map. The designed policy alternative consideration according to the tree policy objective that will be used for this research is shown in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 The designed policy alternative according to the tree policy objective. No Alternative Description 1 1A No change in the present distribution of land used Sand dune conservation: 2A Moderate 2 2B Strong 3 Economic development 3A 3B 3C Moderate Strong Slow 4 Sustainable development: 4A 4B Emphases on sand dune conservation 5 Sustainable development: 5A 5B 5C Emphases on tourism development infrastructure 4.2.5.2 Assessment Criteria A criterion is a basis for a decision that can be measured and evaluated. To compare the different alternatives, assessment criteria need to be defined. These criteria have to be specific for each policy objective, and measurable. The criteria is used to measure performance in relation to an objective. The tree policy objectives 36 were defined in the formulation of the assessment criteria Table 4.5. Table 4.5 Assessment criteria of the policy objectives. No Policy objectives Assessment criteria unit 1 Sand dune conservation Gain or loss sand dune Aesthetic value Area ha Ordinal scale 1– 5 2 Sustainable development Fertilizer use Degree of multiple land use tonyear Index area ha 3 Economic development Original Regional Revenue PAD Monetary X millions rupiah Source: Joan Looijen, 1995 Note: More gain of sand dune, the better Bigger aesthetic value, the worse Bigger fertilizer use, the worse More polygon multiple land use, the better More Original Regional Revenue, the better 4.2.5.3 Comparison of alternatives MCA is a set of techniques that including criteria selection, criteria valuation, criteria scores, criteria weights, standardization of scores, aggregation of scores, ranking and sensitivity test Van Herwijnen 1999. The policy alternatives were compared using multi criteria analysis. To indicate the relative importance of each effect, it is necessary to assign weights. The pair wise comparison seems to be the best possibilities for expressing the variability related to the various policy objectives. These comparisons of all pairs of effects are then converted to quantitative weights. The outcome of the analysis is an ordinal ranking of the alternatives.

4.3 Data requirement and Equipment used