Analyzing residents’ preferences to ecotourism impacts using simple additive weighting: The case of Mount Rinjani National Park, Indonesia

Abstract Under the more current paradigm of protected area management, which takes a more integrated approach to conservation and development opportunities, residents are now seen as co-managers of protected areas. Through the Social Representation Theory, Rational Choice Theory, and Social Identity Theory, this study aims to identify the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of ecotourism perceived by the residents and their priorities/preferences in Mount Rinjani National Park (MNRP). This study employed the qualitative method (phase 1) and the quantitative method (phase 2). Phase 1 collected primary data through focus group discussion (FGD). The FGD was conducted with 7 participants who were chosen using judgment sampling. Data in the FGD were transcribed and analyzed with content analysis. Results of the analysis in phase 1 were utilized as the basis for analysis in phase 2. Phase 2 collected the data from a survey. Due to the homogeneity of the population, 30 respondents were chosen as the sample using purposive sampling. Data of the survey were analyzed with simple additive weighting. The results showed that the highest preference of the residents was economic impacts, followed by the social-cultural and environmental impacts. From the perspective of Social Representation Theory, it can explain how different people understand and respond to social issues in a community. From the perspective of Rational Choice Theory and Social Identity Theory, although economic impacts rank first, social interest comes first instead of individual interest. Finally, the results of this study can be used as a guide for both the national government (MNRP) and local government (the Culture and Tourism Board) regard to how residents behave towards ecotourism development.


Introduction
The legacy of ecotourism that has often been echoed over the last two decades is community-based ecotourism (CBE) (Stone 2015).In general, CBE is defined as tourism that is managed by the community for the tourist destination (Khanal and Babar 2007).Later, not only is CBE based on environmental preservation, but also on cultural preservation to improve the welfare of local communities (Reimer and Walter 2013;Kim 2016).In this study we use the CBE definition as a more integrative approach to conservation and development opportunities in which residents are seen as co-managers of the protected areas (Ouma and Stadel 2021).So far, conservation efforts have merely focused on restrictions on resource use rather than resource access.However, despite these restrictions, illegal use of forest resources persists, causing conflicts (Ouma and Stadel 2021).For example, in Rwanda, initially mountain gorilla tourism contributed much to the local government and private sector revenues.Therefore, the Rwandan government was motivated to protect it using strict protectionist measures.Consequently, conflicts occur among residents, who only get limited benefits, wildlife and the Vulcanoes NP.Accordingly, the government changed the approach from traditional conservation to an inclusive, conservation-based approach where communities are involved in decision-making and access to conservation benefits (Sabuhoro et al. 2021).
In Indonesia, until the end of 2021, the Directorate General of Ecosystem and Natural Resource Conservation has designated and is managing 568 conservation areas with a total size of 26,894,122.42 hectares, which is made up of terrestrial and aquatic areas.This conservation area consists of a wildlife sanctuary, a nature reserve, a hunting park, a grand forest park, water conservation and a national park (NP).Of these 568 conservation areas, 54 are NP (KSDAE 2022).NP is defined as the natural conservation area with the original ecosystem.It is managed with the zoning system and is utilized for research, knowledge, science, education, culture, tourism, and recreation purposes (Law of the Republic Indonesia Number 5 of 1990).
The definition reveals that NP is an important ecotourism resource, although some studies have shown negative issues in the relationship between NP development and surrounding communities around NP. Myers and Muhajir (2015), highlighting the protest of the people in 5 villages because their lands were claimed by Bukit Baka Bukit Raya NP; Von Heland and Clifton (2015), highlighting the coral reef damage due to unsustainable fishing (blast and cyanide fishing, muroami netting) in Wakatobi NP; Yusran et al. (2017), highlighting the conflict of people's livelihood and conservation in Bantimurung Bulusaraung NP).The finding is in line with the results of another study (Soliku and Schraml 2018), They compared the conflicts in the conservation areas in developed and developing countries.In developing countries like Indonesia, conflicts are mostly driven by the impact of nature conservation on the livelihood of the surrounding communities.In this context, ccotourism is a crucial component of sustainable tourism, which strikes a balance between the competing ideals of environmental preservation, economic growth, and socio-cultural preservation of local communities (Yoon and Lee 2021).
Since 1970s, the residents have become subjects of research and received much attention for the development of the tourism industry (Vargas-S� anchez et al. 2011).Early studies were criticized as too descriptive and atheoretical with a minor exception.However, as time goes by, further studies have employed sociological and psychological theories (Gursoy et al. 2002;Gursoy et al. 2019).
Reviewing the current literature on the perception of the residents about the tourism impacts and development, we found the following major gaps.First, they were atheoretical, the theory most frequently referred to as the framework of the research on resident perception to the tourism impacts is the Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Nunkoo et al. 2013).SET states that the residents who perceive tourism as a potential benefit will have a strong commitment to exchange with tourists (Zuo et al. 2017).Since then, the majority of research refers to this theory.In other words, the perspective of the residents on the exchange in economic, social-cultural, and environmental elements will affect their behavior toward tourism (Suess and Mody 2016).Second, the literature that discusses the impacts of tourism on the residents mostly uses deterministic logic or mathematical logic.On the other hand, stochastic or probabilistic logic is rarely used.Unlike mathematical logic, probabilistic logic is a method to solve problems related to uncertainty and ambiguity with a possible alternative solution (Hendarto et al. 2018).Third, most studies use either quantitative or qualitative methods.Only a few studies combine both methods (Wassler et al. 2019).Fourth, mass tourism is the subject of most studies, while ecotourism is rarely discussed.
The aim of this study is to fill these gaps.First, Social Representation Theory (SRT) is employed in phase 1 of this study.SRT is employed because of the weaknesses of SET.They are: (1) SET assumes that humans are rational creatures that make decisions based on rational calculation while ignoring the emotional dimension of humans in decision making.Although humans are rational, humans are equally emotional (Woosnam 2012); (2) SET ignores cultural reality (Kim, 2016).According to SET, people are motivated to maintain the significant exchange, particularly through maximization of benefits and minimization of costs.This has become the limitation of SET because of a lack of attention to cultural issues in the norms and rules that regulate social exchanges.Miller (2005) also revealed that the focus of SET is individual output while ignoring the collectively oriented cultural interaction; (3) SET does not adequately describe the residents' reactions.For instance, frequently the residents who have no specific benefits also supported the development of tourism (Caneday and Zeiger, 1991;Chhabra and Gursoy, 2007).Sharpley (2014) argued that SET has simplified the impacts of tourism in the process of decision-making among the residents and ignored the context.As with the studies conducted by Lai et al. (2016); Sarr et al. (2021), this study uses SRT because of its strength.Those strengths are: (1) SRT has provided conceptual justification to classify residents by their support level to tourism (Suess and Mody 2016); (2) SRT is emic (internal perspective), contextual (related to a particular situation), and process-oriented (focusing more on steps rather than objectives) then this theory can help understand the residents' reality (Suess and Mody 2016;Monterrubio and Andriotis 2014); (3) in the context of society's attitude to tourism development, SRT can provide potential insights because the SRT frame pays direct attention to the system of benefits, attributes, and individuals' explanations about tourism (Pearce et al. 1991).In phase 2, this study uses Rational Choice Theory (RCT) and Social Identity theory (SIT).They are integrated because RCT does not have the resources to solve the problem of choice and therefore fail to provide a single solution (de Boer 2008).RCT primarily assumes that the actor chooses the best alternative that provides optimal social outcomes in spite of the subjectively perceived institutional, cultural, psychological constraints.Consequently, the explanatory power on social phenomena is not robust enough (Sato 2013).Second, this study uses the content analysis in phase 1 and the simple additive weighting (SAW) in phase 2, as the analysis instrument.The advantage of SAW over other methods (such as the analytical hierarchy process) is its accurate assessment based on predetermined criteria values and preference weights (Kusumadewi et al. 2006).Third, this study used mixed methods.There are three benefits of mixed methods over one method: (1) in contrast to other methods, mixed methods might provide an answer to the research question; (2) a stronger approach for drawing conclusions is provided by using mixed methods; (3) mixed methods provide a chance to present a broader range of viewpoints (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009); Fourth, this study is case study focuses on ecotourism in MRNP.MRNP is located on Lombok Island at the third-highest active volcano in Indonesia, after Cartenz and Kerinci.The area of Mount Rinjani and the surrounding areas has been designated as the Unesco Global Geopark in 2018.In other words, Mount Rinjani has some geological elements, archeology, ecology, and culture.
Residents are now viewed as co-managers of protected areas under the more recent paradigm of protected area management, which takes a more integrative approach to conservation and development opportunity (Ouma and Stadel 2021).Therefore, with SRT, the study aims to identify the residents' preference to the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of ecotourism in MRNP.The research questions that need to be addressed include: what are (1) economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impact perceived by the residents; and (2) how the residents rank their preferences.It is expected that the result of the study can contribute to the literature on NP and ecotourism by highlighting the economic, social-cultural, and environmental impacts on the people surrounding the MNRP.Besides that, this study offers a better comprehension of the role of residents in supporting the development of NP and ecotourism.Although previous studies have shown that perception is a key antecedent of attitude to support ecotourism development, the preference has not been adequately explored.The central and local governments might use this study as a reference in order to advance the course of ecotourism in MNRP.
This study uses a sequential exploratory strategy to answer the research questions.This strategy contains two phases: a first phase that involves gathering and analyzing qualitative data, and a second phase that involves gathering and analyzing quantitative data based on the results of the phase 1 (Creswell 2014).Furthermore, this article is organized into several parts.Section II contains research methods which are divided into two parts, namely phase 1 for qualitative and phase 2 for quantitative.In phase 1, primary data was collected through focus group discussions (FGD) and analyzed using content analysis.In phase 2, based on the findings of phase 1, primary data was collected through surveys and analyzed with SAW.Then, sections III and IV are the results of the analysis in phase 1 and phase 2, the results are discussed after being presented.Finally, section V, the empirical findings are used to develop conclusions, limitations and suggestions.
The study was carried out in Senaru Village, Bayan District, Lombok Utara Regency.Senaru is one of the villages that become the entrance of the official trekking to Mount Rinjani.There are also four other official trekking point: Sembalun, Torean, Aikberik, and Timbanuh.Senaru was chosen because it: (1) is the most frequently passed by climbers; (2) is the heavily covered forest (other treks are mostly savannas); (3) has many endemic floras dan faunas; and (4) has the most beautiful view of lake Segara Anak, mount Barujari, and Rinjani peak in a straight line.
Senaru has an area of 41.62 km2 with a total population of 7092 in 2022.Development Planning Agency at North Lombok states that around 74% of Senaru residents are poor (RadarLombok 2018).In 2019, the Governor of West Nusa Tenggara classified Senaru as one of the 100 poor villages.The rate of stunting, malnutrition, early marriages, uninhabitable houses, and other problems were taken into account in making this decision (SuaraNTB.com 2019).Ethnically, the population in Senaru consists of 6721 Sasak people (or around 95%), 352 Balinese, 15 Javanese, 2 Sumbawa, and 2 Mbojo (PemkabLombokutara 2023).Most of the residents of Senaru work as farmers with an agricultural area between 0.5 and 1.5 ha.Besides farming, they also work as traders, porters, guides, and others (BPS 2018).

Phase 1
SRT is defined as myths, knowledge, image, ideas, and thoughts about social objects (Moscovici 1981).SRT is complex and holistic, therefore it can be viewed as a "theory", "network of ideas", metaphor, or image that includes emotion, attitude, and judgment (Moscovici 2000).There are two main concepts in SRT, including anchoring and objectification.Anchoring is a process where individuals relate one idea of an object to a context and meaning with which they are familiar.Meanwhile, objectification is a process of translating abstract ideas and concepts into a concrete image (Moscovici 1984).Through objectification, an unidentified object can be changed to become a concrete and real object (Bauer and Gaskell 1999).The process of objectification requires, according to Moscovici (1984), a concept that is reproduced into an image that is further separated from ideas that are initially related and are considered a "reality element " instead of a "mind element."In other words, objectification requires a complex and abstract scientific phenomenon reconstructed into a familiar, conventional, and simple image.Soon after the objectification, our mind about it becomes less reflective and over time we no longer realize that objectification has occurred (Markova and Wilkie 1987).
SRT is embedded in communicative practices such as dialog, debate, media discourse, and scientific discourse (Markov� a 2003).Therefore, we can add emotional anchoring and emotional objectification to the communicative mechanism, such as fear or hope (H€ oijer 2010).Moreover, this study describes how the residents represent their perception of the impacts of ecotourism with the focus on how fear and hope are manifested in verbal representation.Instead of providing a holistic description, it is intended to show

Sample
This phase used FGD for data collection.Participant of the FGD were chosen using method of judgment sampling."Judgment sampling, a form of convenience sampling, sampling is determined by the researcher's judgment or particular criteria" (Malhotra in Hendarto et al. 2018).The criteria are: (1) living in Senaru; (2) dependent and having relatively similar social charasteristics; and (3) being willing to get involved in the research activities.
In FGD, the optimal number of participants is between 7 and 10 people (Krueger and Casey 2015).Too few participants will fail to provide interesting variations, and too many participants will reduce the opportunity for each participant to provide their indepth thought.In conformity with the proposition, this study involved 7 participants.

Data analysis
The result of the recording of FGD that has been transcribed was analyzed with content analysis.The validity test in content analysis according to (Kassarjian 1977) adequately uses content validity or face validity.The reliability test aims to determine whether the coding sheet can produce comparable results when it is used by various individuals.In this phase, the reliability test was conducted by determining the coefficient of reliability value using the formula: Where "C 1,2 ¼ the number of category assignments on which all coders agrees; and C 1 , C 2 ¼ the sum of all category assignments by all coder" (Holsti in Hendarto et al. 2018).After the validity and reliability testing, the result of the transcript was processed with the descriptive content analysis.By contextualizing the transcribed data, descriptive content analysis was carried out.The contextualization was carried out by following the research conducted by (H€ oijer 2010), that is by coding the fear and hope emotions of the informant when they expressed their opinion.Quotes from the informants are used to support the contextualization.

Phase 2
The purpose of RCT is to explain social phenomena by assuming rational choices made by the actor (Hechter and Kanazawa 1997).To realize this goal, RCT assumes 2 mechanisms, namely the actor's choice and the macro-micro-macro transition.
An actor will choose an alternative that he perceives to produce maximal social results in spite of the limited subjective understanding (Sato 2013).The second mechanism can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows that the RCT is a stratified systematic activity.At a lower level, the model contains assumptions about the cognitive capacities and values of actors.At a higher level, the model contains a specification of the social system.This social system functions as a context and social material (X) for the actions of actors, and as a new structure (Y) resulting from the actions of actors whose behavior is explained by low-level assumptions (Hechter and Kanazawa 1997).
RCT assumes a discrete purposeful actor, utility theory, and rationality (Lovett 2006).There are 2 types of rationality assumptions (Sato 2013), namely forwardlooking rationality with which the actors choose from several alternatives by first predicting the social outcomes of their choices; backward-looking rationality with which the actor will choose from several alternatives by looking at past experiences.If the actor has previously chosen a positively-rewarded alternative, the actor is more likely to re-choose the alternative and vice versa.
In general, criticism of RCTs rests on this assumption.To reduce this weakness it is suggested to integrate it with SIT (Aguiar and de Francisco 2009;Sato, 2013).The essence of SIT is Tajfel's definition of social identity, namely the individual's knowledge about his certain social group along with the emotional meaning and value (Hogg 2016).

Sample
This phase used survey for data collection.Respondent of the survey were chosen using purposive sampling method.Criteria used to select the respndents were (1) living in Senaru; (2) being adult; (3) literate; (4) being knowledgable; (5) having social status; and (6) willing to get involved in research.
The determination of sample size that involves the mean value has to consider (1) the population (2) the type of data analysis; and (3) the accepted margin of error and/or the level of confidence (Zikmund and Babin 2016;Neuman 2019).Therefore, because (1) the population in Senaru is almost entirely Sasak (95%); (2) the approach used in the analysis is probability logic; and (3) previous studies using MADM only involved small samples (for example: 20 in Wei et al. (2009); 10 in Lee et al. (2010); 30 in Hendarto et al. (2018), we used a sample size of 30 respondents.

Measurement
This phase used questionnaires.The items were modified from the result of the phase 1.The economic impact was measured by 3 items; the socio-cultural impact was measured by 2 items; and the environmental impact was measured by 2 items.All the question items were measured on a Likert scale 1-5.
A pilot test was done to identify if (1) the words are ambiguous; (2) the instruction was understandable; (3) the difficulty of the answer; and (4) the duration needed to complete it.After the pilot test was done, the next step was testing the validity and reliability.The validity was tested by Pearson's product-moment and the reliability was tested by Cronbach's alpha (CA).

Data Analysis
The steps in SAW analysis are as follows (Sahu et al. 2018): � Create a (m x n) decision matrix for objectiverelated criteria � Identify the normalized decision matrix: For positive criteria For negative criteria Where x u ij is the maximum value of x ij in the j th column and x x ij is the minimum value of x ij in the j th column � Evaluate alternatives A ni ij the following principle: with w k � 0 and Where w k are the weighting factors of the criteria k and r ij is the normalized score of the i th alternative with respect to the j th criteria.The higher the weighted sum of the utility values (A ni ij ), the better the alternative.

Results
The research results in phase 1 and phase 2 are presented in the following chapter:

Phase 1
Testing of the coding sheet An expert at the Center for Standardization of Disaster Resilience Instrument and Climate Change has already consulted on the coding sheet.The consultation is to evaluate the coding sheet's validity.This expert gave the coding sheet criticism and general, insightful commentary.We modified various operational definitions and indicators as a result of this process.
The reliability was then tested by the researchers at the National Research and Innovation Agency and Gadjah Mada University.The cutoff for the reliability coefficient is 0.8 (Krippendorff 2018).In this study, reliability is 0.83 or higher than the score established by Krippendorff.

Profile of Participant
Of the 7 participants recruited, 6 were men and 1 was a woman.The age of the participants ranged from 31 years and 55 years.All participants were of Sasak ethnicity.The number of respondents with high school education level was 4 and 3 with undergraduate education level.In terms of jobs, 1 participant is a trader, teacher, hotel security, government employee, trekking agent, and 2 participants were tour guides.

Economic impacts
Ecotourism is believed to contribute to the local economy, such as creating jobs, boosting the transportation and accommodation industry (Lindberg 2000).Ecotourism provides local people with a variety of jobs such as guides service, hotel and restaurant owners, food, souvenir shops, campsites (Reimer and Walter 2013;Das and Chatterjee 2015).In the Chitwan and Bardiya NP, Nepal, ecotourism is an alternative source of income for local communities in the form of homestay (Lipton and Bhattarai 2014); ecotourism can promote women empowerment (enhance self-confidence, personal skill, increase access to cash income, decisionmaking role in the family) (Panta and Thapa 2018).In Yunna and Sichuan provinces, China, ecotourism contributes to value added, output, income and employment (Li et al. 2018).
The participants anchored the emotion of fear and hope by describing ecotourism as an important industry that supports the economy and increases employment chances and the increase of living standards.Objectification about this matter is made by mentioning "sustaining life", "viewers", and "tax".
Economically, well, it can sustain our life.About public participation, we are (and) friends, particularly in the tourism industry, and economy, well it is possible.However as stated by Mr. X, sometimes as guides, we are just viewers.We expect that it should not happen (continuously) in the future.We have the place, but external tour guides enjoy it.
The operators (tourism agency and MRNP) refused to comply with our proposal that the tourists be required to engage local guides.
Initially, we obliged them.We obliged with reasonable arguments for safety.It is informed that (because ecotourists) need more than enjoying natural sceneries.We have enforced it, but we were not supported by the operators.
About ecotourism, there are both positive and negative impacts.There are good points and there are equally negative points.For example, with ecotourism thank God that we can get benefits from ecotourists, from ecotourism.However, there are some concerns, particularly the school children who think that they can earn money from ecotourism and drop out of their studies.It may result from social interaction and support from parents.This is what I see.
We have "begawe" (party) and the like that we perform daily (to earn some daily wage).

When a village meeting is held, the absent parties (are) the established bosses that provide ecotourism services because they (perceivably) have paid various kinds of taxes, then they thought they have no reason to join (village meeting).
From these opinions, ecotourism is an important industry for the participants because it opens up employment opportunities for the residents.However, the existence of ecotourism has also improved the cost of living of the residents.This is in line with research by Pegas and Stronza (2010); Pegas et al. (2013), which claim that the increase in cost of living is one of the effects of the development of the Brazilian Sea Turtle Conservation Program.
The cost of living is the cost spent to maintain the level of life in a particular location or simply it is the cost needed to live in a particular region.This living cost keeps changing due to the changing and developing life necessities.Generally, living costs consist of meals, shelter, and clothing.Due to the increasing number of visitors and the relatively stable supply of goods, the price will increase.With the approval of the local legislative, the local governments have increased the sale value of tax objects (NJOP) of residential homes.This NJOP increase has directly resulted in the land and building tax increase levied on the people of Senaru.The income from land and building tax (property tax) is a major source of funding for almost all local government in Indonesia.It contributes 20% or more of all municipal tax annually and this rises during pandemic (Situmeang and Adrison 2022).However, this policy is acceptable because it was lower than the business owner.In the FGD, the participants stated that not all residents invited to the "village meeting" attended.Most of those absent were business owners.Business owners usually delegate their presence to their employees.Therefore, the FGD discussants understood that apart from paying the workers and earning profit for their own, business owners are also subject to higher taxes.

Socio-cultural impacts
The socio-cultural impact resulted from the interaction between tourist "visitors", the destination area, and "host" residents (Small et al. 2005).The participants of FGD anchored the fear and hope emotions to "encouraging creative cultural activities", and "crosscultural understanding".Objectification is made by describing "collaborative work/(gotong royong)", and "concern".
Gotong royong can be classified into two categories namely spontaneous help and mutual assistance (Koentjaraningrat 2019).Spontaneous help refers to communal activities to help relatives or close neighbors "reciprocally".Meanwhile, mutual assistance is a collective activity carried out by a large number of people to accomplish a particular project useful for the public interest.Mutual assistance derives from the initiative of the people.In some cases, it may derive from topdown instruction.
I see (spontaneous help) has been degraded, sir, we can say.I mean, here we have begawe (the activities that are related to custom/tradition, to memorize particular moments with parties.For example, weddings, aqiqah, 9 days mourning ceremony) and so on, we hire them daily (daily ¼ they are required to help and earn a daily wage).I mean, the character of mutual cooperation has been … (fading away).Then, what should we do to provide knowledge to the people to make us understand better?We are afraid; frankly, I am afraid that our culture will fade.Well, it may not be true, but we have to prevent it from occurring.… There may be ideas and thoughts that represent people's concern because our region is an ecotourism destination.Well, minimally along the sides of the streets we can plant floral plants neatly, and maybe at the home yards we can grow fruit plants … .because the value of spontaneous help has faded and because there is a competition for earning the income there.
Then, this has eroded the value of spontaneous help.We hope that there are strategies from operators and providers of ecotourism services to revitalize it.As I have said the operators and providers of ecotourism services can provide plants to the people to collectively maintain, and plant trees to keep springs the benefits of which will be enjoyed by us.That's what we hope for now.
Using Koentjoroningrat's category, the result of FGD has shown that on the one hand, there is a degradation of the value of gotong royong that belongs to the category of spontaneous help, particularly for the type of "njurung".However, there is an improvement in the category of mutual assistance.This is partially influenced by the fact that the category of spontaneous help behavior is based on individual reciprocity.When an individual fails to help a relative or close neighbour; therefore, when he receives help from a relative or close neighbors, will compensate for the help with monetary rewards.
Cross-cultural understanding occurs when humans with their culture interrelate with other humans who come from different cultures, interact and even mutually affect (Mahagangga and Nugroho 2017).A different way of life when individuals have interaction may result in a conflict or otherwise, it will become the common property and become the guideline in life because it has positive benefits (Sugiarti 2017).
Too often we hear from tourists who complain about waste, be it in the ecotourism object of Sendang Gile Water Fall or the ecotourism object of Segara Anak Lake.Therefore, we are expecting concern from the operators and providers of ecotourism services (to pay more attention).Perhaps through their organizations such as tracking organizers (TO) to minimize the accumulation of waste at the ecotourism objects.Perhaps when they pass, TO pay more attention to the guides or porters, so that when trekking carry adequate supplies or sufficient necessities.And bring down the residual waste for disposal.This is what we hope.We hope that the individuals will have a much better concern.
The opinions of the participants of FGD show that the participants can identify, interpret, and respond to the criticism received from visitors who have different cultural backgrounds.

Environmental impacts
The FGD shows that the participants anchored the fear and hope to the impacts of ecotourism by mentioning "waste ", and "infrastructure".
… Many tourists complained about the waste.Even the locals (tourists) after they have finished their meals, leave the wrap.Whether they eat up or they don't, they leave it there.
… this natural ecotourism provides many benefits to us here, but what can we give in return to the nature that has provided us with the benefits and the like.Therefore, we require a kind of training or something to let us know how to make nature in a good relationship with the people.The training may be in any form, maybe it is about the benefits of plants, and it will be good material for us to explain to ecotourists … … There are still some employees from ecotourism agencies who focus on the repair of the entrance of the waterfall while ignoring other aspects, no education to the people.
… Without any appropriate and proper management and governance in the future in terms of competitive advantage, the tourists will be less attracted, unless we fail to improve it in the future.
Graphically, the results of phase 1 and the propose SAW model can be seen in Figure 3.

Testing of the study instrument
The initial step taken was conducting a pilot test.After some revision, the next step is testing the validity and reliability.The test results show that the correlation value between items in each anchor is stated to be good and significant (r ¼ 0.844 to r ¼ 0.956).For each of the anchoring, the CA value is greater than 0.6, indicating strong internal consistency

Rank of impacts
The first step in SAW analysis is developing a matrix of mxn in which m is the alternative number (impact items¼ 7) and n is the criteria number (the sample number ¼ 30).The next step is counting the normalized decision matrix.The Sasak ethnic group, the majority of the population of Senaru, is known to have a patrilineal kinship system.Patrilineal is a kinship system that follows the father's descent line.In this system, children relate themselves to the relatives of their fathers based on unilateral male descent.The descendants of a father are positioned higher and hold higher rights as well (Fitriatmoko et al. 2017).Koentjaraningrat (2005) also stated that the principle of the patrilineal descent system considers the kinship relationship through males.Therefore, the calculation of the normalized decision matrix is based on criteria.If it is filled by men, it counts as 1, and if it is filled by a woman, it counts as 0 (1 and 0 do not imply a quantitative value or order).
The next step is calculating the alternative preference by multiplying the normalized decision matrix by the weight.Because the weight represents the level of importance, therefore in this study, the weight for each criterion is 1/30 ¼ 0.333.The results of residents' preferences are presented in Table 1.

Discussions
SRT is a conceptual framework and a social-psychological idea that can only be properly understood when is embedded in historical, cultural, and macro-social conditions (Wagner et al. 1999).In this study, SRT shows that the residents have a representation that ecotourism supports their perception about its impacts of ecotourism.This representation is obtained from direct experience, social interaction, and other information sources such as media (Fredline 2005).Furthermore, it is also stated that SRT enables the establishment of a non-rational reaction towards ecotourism based on personal and social values; representation is transmitted socially.It also enables people who have less experience in ecotourism to adopt it through social groups or media.With the development of social media (WhatApps, Instagram, Youtube, TikTok, Facebook, etc.), therefore the source of representation is replaceable.As an illustration, users of the internet in Indonesia have increased during the period of 2015 to 2019, as is shown by the increase of the percentage of the residents in Indonesia who have accessed the internet in 2015 is around 21.5% to 47.69% in 2019.Meanwhile, in the province of West Nusa Tenggara, where the MRNP is located, 89.4% of the total population accesses the internet for social media.This is consistent with the studies by Jaspal and Nerlich (2017).They stated that representation is developed collectively with other types of communication, including daily conversation and online discussion.
In SRT, anchoring and objectivication are the 2 main concepts.From the result of the analysis, economically, ecotourism is described as an important industry that supports the economy in Senaru and increases employment opportunities.However, ecotourism also increases their living standard.In other words, they anchor economic impacts on it.They also make objectification by mentioning that they did not expect to be merely viewers in their location.They described the use of local guides by ecotourism businesses and described that schoolchildren refused to go on schooling because they are lured by earning some money.Besides the positive impacts, there are also  Excessive infrastructure improvement due to ecotourism.0,680 7 Ecotourism has negative environmental impact (waste).0,614 negative impacts perceived by the residents.The economic impacts include an increase in living standards.
It is interesting to know that the participants of FGD related the increase in living standards to ecotourism, but they did not blame ecotourism as the cause of the increase in living standards.This finding confirms the research conducted by Liu and Var (1986).Phenomena of communality have been studied and documented in many countries, Gadugi in North America, and Meitheal in Ireland (Slikkerveer 2019).The results of FGD show that participants stated that there was a decline (degradation) in the category of spontaneous help (for example begawe).Even when they have a program of begawe, those who extend help will earn a wage.The degradation of spontaneous help is caused by the change in the livelihood of the residents.While the majority of the residents work as farmers (therefore have more leisure time), and gradually turn into non-farmers (civil servants, traders, construction laborers, etc).Because spontaneous help is based on individual reciprocal principles, when an individual is helped and later cannot give a return help at another time, therefore he will feel guilty.In that case, to reduce the feeling of guilt they usually compensate by paying a wage to those who help.
It is interesting that although gotong royong in the category of spontaneous help has decreased, spontaneous help in the category of mutual assistance has increased.The participants of FGD anchored this by encouraging creative cultural activities, represented in a more concrete form of expectation to have mutual assistance to maintain, plant the water springs, plant the areas with floral and fruit plants that can become a new attraction for tourists.
The arrival of tourists to the destination will result in their contact (have contact) with the residents.Ecotourists who have their specific cultures (international and local) will interact with the residents who have different cultures.The interaction can result in negative (prejudice) or positive (mutual understanding).The participants of FGD stated that they received many complaints about the waste of the location (in waterfall and Segara Anak Lake).Both direct and indirect complaints are regarded as the inputs for the improvement in the future.Therefore, they plan to have mutual assistance to clean up the location, maintain the waste by reprimanding the tourists who littered the location, ask the tracking organizer to carry adequate supplies and bring back down the residue (packages, supplies).This objectification is based on the anchoring of the concern of the residents.This is confirmed by the result of research conducted by Nyaupane et al. (2008); Pearce (2010), which stated that contact between tourists and residents with different cultures will increase positive attitudes and mutual understanding.
Meanwhile, from the form of environment, the result of FGD revealed that the residents are anchored in waste and an excessive increase of infrastructure.Waste has been anchored because residents only have limited knowledge about hiking to the Mountain through traditional and nontraditional lines with or without a guide.The resident's and the guide's concerns were increased on the waste of the location.They suggested that each tourist who climbs Mount Rinjani carry adequate supplies and bring back their waste.Besides that, they also asked the operators not to merely focus on the development of infrastructure, but also on human resources who are involved in the management (by providing relevant training).
In phase 2, this study integrated RCT and SIT.In this case, X represents the precedent social phenomenon of ecotourism and Y is the income gap.The causal relationship between X and Y can be explained by the following macro-micro-macro transitions.First, ecotourism places individuals in a new situation and creates 3 possible impacts for them: economic, sociocultural and environmental (transition from macro to micro).Second, each individual will decide whether to choose economic, socio-cultural, or environmental impact (micro-process).At this point, the individual will choose the perceived maximal alternative (maximize his/her utility) under subjective constraints.Because individual interact each other, the choice of one individual will become a subjective obstacle another; and the choice will be a subjective constraint for other individuals.If all individuals chose the environment, they would narrow the gap.However, each individual has an incentive to choose an economy, regardless of other individual's choices.In this section SIT plays an important role.Actors will carry out a practical syllogism.The major premise is that less prosperous individuals are more likely to choose the economy.And as a minor premise, the actor will identify and categorize himself as a member of less prosperous group.Accordingly, the actor chooses the economy.Third, by using the assumption of backward-looking rationality, actors will choose economics as the top choice, which of course will lead to a widening gap (transition from micro-macro).This is also consistent with the "nash equilibrium" indicating that when the dominant strategy does not occur, balance can still be achieved if each actor can choose optimally based on the expectations of the choices taken by other actors.
The results show that economic impacts ranked highest, while environmental impacts ranked lowest.This is consistent with the finding of the research conducted by Gursoy et al. (2002) which stated that the perception of the economic welfare of the people has the strongest influence.In line with the research conducted by Linderov� a et al. ( 2021) the residents considered that economic benefits were the most critical impact on the development of tourism.This may be because, in the short term, impacts are readily observed.It can also be explained that the residents have a middle-to-low quality of life.Therefore, they want to improve it.This is in line with the research conducted by Javier (2016).He found that the residents support tourism because in the initial phase of development they merely see the economic benefits and do not have any competence to analize other impacts.
On the other hand, the environmental impacts of the existence of ecotourism ranked lowest.The result is in contrast to the finding of the research conducted by Liu and Var (1986); Liu et al. (1987).They reported that the perception of the residents about the environmental impacts of tourism ranked high.

Conclusion
Involving residents as co-manager in MRNP is still a challenge.As a first step, analyzing residents' preferences for the effects of ecotourism is the objective of this study which have two phases of research.The findings from phase 1 study revealed that the impacts of ecotourism perceived by the residents in Senaru are as follows: (1) economically, ecotourism has increased employment opportunities; ecotourism is one of the most important industries that support the economy in Senaru village.However, activities of ecotourism has increased the cost of living of the residents; (2) socioculturally; ecotourism has ensured creative social and cultural activities.Ecotourism also increases a better cross-cultural understanding; and (3) environmentally, ecotourism has resulted in negative impacts waste and ecotourism has also increased excessive infrastructure development.Results of the phase 2 revealed that the highest preference of the residents was economic impacts, followed by the social-cultural impacts and environmental impacts.
This study advances literature on NP and ecotourism especially on the understanding of residents' preference and how ecotourism development affects them.From the perspective of SRT, SRT explains how various groups of people understand and respond to social issues in the community.From the perspective of RCT and SIT, although economic impacts ranked highest, the priority was not for individual interest, but for collective interest.
The finding has some implications for the operators.In general, the implementation of an activity requires processes that include analysis, planning, implementation, and evaluation.This study is an initial step (analysis) to involve residents as co-managers.The next steps (planning, implementation and evaluation) require intensive and continuous dialogue between operators and residents.From the informal logic and critical thinking views, there are 3 types of dialogue, namely persuasion, inquiry, and negotiation (Walton 1989).In persuasion, the goal of each participant is to convince other participants of his argument; an inquiry aims to gain deeper knowledge in a particular field from each dialogue participant.Meanwhile, negotiations aim to ensure that the arguing parties can maximize their interests to result in the "best deal".
Because of the different levels of power and education between operators and residents, all types of dialogue are possible.However, we tend to suggest a negotiation dialogue because rather than a goal, it is only an instrument to achieve the goal.It is also necessary to avoid the involvement of the parties who have hidden agendas since the arguments presented are contrary to their true interests and motivations.
Along with the development of information technology (social media), the residents' and operators' strength has increased and will continue to increase.As a result, operators will have a dialog through information technology advancement.It is expected that the value among them will be ensured.Sustainable and consistent dialog with the residents is advisable.This will enable the operators to recognize and comprehend the interest of the residents and vice versa.The result will improve commitment and trust between operators and residents.
The results of this study suggest the following matters to be dialogued in the planning-implementationevaluation processes.First, the operator should leave the provision of all ecotourism needs/products to the residents.Products include goods and services used or consumed by the visitors during the climbing.For example, the residents organize the logistics (food and drinks), tents, sleeping bag, cooking set, trekking organizer, guide, and porter during the climbing.The operator provides the location for vehicle parking during the transit before and after climbing Mount Rinjani, the halt location, and the camping ground to be managed by the residents.Second, the operator collaborates with other institutions to provide real-time information about climate, Mount Rinjani's activity, primary danger (hot clouds, lava stream, heavy ash rain), and secondary danger (lava drain).The operator should also provide accident insurance.Establishment of an evacuation team consisting of the residents is necessary to mitigate the unexpected incidence.Equally important, it also has to inform the local wisdom/rules and initiate the provision of guidance in the founding of non-government organizations expected to improve the understanding of ecotourism, public participation in ecotourism development, and ecotourism benefits for the people.Besides that, the operator provides a system capable of recording the luggage that may result in waste during the climbing.
Finally, Senaru Village was the only area in this study.This has restricted the generalizability of the study's findings.Future research should concentrate on a comparative analysis of the development of ecotourism and its effects on the economic development of residents.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.(A) Zoning map of MRNP; (B) A porter is charged to carry all the equipment (tents, sleeping bags, cooking sets, and logistics) needed during the hiking; (C) A view of Segara Anak Lake and Mount Barujari.Source: BTNGR (2020)

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Impacts of ecotourism perceived by residents and the proposed SAW model.

Table 1 .
Ranking order of ecotourism effect.