**3. Results**

The obtained results regarding the criteria and subcriteria preferences are shown in Figure 5.

**Figure 5.** Criteria and subcriteria preferences. Source: Own elaboration.

Regarding the first-level criteria, the social dimension (with 63.7%) was the one with the highest weight in the model, followed by the economic dimension (25.83%) and the environmental dimension (10.47%). In the second level of subcriteria, the most important ones were residents' welfare (27.22%) and structure of the local population (14.7%), hierarchically dependent on the economic-dimension criterion. Regarding the third-level subcriteria, the most relevant were available income (17.03%), population retention (9.36%), and generated income (8.65%).

Regarding the areal-interpolation process (necessary for evaluating subcriteria through 250 × 250 m spatial-data enmeshes (Table 1)), the following results were obtained:

As can be seen in the image (Figure 6), many of the 250 × 250 m cells that contain information on several criteria were divided into one, two, and up to three neighborhoods. Then, it was necessary to calculate the portion corresponding to each one for its calculation. An example would be the evaluation of the population-maintenance subcriterion (Figure 7):

**Figure 6.** Spatial-data grid proportions. Source: Own elaboration.

**Figure 7.** Variation of population in the central district of Cordoba. Source: Own elaboration.

In the central district, there has been a population decrease of 1679 people, with the highest decrease at the Centro Comercial (435 people) and the highest increase in the neighborhood of Santiago (73 people). In the figure, it can be seen that there was a decrease in population (in blue) of less than 50 people, with five areas exceeding 100 people in most enmeshes. Green colors correspond to areas where there has been a population increase (with values lower than 100 people).

The obtained results regarding the weight of the alternatives for each criterion and subcriterion are as follows (see Table 2):


**Table 2.** Relevant weights of alternatives for social-dimension subcriteria.

Source: Own elaboration.

In the social-dimension criterion (Table 2), certain values exceeded 9%, the population-retention subcriterion having the highest value (11.90%), which corresponds to Santiago and El Carmen, respectively. On the other hand, the heritage-conservation subcriterion had the lowest score to the alternative La Catedral. Within the social dimension, the Santiago and El Carmen neighborhoods corresponded, respectively, to the highest scores, while La Catedral, San Miguel Capuchinos, Huerta del Rey Vallellano, and C. Merced-Molinos Alta had the lowest scores.

Regarding the economic-dimension criterion, alternatives La Catedral and Centro Comercial stood out as high values, while C. Merced-Molino Alta stood out as the alternative with the lowest scores (Table 3).

The environmental-dimension criterion (Table 4) includes the air-pollution subcriterion, which was over 9% in five values in alternatives El Salvador y La Compañía, San Pedro, San Andrés-San Pablo, La Magdalena, and Santa Marina.



Source: Own elaboration.

#### **Table 4.** Relevant weights of alternatives for environmental-dimension subcriteria.


Source: Own elaboration.

The final results for each alternative are shown in Figure 8.

**Figure 8.** Results of alternative evaluation. Source: Own elaboration.

The global inconsistency of the model is 4.69%, with no paired-comparison matrices showing ratios higher than 10%. The highest value corresponds to the social-dimension matrix, with a ratio of 6.72%.

Here, the information layer of the global model for each alternative is shown (Figure 9). The neighborhoods are categorized by colors depending on their tourist-housing reception capacity.

**Figure 9.** Information layer about the evaluation of tourist-housing reception capacity. Source: Own elaboration.

The El Carmen neighborhood was the only one with reception capacity classified as "very high", followed by San Andrés-San Pablo and San Pedro, which showed "high" reception capacity. On the

other hand, San Lorenzo, Cerro de la Golondrina, El Salvador y La Compañía, San Basilio, and La Catedral had the worst reception capacity.

To reinforce the survey, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the variation in the selection of alternatives when the relative importance of criteria and subcriteria changes. Here, obtained results from sensitivity analysis, applied to the three main criteria of alternatives Barrio del Carmen and La Catedral, are displayed:

As can be seen in the image (Figure 10), the vertical red line represents the starting point, and it can be moved towards the right or left depending on what we mean to simulate (right for an increase, left for a decrease) regarding the preference of the social dimension with respect to the objective. That can check the evaluation of alternatives for each case: If the red line moves towards the black (10%), alternative La Catedral (7.09%) would receive better evaluation than El Carmen (5.17%).

**Figure 10.** Sensitivity analysis of social dimension. Source: Own elaboration.

In the case of the economic dimension (Figure 11), the evaluation of the alternatives changes when moving from the red line's value (25.83%) to the black one's (80%), La Catedral being the best valued (7.93%), while El Carmen would obtain 5%.

**Figure 11.** Sensitivity analysis of economic dimension. Source: Own elaboration.

Regarding the environmental-dimension criterion (Figure 12), when moving from the initial 10.56% to 80%, the best-valued alternative would be El Carmen (6.35%), while La Catedral would have 4.03%.

**Figure 12.** Sensitivity analysis of environmental dimension. Source: Own elaboration.
