## 4 Discussion  
From the research using MAMCA (A) and MAMCA with the weight of stakeholder involvement (B), we could compare the results in each scenario as follows. Figure 9 shows that in scenario 1, with method A, the Tourism and Culture Office of Wonosobo Regency (S9) had the lowest score, and the homestay association (S17) had the highest score, with a value distribution of 4.45-53.35% and standard deviation of 11.44%. With method B, the Central Java Provincial Tourism Office (S5) received the lowest score, and the Central Java Provincial Transportation Office (S4) received the highest score, with a value range of 6.65-13.15% and standard deviation 1.82%. Figure 10 shows that in scenario 2, with method A, the Wonosobo Regency Tourism and Culture Office (S9) had the lowest score, and the Dieng Kulon tourism awareness group (S16) had the highest score, with a value distribution of 10.41-30.28% and standard deviation of 5.80%. With method B, the Tourism and Culture Office of Banjarmegara Regency (S13) received the lowest score, and the Transportation Office of Central Java  
Figure 8: Results of multi-actor multi-criteria analysis with stakeholder weights (method B). Figure 9: Differences in scenario 1 between multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (method A) and multi-actor multi-criteria analysis with the weight of stakeholder involvement (method B). Province (S4) received the highest score, with a value range of 14.58-18.50% and standard deviation of 1.10%. Figure 11 shows that in scenario 3, with method A, the homestay association (S17) had the lowest value, and the Central Java Provincial Tourism Office (S5) had the highest value, with a value distribution of 12.01-51.62% and standard deviation of 10.81%. With method B, the Regional Planning and Development Agency of Wonosobo Regency (S7) had the lowest score, and the Tourism and Culture Office of Wonosobo Regency (S9) had the highest score, with a value range of 32.98-38.85% and standard deviation of 1.47%. Figure 12 shows that in scenario 4, with method A, the homestay association (S17) had the lowest score, and the Tourism and Culture Office of Wonosobo Regency (S9) had the highest score, with a value distribution of 7.65-56.98% and standard deviation of 13.39%. With method B, the Transportation Office of Central Java Province (S4) received the lowest score, and the ASPPI (S20) received the highest score, with a value range of 32.26-42.69% and a standard deviation of 2.39%. The final results of the assessment of the scenarios using methods A and B are shown in Figure 13.  
Figure 11: Differences in scenario 3 assessment between multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (method A) and multi-actor multi-criteria analysis with the weight of stakeholder involvement (method B). Figure 10: Differences in scenario 2 between multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (method A) and multi-actor multi-criteria analysis with the weight of stakeholder involvement (method B). Based on the results of the analysis using method B, it was found that the transportation policy scenario chosen in the protected natural-cultural tourism area was scenario 4, with a weight of 39.89%, followed by scenario 3 with 36.04%, scenario 2 with 15.95%, and scenario 1 with 8.11%. The results of the assessment using method A showed scenario 4 with a weight of 38.04%, followed by scenario 3 with 35.78%, scenario 2 with 16.60%, and scenario 1 with 9.58%. The assessment of the stakeholder as a form of support between stakeholders provided consistency in the assessment. However, as mentioned earlier, method B, which used stakeholder weights, had a smaller standard deviation than method A. This means that the difference in assessments among the stakeholders in B was smaller than in A. This was considered to have an impact on the decisions made, which would be more accepted by all parties because all stakeholders were asked to assess the weight of the interests of the others regarding their common problem. Consequently, it would be more sustainable.