With the emergence of geographic information systems (GIS), suitability analysis has become a modeling practice that facilitates the process of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) by simulating the suitability of a land unit in supporting a physical or socioeconomic phenomenon. To identify and quantify the contribution of various criteria for land-use planning, however, suitability modeling relies heavily on the expert knowledge in weight assignment. Little is known about at what rate the diverse input from outside experts and local stakeholders would propagate into the suitability model and come to a consensus. The objective of this study was to investigate the development of weight assignment and suitability modeling through iterative surveying between the local stakeholders and outside experts. This research surveyed eleven field experts about the areas best suitable for future development of a scout camp in Kalkaska, MI. The expert knowledge was consulted by using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and a direct method of weight table. The results of suitability modeling revealed that the weight assignment between the direct method and AHP method became more different as the survey progressed. It was also observed that the most suitable area for future development slowly emerged to a consensus between the outside experts and local stakeholders through iterative survey. This research illustrated the usefulness of the Delphi method within MCDM and highlighted patches of areas adjacent to the Grass Lake that are suitable for future development.
