Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach for Evaluating Tourism Destinations in Turkey

M4

Dr. Emrah Önder
İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Sayısal Yöntemler Anabilim Dalı

Araş. Gör. Bahadır Fatih Yıldırım
İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Sayısal Yöntemler Anabilim Dalı

Araş. Gör. Muhlis Özdemir
İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Sayısal Yöntemler Anabilim Dalı

Abstract

Tourism is the world’s one of fastest growing industry and the largest service sector industry. It is also considered as one of the biggest industry in Turkish economy. Choosing a travel destination is a kind of multi-criteria decision making problem. Relative importance of factors across locations play a crucial role for ranking the destinations. There are several attributes in evaluating competitiveness, including natural resources, transportation, accommodation, blue flagged beaches, cultural resources, reputation, image, popularity, safety, security, health and hygiene, price, quality of cuisine, night life and variety of activities and recreation etc. This study comprised of 13 destination alternatives in four cities (Antalya, Aydın, İzmir, Muğla). These destination alternatives are Alanya, Bodrum, Çeşme, Datça, Didim, Fethiye, Kaş, Kemer, Kumluca, Kuşadası, Marmaris, Manavgat and Serik. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) are multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methodologies. They have been used extensively for analyzing complex decision problems. These approaches can be used to help decision-makers for prioritizing alternatives and determining the optimal alternative. In analyzing the data, AHP and TOPSIS methodologies are used for the outranking of some of the well known tourism destinations in Turkey.

Keywords: AHP, MCDM, TOPSIS, Tourism Destination Competitiveness/Ranking

Jel Sınıflandırma: C65

  • Online reference: http://mkt.unwto.org/en/barometer/january-2013-volume-11
  • Croes, R., 2010. Small island tourism competitiveness expanding your destination’s slice of paradise. Rosen College of Hospitality Management, Lecture notes, 1-32
  • Yimsrisai, N., Khemarangsan, A., 2012. A Pilot Study of factors affecting tourists’ decisions on choosing Bangkok as a destination. Graduate School of Silpakorn University, The 2nd national and International Graduate Study Conference, 50-60
  • Eja, E. I., Ukwayi, J.K., Ojong, F.E., 2012. Success Factors Determining Nigeria as a Tourist Destination. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 3(4): 426-432
  • Noor, N.M.M., Sabri, I.A.A., Hitam, M.S., Ali, N.H., Ismail, F., 2012. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) Approach for Evaluating Tourism Islands in Terengganu, Malaysia. International Conference on Communications and Information Technology, 62-66
  • Crouch, G.I., (2007). Modelling Destination Competitiveness: A Survey and Analysis of the Impact of Competitiveness Attributes, CRC for Sustainable Tourism Research Centre, Technical Report, Australia. 1-45.
  • Lai, W.H., Vinh, N.Q., 2012 Applying AHP Approach to Investigate the Tourism Promotion Efficiency, 3rd International Conference on Business and Economic Research, 12-13 March 2012, 3rd ICBER Proceeding, 513-530
  • Ali, N.H., Sabri, I.A.A., Noor, N.M.M., Ismail, F., 2012. Rating and Ranking Criteria for Selected Islands using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), International Journal Of Applied Mathematics And Informatics, Issue 1, Volume 6, 2012, 57-65
  • Saaty, T.L., (1990). How To Make Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research,North_Holland, 48, 9-26
  • Pires, A., Chang, N. B., Martinho, G., 2011. An AHP-based fuzzy interval TOPSIS assessment for sustainable expansion of the solid waste management system in Setubal Peninsula, Portugal. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 56, 7-21
  • Lee, S., Kim W., Kim M. Y. and Oh K. J., (2012). Using AHP to determine intangible priority factors for technology transfer adoption, Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal , Volume 39 Issue 7
  • Liberatore, M.J., Nydick, R.L., (1997). Group Decision Making In Higher Education Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Research In Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 5
  • Yoo, K.E, Choi, Y.C.,(2006). Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach For Identifying Relative Importance Of Factors To Improve Passenger Security Checks At Airports, Journal of Air Transport Management 12, 135–142
  • Saaty, T. L., Vargas L.G., (2011). The Possibility of Group Choice: Pairwise Comparisons and Merging Functions, Soc Choice Welf, 38, 481-496
  • Yoon, K. (1980). Systems selection by multiple attributes decision making. PhD Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
  • Yoon, K., Hwang, C.L., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications. A State of the Art Survey, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
  • Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Berlin: Springer- Verlag
  • Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y. and Hwang, C.L. (1994). TOPSIS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research, 76, 486-500
  • Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J., 2012. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 13051–13069
  • Tsaur, R.C., 2011. Decision risk analysis for an interval TOPSIS method. Applied Mathematics and Computation 218 (2011) 4295–4304

    Önder, E., Yıldırım, B. F., Özdemir, M. (2013). "Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach for Evaluating Tourism Destinations in Turkey". Akademik Turizm ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1 (1), 1-15.