Call Girl Nashik Saloni 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Nashik
Botti peypoch mcda
1. Dr. BOTTI Laurent
Dr. PEYPOCH Nicolas
Perpignan University / CAEPEM
77th meeting of the European Group on MCDA
11.04.2013
11th April 2013, University of Rouen
1
2. Multi-Criteria ELECTRE Method
and Destination Competitiveness
1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and destination competitiveness
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
11.04.2013
2
3. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
The global tourism industry is dynamic
Competitiveness is a growing interest area
11.04.2013
3
4. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Due to their centrality in the tourism system, tourism destinations
(TD) benefit from this interest (Cracolici & Nijkam, 2008)
To understand TD competitiveness, we dispose of the Ritchie &
Crouch (2003) model, the most cited one
This model integrates all the relevant factors that might typify the
competitiveness of a destination
This paper aims to show the interest of MCDA methods regarding
the operationalization of this model
11.04.2013
Let’s move to section 2
4
5. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Why are MCDA methods relevant to deal with competitiveness of
tourism destination ?
MCDA for methods providing quantitative approach to support
decision making in problems involving several criteria and
choices (alternatives or actions) (Figueira, Mousseau & Roy,
2005)
TD are an integrated set of tourist facilities which have to face the
challenge of operating their resources effectively and efficiently in
11.04.2013
5
order to supply an experience that outperforms alternative
6. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Tourists who whish to enjoy a satisfying experience try to select
one destination from a set of n possible alternatives and on the
basis of m criteria
The main framework to understand TDC is that of Ritchie &
Crouch (2003)
– based on five competitiveness components (criteria)
Attractors (Climate, History…)
Supporting factors (Accessibility, Hospitality…)
Destination management (Marketing, HRM…)
11.04.2013 Destination planning (Positioning, Branding…)
6 Amplifying determinants (Safety…)
7. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
=> Destination selection can be seen as a MCDA problem
11.04.2013
Let’s move to
7
an application
8. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Although MCDA methods can be applied to different areas,
the litterature is quite narrow when considering the tourism
field
– TOPSIS was used by Zhang et al. (2011) to rank 16 cities in
China
– TOPSIS, PROMETHEE and the WSM was used by Ishizaka,
Nemery and Lidouh (2013) to select the location of a casino in
London
– ELECTRE II was used by Andrades-Caldito et al. (2013) to rank
11.04.2013 provinces of Andalusia (Spain)
8
9. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Here, ELECTRE I (Roy, 1991) is applied to choose the best
destination from a given set of alternatives
Widely used, the MCDA outranking method ELECTRE I
should be applied when all criteria are coded in numerical
scales with identical ranges (Figueira, Mousseau, Roy, 2005)
– Data are derived from the 2011 Hawaiian VSA Report which
presents results of a survey conducted by the HTA
– The HTA report attempts to portray visitor’s evaluation of their
experience by covering various aspects of their trip for the island
that they stayed the longest
11.04.2013
9
10. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Visitors were asked to rate few attributes of islands :
accomodations, restaurant, shopping, golf, attractions,
transportation, airports, parks & beaches
– We use the proportion of very satisfied visitors as measurement of
performance
– Our application focuses
only on visitors from
Europe in 2011
– 6 major islands but due to
data availability, we focus
11.04.2013 on 4 islands (A = ai ; i = 1,
10 …,4)
11. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
4 criteria, their weights (wj, from Crouch, 2011) and attributes :
Considering Fj = {ftj ; t=1,…,p}, the set of p attributes of criterion j,
11.04.2013 performances are obtained by :
11
12. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Performance of alternatives on each criterion :
11.04.2013
12
13. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Concordance and discordance matrixes were performed with
LINAM software (Logiciel Interactif d’Analyse Multicritère by
P. Wieser from Lausanne)
Second step of ELECTRE I is the derivation of a
recommendation based on the outranking relations i.e.
identify a small as possible subset of actions, from which the
best compromise action(s) could be selected
Construction of a graph considering the concordance level
11.04.2013
C* and the discordance level D*
13
14. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
For C* = 0.56 and D*= 0.26 For C* = 0.56 and D*= 0.42
=> O’ahu must be choosen by tourists
This island is the most competitive
By considering that the satisfaction achieved by tourists can
be used to indirectly evaluate the competitive ability of TD to
11.04.2013 outperform others destinations
14
Let’s move to the
last section
15. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Interests :
– We show how MCDA outranking approach ELECTRE I can be
used to analyse TDC =>First application of ELECTRE I to this
field
– Quantitative operationalization of the C&R model
Limitations :
– Performances are obtained via an arithmetic mean
– Data can be considered as reductive as we focus on European
visitors
11.04.2013
– What about indifference ? What about preference (strong and
weak) ?
15
16. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Perspectives :
– Rank all the destination belonging to a given set of alternatives
from the best to the worst (ski resorts, seaside resorts, cities…)
with ELECTRE II or ELECTRE III
– Compare ELECTRE rankings with other rankings – for example
efficiency ranking (obtained with DEA method or others)
11.04.2013
16
17. 1. Introduction
2. MCDA methods and TDC
3. ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands
4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
Thank you for attention!
laurent.botti@univ-perp.fr
peypoch@univ-perp.fr
11.04.2013
17