Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Dr. BOTTI Laurent             Dr. PEYPOCH Nicolas                                      Perpignan University / CAEPEM      ...
Multi-Criteria ELECTRE Method        and Destination Competitiveness         1.   Introduction         2.   MCDA methods a...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction             2.   MCDA methods and TDC             3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands ...
1.   Introduction             2.   MCDA methods and TDC             3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction             2.   MCDA methods and TDC             3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands ...
1.   Introduction             2.   MCDA methods and TDC             3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands ...
1.   Introduction             2.   MCDA methods and TDC             3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian islands ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
1.   Introduction                 2.   MCDA methods and TDC                 3.   ELECTRE I and TDC : the case of Hawaiian ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Botti peypoch mcda

175

Published on

Conférence MCDA IAE de Rouen Avril 2013

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
175
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Botti peypoch mcda"

  1. 1. Dr. BOTTI Laurent Dr. PEYPOCH Nicolas Perpignan University / CAEPEM 77th meeting of the European Group on MCDA11.04.2013 11th April 2013, University of Rouen 1
  2. 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 perspectives11.04.20132
  3. 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 area11.04.2013 3
  4. 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 model11.04.2013 Let’s move to section 2 4
  5. 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 in11.04.2013 5 order to supply an experience that outperforms alternative
  6. 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. 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 problem11.04.2013 Let’s move to 7 an application
  8. 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 rank11.04.2013 provinces of Andalusia (Spain) 8
  9. 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 longest11.04.2013 9
  10. 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 focus11.04.2013 on 4 islands (A = ai ; i = 1, 10 …,4)
  11. 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. 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. 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 level11.04.2013 C* and the discordance level D* 13
  14. 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 to11.04.2013 outperform others destinations 14 Let’s move to the last section
  15. 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 visitors11.04.2013 – What about indifference ? What about preference (strong and weak) ? 15
  16. 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. 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.fr11.04.2013 17
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×