Beyond Structural Equation Modelling in Tourism Research: Fuzzy Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

  • Naser Valaei
  • Sajad Rezaei
  • Ree C. Ho
  • Fevzi Okumus
Part of the Perspectives on Asian Tourism book series (PAT)


This chapter discusses the methods of applying both the data envelopment analysis (DEA) and fuzzy set/qualitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA) in tourism research. Unlike conventional quantitative methods in social sciences, research such as system of regression and multivariate procedures are mostly based on frequency and consistency thresholds. The basis of fuzzy set analysis is the fact that there is no “single correct answer”. Indeed, fuzzy sets fill the gap between qualitative and quantitative methods of measurement, and QCA is one of the few methods that cover “limited diversity”. This method addresses the shortcoming of most traditional methods which presume that causal conditions are “independent” constructs and the impact on the outcome variable are both additive and linear. In addition, DEA is a nonparametric quantitative data analysis method that is used to examine the relationship between inputs to a production process and the outputs of that process. It acts as a mathematical programming technique to develop and provide the best possible solutions. This chapter shows that application of fuzzy set/QCA (fs/QCA) and DEA method in Asian tourism research would yield a fruitful contribution to the literature.


Quantitative methods Fuzzy set/qualitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA) Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Tourism research 


  1. Benito, B., Solana, J., & López, P. (2014). Determinants of Spanish regions’ tourism performance: A two-stage, double-bootstrap data envelopment analysis. Tourism Economics, 20(5), 987–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg, S. (2010). Water utility benchmarking: Measurement. Methodology and performance incentives. London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bihamta, H., Jayashree, S., Rezaei, S., Okumus, F., & Rahimi, R. (2017). Dual pillars of hotel restaurant food quality satisfaction and brand loyalty. British Food Journal, 119(12), 2597–2609. Scholar
  4. Brady, H. E. (2002). Models of causal inference: Going beyond the Neyman-Rubin-Holland theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Political Methodology Group.Google Scholar
  5. Braumoeller, B. F. (2017). Causal complexity and the study of politics. Political Analysis, 11(3), 209–233. Scholar
  6. Brockett, P. L., & Golany, B. (1996). Using rank statistics for determining programmatic efficiency differences in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 42(3), 466–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J. R., & Ragsdale, C. T. (2002). The competitive market efficiency of hotel brands: An application of data envelopment analysis. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 26(4), 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dabestani, R., Shahin, A., Saljoughian, M., & Shirouyehzad, H. (2016). Importance-performance analysis of service quality dimensions for the customer groups segmented by DEA: The case of four star hotels. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 33(2), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donthu, N., Hershberger, E. K., & Osmonbekov, T. (2005). Benchmarking marketing productivity using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58(11), 1474–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fearon, J. D. (1991). Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science. World Politics, 43(02), 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fiss, P. C., Marx, A., & Cambré, B. (2013). Configurational theory and methods in organizational research: Introduction. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 38, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horsten, L., & Weber, E. (2014). INUS conditions. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics reference online. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Hwang, S.-N., & Chang, T.-Y. (2003). Using data envelopment analysis to measure hotel managerial efficiency change in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 24(4), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Köksal, C. D., & Aksu, A. A. (2007). Efficiency evaluation of A-group travel agencies with data envelopment analysis (DEA): A case study in the Antalya region, Turkey. Tourism Management, 28(3), 830–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu, D. (2016). Measuring aeronautical service efficiency and commercial service efficiency of East Asia airport companies: An application of network data envelopment analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mohseni, S., Jayashree, S., Rezaei, S., Kasim, A., & Okumus, F. (2018). Attracting tourists to travel companies’ websites: The structural relationship between website brand, personal value, shopping experience, perceived risk and purchase intention. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(6), 616–645. Scholar
  18. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ragin, C. C. (2003). Recent advances in fuzzy-set methods and their application to policy questions.
  20. Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ragin, C. (2007a). Chapter 5: Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Forthcoming in N. Rihoux, & C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative analysis, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Ragin, C. C. (2007b). Fuzzy sets: Calibration versus measurement. In D. Collier, H. Brady, & J. M. Box-Steffensmeier (Eds.), Methodology: Oxford handbooks of political science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ragin, C. C., & Sonnett, J. (2005). Between complexity and parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases, and comparative analysis. In Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft (pp. 180–197). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ragin, C. C., Rubinson, C., Schaefer, D., Anderson, S., Williams, E., & Giesel, H. (2008). User’s guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis. University of Arizona, p. 87.Google Scholar
  25. Ramírez-Hurtado, J. M., & Contreras, I. (2017). Efficiency of travel agency franchises: A study in Spain. Service Business, 11(4), 717–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reynolds, D., & Thompson, G. M. (2007). Multiunit restaurant productivity assessment using three-phase data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(1), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rezaei, S., & Valaei, N. (2017a). Branding in a multichannel retail environment: Online stores vs app stores and the effect of product type. Information Technology and People, 30(4), 853–886. Scholar
  28. Rezaei, S., & Valaei, N. (2017b). Crafting experiential value via smartphone apps channel. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 35(5), 688–702. Scholar
  29. Rezaei, S., Ali, F., Amin, M., & Jayashree, S. (2016). Online impulse buying of tourism products: The role of web site personality, utilitarian and hedonic web browsing. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 7(1), 60–83. Scholar
  30. Rezaei, S., Mazaheri, E., & Azadavar, R. (2017). Determinants of experienced tourists’ satisfaction and actual spending behavior: A PLS path modelling approach. International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, 11(2), 157–181. Scholar
  31. Rezaei, S., Shahijan, M. K., Valaei, N., Rahimi, R., & Ismail, W. K. W. (2018). Experienced international business traveller’s behaviour in Iran: A partial least squares path modelling analysis. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 18(2), 163–190. Scholar
  32. Rich, S. R. (2013). Handbook of research methods in tourism: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 11(1–2), 135–136. Scholar
  33. Rotoli, F., Cawood, E. N., & Christidis, P. (2015). A data envelopment analysis approach for accessibility measures: Simulating operational enhancement scenarios for railway across Europe. European Transport Research Review, 7(2), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shahijan, M. K., Rezaei, S., Preece, C. N., & Ismail, W. K. W. (2015). International medical travelers’ behavioral intention: An empirical study in Iran. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 32(5), 475–502. Scholar
  35. Valaei, N., Rezaei, S., & Ismail, W. K. W. (2017). Examining learning strategies, creativity, and innovation at SMEs using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis and PLS path modeling. Journal of Business Research, 70, 224–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace• perform• model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naser Valaei
    • 1
  • Sajad Rezaei
    • 2
  • Ree C. Ho
    • 3
  • Fevzi Okumus
    • 4
  1. 1.KEDGE Business SchoolTalenceFrance
  2. 2.Universität HamburgHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Taylor’s UniversitySubang JayaMalaysia
  4. 4.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations