Strategies for Promoting Tourism Competitiveness Using a Hybrid MCDM Model

Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 16)

Abstract

Numerous studies have focused on measuring tourism destination competitiveness (TDC). However, few studies have attempted to identify strategies for improving TDC, preventing decision makers from obtaining valuable cues for making accurate decisions to improve competitiveness. This study thus explores strategies for improving tourism competitiveness using a new hybrid MCDM model combined with DANP (DEMATEL-based ANP). An empirical case is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of a new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP and VIKOR for evaluating tourism competitiveness to identify competitiveness gaps and explore strategies for improving tourism competitiveness based on the influential relation map. Decision makers should increase the priority of the cause criteria in advance, to successfully create a high TDC to achieve the aspired/desired levels.

Keywords

Tourism destination competitiveness (TDC) improvement strategy MCDM (multiple criteria decision making) DEMATEL DANP (DEMATEL-based ANP) VIKOR 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Claver-Cortes, E., Molina-Azorin, J.F., Pereira-Moliner, J.: Competitiveness in mass tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 34(3), 727–745 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Tourism Organization, UNWTO (2010), Tourism Highlights, http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/highlights/UNWTO_Highlights10_en_HR.pdf
  3. 3.
    Hovinen, G.: Revising the destination lifecycle model. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1), 209–230 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crouch, G.I., Ritchie, J.B.R.: Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research 44(3), 137–152 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buhalis, D.: Marketing the competitive destination in the future. Tourism Management 21(1), 97–116 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang, H., Gu, C.L., Gu, L.W., Zhang, Y.: The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS and information entropy-A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management 32(2), 1–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cracolici, M.F., Nijkamp, P.: The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist destinations: A study of Southern Italian regions. Tourism Management 30(3), 336–344 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, H., Gu, C.L., Gu, L.W., Zhang, Y.: The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS and information entropy-A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management 32(2), 1–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kozak, M., Rimmington, M.: Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: conceptual considerations and empirical findings. International Journal of Hospitality Management 18(3), 273–283 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cracolici, M.F., Nijkamp, P.: The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist destinations: A study of Southern Italian regions. Tourism Management 30(3), 336–344 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Economic Forum (WEF), The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ou Yang, Y.P., Shieh, H.M., Leu, J.D., Tzeng, G.H.: A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of Operations Research 5(3), 1–9 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hung, Y.H., Chou, S.C.T., Tzeng, G.H.: Knowledge management adoption and assessment for SMEs by a novel MCDM approach. Decision Support Systems (2011), (forthcoming) (available online February 5, 2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuan, M.J., Hsiang, C.C., Tzeng, G.H.: Probing the innovative quality system for NPD process based on combining DANP with MCDM model. International Journal of Innovative Computing. Information and Control (special issue) (2011), (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang, J.L., Tzeng, G.H.: An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with Applications 38(3), 1417–1424 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiu, Y.J., Chen, H.C., Shyu, J.Z., Tzeng, G.H.: Marketing strategy based on customer behavior for the LCD-TV. International Journal and Decision Making 7(2-3), 143–165 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W.: Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications 32(4), 1028–1044 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang, C.Y., Shyu, J.Z., Tzeng, G.H.: Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan’s SIP mall industry. Technovation 27(12), 744–765 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen, Y.C., Lien, H.P., Tzeng, G.H.: Measures and evaluation for environment watershed plans using a novel hybrid MCDM model. Expert Systems with Applications 37(2), 926–938 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang, J.L., Tzeng, G.H.: An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with Applications 38(3), 1417–1424 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hung, Y.H., Chou, S.C.T., Tzeng, G.H.: Knowledge management adoption and assessment for SMEs by a novel MCDM approach. Decision Support Systems (2011), (forthcoming) (available online February 5, 2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shen, Y.C., Lin, G.T.R., Tzeng, G.H.: Combined DEMATEL techniques with novel MCDM for the organic light emitting diode technology selection. Expert Systems with Applications 38(3), 1468–1481 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research 156(2), 445–455 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tzeng, G.H., Teng, M.H., Chen, J.J., Opricovic, S.: Multicriteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei. International Journal of Hospitality Management 21(2), 171–187 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tzeng, G.H., Lin, C.W., Opricovic, S.: Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33(11), 1373–1383 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 17(3), 211–220 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Fuzzy multicriteria model for post-earthquake land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review 4(2), 59–64 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research 178(2), 514–529 (2007)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yu, P.L.: A class of solutions for group decision problems. Management Science 19(8), 936–946 (1973)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee, W.S., Tzeng, G.H., Cheng, C.M.: Using novel MCDM Methods Based on Fama-French three-factor model for probing the stock selection. APIEMS, December 14-16, 1460–1474 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ho, W.R.J., Tsai, C.L., Tzeng, G.H., Fang, S.K.: Combined DEMATEL technique with a novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM. Expert Systems with Applications 38(1), 16–25 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Project ManagementKainan UniversityLuchuTaiwan
  2. 2.Institute of Management of TechnologyNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations