Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Botti & Peypoch French Tourism Paradox Iate 2015
Similaire à Botti & Peypoch French Tourism Paradox Iate 2015 (20)
Botti & Peypoch French Tourism Paradox Iate 2015
- 1. Perpignan University Department of tourism management 7/2/20151 Dr. BOTTI Laurent Dr. PEYPOCH Nicolas
- 2. 7/2/20152 1. Introduction: Tourism in France 2. MCDA methods and destination competitiveness 3. ELECTRE and TDC: a ranking of European Countries 4. Interests, limitations and perspectives French tourism paradox: MCDA Analysis
- 3. 3 1. Introduction: Tourism in France
- 4. 7/2/20154 •To understand TD competitiveness, we dispose of the Ritchie & Crouch (2003) model, the most cited one • R&C model integrates all the relevant factors that might typify the competitiveness of a destination • Based on five competitiveness components (criteria) • Attractors (Climate, History…) • Supporting factors (Accessibility, Hospitality…) • Destination planning (Positioning, Branding…) • Destination management (Marketing, HRM…) • Amplifying determinants (Safety…) 2. MCDA methods and destination competitiveness
- 5. 7/2/20155 •Destination selection can be seen as a MCDA problem (Botti & Peypoch, 2014) •Trying to select one destination from a set of n possible alternatives and on the basis of m criteria 2. MCDA methods and destination competitiveness
- 6. 7/2/20156 •MCDA methods generally classified in two groups: • compensatory methods (WSM) and • non-compensatory ones (when strength in one of the criteria doesn’t compensate weaknesses in others) (Rowley et al., 2012) •Non compensatory MCDA methods are largely based on the outranking relation •which is a binary relation S defined on the set of alternatives A such that hSk if there are enough arguments to decide that alternative h is at least as good as alternative k, whereas there is no essential argument to refute that statement 2. MCDA methods and destination competitiveness
- 7. 7/2/20157 •The basic data of a MCDA problem are a set of n alternatives, a set of m criteria, a set of m weights of criteria •And a n-m matrix (performance matrix) containing the evaluation of each alternative on each criterion •Methods which strictly apply the previous definition of the outranking relation are the ELECTRE methods (Roy, 1991) •ELECTRE methods comprise two parts: construction of outranking relations followed by an exploitation procedure used to elaborate recommendations (choosing: ELECTRE I / ELECTRE IS, ranking: ELECTRE III, or sorting: ELECTRE TRI). 2. MCDA methods and destination competitiveness
- 8. 7/2/20158 •MCDA litterature is quite narrow when considering the tourism field •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 provinces of Andalusia (Spain) •ELECTRE I was used by Botti and Peypoch (2014) to compare Hawaiian island •Here, ELECTRE III (Roy, 1991) is used to obtain a ranking of European countries from the Ritchie and Crouch (2003) criterions and the WEF data (TTCI, 2013) 2. MCDA methods and destination competitiveness
- 9. 7/2/20159 • Data are derived from the 2013 World Economic Forum (WEF) Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI) • in which 140 countries are analyzed and ranked 3. ELECTRE and TDC: a ranking of European Countries
- 10. 7/2/201510 3. ELECTRE and TDC: a ranking of European Countries
- 11. 7/2/201511 Performance matrix 3. ELECTRE and TDC: a ranking of European Countries
- 12. 7/2/201512 3. ELECTRE and TDC: a ranking of European Countries Diviz Workflow
- 13. 7/2/201513 3. ELECTRE and TDC: a ranking of European Countries
- 14. 7/2/201514 3. ELECTRE and TDC: a ranking of European Countries •For France, room for improvement for its performance on criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 •Government has just decided (june 2015) to introduce a national tourism strategy to improve competitiveness •40 proposals
- 15. 7/2/201515 3. ELECTRE and TDC: a ranking of European Countries •C2: Core resources and attractions • WEF Pillar B.8: Tourism infrastructures -> “Investissement Fund for Tourism” (FIT) to invest in hotels, niche tourism (“Waterway tourism” and “Wine tourism”). •C3: Destination management • WEF Pillar C.11: Human resources -> MOOC on hospitality / foreign languages (Atout France) •C4: Destination policy, planning and development • WEF Pillar A.1: Policy rules and regulation ->Visa application for Chinese visitors in less than 48 hours • WEF Pillar A.5: Prioritization of tourism & travel -> Translate signs in airports and road signs in English
- 16. 7/2/201516 •Propose a global analysis of tourism competitiveness • Theoretical models of tourism competitiveness (WEF vs R&C) • Robust method to rank destination (ELECTRE III) • Link between WEF pillars and R&C criteria • Pseudo-criteria parameters choice (thresholds) • Sensitivity analysis • TTCI 2015 and next 4. Interests, limitations and perspectives
- 17. 7/2/201517 Thank you for attention! laurent.botti@univ-perp.fr peypoch@univ-perp.fr
Notes de l'éditeur
- MCDA for methods providing quantitative approach to support decision making in problems involving several criteria and choices (alternatives or actions) (Figueira, Mousseau & Roy, 2005)
- The TTCI aims to measure the factors and policies that make it attractive to develop the T&T sector in different countries. It is based on three broad categories of variables that facilitate or drive T&T competitiveness. These categories are summarized into the three subindexes of the Index: (1) the T&T regulatory framework subindex; (2) the T&T business environment and infrastructure subindex; and (3) the T&T human, cultural, and natural resources subindex. The first subindex captures those elements that are policy related and generally under the purview of the government; the second subindex captures elements of the business environment and the “hard” infrastructure of each economy; and the third subindex captures the “softer” human, cultural, and natural elements of each country’s resource endowments. Each of these three subindexes is composed in turn by a number of pillars of T&T competitiveness, of which there are 14 in all.
- We make a rational link between these two theoretical models (WEF and C&R). In yellow: R&C competitiveness criteria (5) In green: pillars of the TTCI (14) In blue destinations (alternatives in the MCDA framework) For example: C.13 stands for Natural resources and C.14 for Cultural resources This is a typical attraction classification (as proposed by Benckendorf and used by the World Heritage list). Everybody will agree to the link between these two WEF pillars and the second criteria of C&R.
- Then, we obtain this performance matrix. Five performances for each alternative (which are European countries). One performance for each criteria. Obtained by calculating the average performance of WEF pillars. Max score is 7. Min score is 1.
- We use the Diviz software and contruct an ELECTRE III workflow to obtain a ranking of European countries by considering the previous performance matrix. The workflow expose the main step pof ELECTRE III: Concordance of criteria Discordance of criterion Note that we need weights of criteria (m). We used those given by Crouch in 2011 (JTR) obtained by AHP method.
- In red the WEF ranking In blue the C&R ELECTRE ranking Focus on the first five countries of the WEF ranking Spain is now (for the C&R ELECTRE ranking) the most competitive destination in Europe. Spain has the best performance for the second criteria (attractions): 6,01 which has the most important weight (0,267). France is still after Spain, Deutschland, UK and Austria. Not a big difference for France.