Botti & Peypoch French Tourism Paradox Iate 2015

download Botti & Peypoch French Tourism Paradox Iate 2015

of 17

  • date post

    05-Aug-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    50
  • download

    1

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 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 doesnt 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