Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 299–323 | Cite as

Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception



This study explores group package tour (GPT) itineraries based on comparative risk methodology using the fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE). It combines the concepts of fuzzy sets to represent the uncertain information in intrinsic risks with PROMETHEE, a subgroup of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods. Based on in-depth interviews with 40 GPT leaders, this study identifies comprehensive intrinsic risk factors. Furthermore, this study compares the risk perceptions associated with 12 factors by applying traditional PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE methods to four itineraries. The PROMETHEE method can be used when the input data are numeric and crisp. The fuzzy PROMETHEE method is preferred when substantial uncertainties and subjectivities exist in GPT itinerary information. Finally, several academic and managerial implications about GPT tour risk controls are outlined.


Fuzzy PROMETHEE Group package tour Risk perception 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albadvi A (2004) Formulating national information technology strategies: a preference ranking model using PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 153: 290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albadvi A, Chaharsooghi SK, Esfahanipour A (2007) Decision making in stock trading: an application of PROMETHEE. Eur J Oper Res 177: 673–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asady B, Zendehnam A (2007) Ranking fuzzy numbers by distance minimizing. Appl Math Model 31: 2589–2598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin JF, Guild NCF (1979) Comparison of fuzzy numbers on the same decision space. Fuzzy Set Syst 2: 213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer RA (1960) Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Hancock RS (ed) Dynamic marketing for a changing world. American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp 389–398Google Scholar
  6. Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200: 198–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multicriteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bettman JR (1973) Perceived risk and its components: a model and empirical test. J Market Res 10(2): 184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bilsel RU, Büyüközkan G, Ruan D (2006) A fuzzy preference-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital web sites. Int J Intell Syst 21: 1181–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouyssou D (2005) Conjoint measurement tools for MCDM. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science, Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 73–130Google Scholar
  11. Brans JP, Mareschal B (2005) PROMETHEE methods. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science, Business Media Inc., Boston, pp 163–195Google Scholar
  12. Brans JP, Vincke PH (1985) A preference ranking organization method. Manage Sci 31: 647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brans JP, Mareschal B, Vincke P (1984) PROMETHEE: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. Operational Research ‘84. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North Holland, pp 408–421Google Scholar
  14. Brans JP, Vincke PH, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 24: 228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckley JJ, Chanas S (1989) A fast method of ranking alternatives using fuzzy numbers (Short communications). Fuzzy Set Syst 30: 337–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campos L, Gonzalez A (1989) A subjective approach for ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst 29: 145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheng CH (1999) Ranking alternatives with fuzzy weights using maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Set Syst 105: 365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cho J, Lee J (2006) An integrated model of risk and risk-reducing strategies. J Bus Res 59(1): 112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Choobineh F, Li H (1993) An index for ordering fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst 54: 287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chou TY, Lin WT, Lin CY, Chou WC (2007) Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE technique to evaluate suitable ecotechnology method: a case study in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed, Taiwan. Ecol Eng 31: 269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chu T, Tsao C (2002) Ranking fuzzy numbers with an area between the centroid point and original points. Comput Math Appl 43: 111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cohen E (1972) Towards a sociology of international tourism. Sociol Res 39(1): 164–182Google Scholar
  24. Dagdeviren M (2008) Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. J Intell Manuf 19: 397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Decrop A (1999) Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tour Manage 20(1): 157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Delgado M, Verdegay JL, Villa MA (1988) A procedure for ranking fuzzy numbers using fuzzy relations. Fuzzy Set Syst 26: 229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deng Y, Liu Q (2005) A TOPSIS-based centroid-index ranking method of fuzzy numbers and it’s application in decision-making. Cybern Syst 36(7): 581–595Google Scholar
  28. Detyniecki M, Yager RR (2000) Ranking fuzzy numbers using α-weighted valuations. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 8(5): 573–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2004) A multicriteria classification approach based on pairwise comparisons. Eur J Oper Res 158: 378–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dowling GR, Staelin R (1994) A model of perceived risk and intended risk handling activity. J Cons Res 21(1): 119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dubois D, Prade H (1999) A unified view of ranking techniques for fuzzy numbers. In: Proceedings of 1999 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, Seoul, vol 3, pp 1328–1333Google Scholar
  32. Dubois D, Prade H (1983) Ranking of fuzzy numbers in the setting of possibility theory. Inf Sci 30: 183–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dyer JS (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 36(3): 249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Efstathiou J, Tong R (1980) Ranking fuzzy sets using linguistic preference relations. In: Proceedings of 10th international symposium on multiple-valued logic, Northwestern University Evanston, pp 137–142Google Scholar
  35. Facchinetti G, Ricci RG (2004) A characterization of a general class of ranking functions on triangular fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst 146: 297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Figueria J (2005) ELECTRE methods. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science, Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 133–162Google Scholar
  37. Fortemps P, Roubens M (1996) Ranking and deffuzi1cation methods based on area compensation. Fuzzy Set Syst 82: 319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gal SG (2000) Approximation theory in fuzzy setting. In: Anastassiou GA (ed) Handbook of analytic-computational methods in applied mathematics. Chapman Hall/CRC Press, London/Boca Raton, pp 617–666Google Scholar
  39. Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment. Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Set Syst 115: 45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goumas M, Lygerou V (2000) An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. Eur J Oper Res 123: 606–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Halouani N, Chabchoub H, Martel JM (2009) PROMETHEE-MD-2T method for project selection. Eur J Oper Res 195: 841–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holsti OR (1968) Content analysis. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E (eds) The handbook of social psychology: research methods (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 596–692Google Scholar
  43. Hooper P (1995) Evaluation strategies for packaging travel. J Travel Tour Market 4(2): 65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hsu TH, Lin LZ (2006) Using fuzzy set theoretic techniques to analyze travel risk: an empirical study. Tour Manage 27: 968–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hyde K, Maier H, Colby C (2003) Incorporating uncertainty in the PROMETHEE MCDA method. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 12: 245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hyde KM, Maier HR (2006) Distance-based and stochastic uncertainty analysis for multi-criteria decision analysis in excel using visual basic for applications. Environ Modell Soft 21: 1695–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ishizaka A, Nemery P, Lidouh K (2012) Location selection for the construction of a casino in the Greater London region: a triple multi-criteria approach. Tour Manage xxx:1–10 (in press)Google Scholar
  48. Kassarjian HH (1977) Content analysis in consumer research. J Cons Res 4(1): 8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Applications of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manage 1(2): 95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kolodziejczyk W (1986) Orlovsky’s, concept of decision-making with fuzzy preference relation—further results. Fuzzy Set Syst 19: 11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lee ES, Li RL (1988) Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability measure of fuzzy events. Comp Math Appl 15: 887–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lee K, Cho C, Kwang HL (1994) Ranking fuzzy values with satisfaction function. Fuzzy Set Syst 64: 295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lepp A, Gibson H (2003) Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Ann Tour Res 30(3): 606–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mabuchi S (1988) An approach to the comparison of fuzzy subsets with an α-cut dependent index. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb SMC 18: 264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. MacCrimmon KP, Wehrung DA (1986) Taking risks. The Free Press, New York, p 100Google Scholar
  56. Macharis C, Springael J, De Brucker K, Verbeke A (2004) PROMETHEE and AHP: the design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. Eur J Oper Res 153: 307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. March R (2000) The Japanese travel life cycle. J Travel Tou Market 9(1&2): 185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Matarazzo B, Munda G (2001) New approaches for the comparison of L-R fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst 118: 407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mieszkowicz-Rolka A, Rolka L (2008) Fuzzy rough approximations of process data. Int J Approxi Reason 49: 301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Millet I, Wedley WC (2002) Modelling risk and uncertainty with the analytical hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 11: 97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mitchell VW, Boustani P (1994) A preliminary investigation into pre- and post-purchase risk perception and reduction. Eur J Market 28(1): 56–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Modarres M, Sadi-Nezhad S (2001) Ranking fuzzy numbers by preference ratio. Fuzzy Set Syst 118: 429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Okrent D, Pidgeon N (1998) Risk perception versus risk analysis. Reli Eng Syst Safety 59(1): 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Olson DL (2001) Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict known outcomes. Eur J Oper Res 130(3): 576–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ozturk M, Tsoukias A (2005) Preference modelling. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science, Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 27–72Google Scholar
  66. Perez J (1995) Some comments on Saaty’s AHP. Manage Sci 41(6): 1091–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pinhey TK, Iverson TJ (1994) Safety concerns of Japanese visitors to Guam. J Travel Tour Market 3(2): 87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Quiroga I (1990) Characteristics of package tours in Europe. Ann Tour Res 17(2): 185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Raju KS, Pillai CRS (1999a) Multicriterion decision making in river basin planning and development. Eur J Oper Res 112: 249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raju KS, Pillai CRS (1999b) Multicriterion decision making in performance evaluation of an irrigation system. Eur J Oper Res 112: 479–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rapoport A, Wallsten TS (1972) Individual decision behavior. Ann Rev Psy 23: 131–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Robinson M, Marlor R (1995) Tourism and violence: communicating the risk. In: Evans N, Robinson M (eds) Issues in travel and tourism. Business Educations, Sunderland, pp 115–138Google Scholar
  73. Roehl WS, Fesenmaier DR (1992) Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: an exploratory analysis. J Travel Res 30(4): 17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Roy B (2005) Paradigms and challenges. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science, Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  75. Sage AP (1977) Interpretive structural modeling: methodology for large-scale systems. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Stone RN, Grønhaug K (1993) Perceived risk: further considerations for the marketing discipline. Eur J Market 27(3): 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Teng W (2005) Risks perceived by Mainland Chinese tourists towards Southeast Asia destinations: a fuzzy logic model. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 10(1): 97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tesh S (1981) Disease causality and politics. J Health Politics Policy Law 6(3): 369–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tong RM, Bonissone PP (1984) Linguistic solutions to fuzzy decision problems. In: Zimmermann HJ (ed) TIMS/studies in the management science, vol 20, pp 323–334Google Scholar
  80. Tourism Bureau: (2009) Annual survey report on R. O. C. outbound travelers. Tourism Bureau, TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  81. Tran L, Duckstein L (2002) Comparison of fuzzy numbers using a fuzzy distance measure. Fuzzy Set Syst 130: 331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Triantaphyllou E (2001) Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 10: 11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Triantaphyllou E, Mann S (1995) Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges. Int J Indus Eng Appl Prac 2(1): 35–44Google Scholar
  84. Tsai MC, Lin CT (2012) Selecting an optimal region by fuzzy group decision making: empirical evidence from medical investors. Group Decis Negot 21: 399–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tsaur SH, Tzeng GH, Wang KC (1997) Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives. Ann Tour Res 24(4): 796–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Turcksin L, Bernardini A, Macharis C (2011) A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet. Proc Soc Behav Sci 20: 954–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tuzkaya G, Gülsün B, Kahraman C, Özgen D (2010) An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application. Exp Syst Appl 37: 2853–2863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Unser M (2000) Lower partial moments as measures of perceived risk: an experimental study. J Econ Psy 21(3): 253–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vaillancourt K, Waaub JP (2004) Equity in international greenhouse gases abatement scenarios: a multicriteria approach. Eur J Oper Res 153: 489–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wang KC, Hsieh AT, Huan TC (2000) Critical service features in group package tour: an exploratory research. Tou Manage 21(2): 177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wang KC, Hsieh AT, Yeh YC, Tsai CW (2004) Who is the decisionmaker: the parents or the child in group package tours?. Tour Manage 25(2): 183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wang KC, Cheng SC, Wu SY (2002) Factor of service perception among flight attendant, group package tour leader and tourist. In: Chon K, Ogle A (eds) Proceedings of first Asia Pacific forum for graduate students research in tourism. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University & Institute for Tourism Studies, Macao, pp 305–310Google Scholar
  93. Wang M, Wang H, Lung LC (2005) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on lexicographic screening procedure. Int J Info Tech Decis Mak 4(4): 663–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wang YJ, Lee SH (2008) The revised method of ranking fuzzy numbers with an area between the centroid an original points. Comp Math Appl 55: 2033–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wang YM, Luo Y (2009) Area ranking of fuzzy numbers based on positive and negative ideal points. Comp Math Appl 58(10): 1769–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wang Z, Triantophyllou E (2006) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36(1): 45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wang ZX, Liu YJ, Fan ZP, Feng B (2009) Ranking L–R fuzzy number based on deviation degree. Inf Sci 179: 2070–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Weber R (1990) Basic content analysis. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  99. Wester-Herber M, Warg LE (2002) Gender and regional differences in risk perception: results from implementing the Seveso Directive in Sweden. J Risk Res 5(1): 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wong S, Lau E (2001) Understanding the behavior of Hong Kong Chinese tourists on group tour package. J Travel Res 40(1): 57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yager RR, Detyniecki M, Meunier BB (2001) A context-dependent method for ordering fuzzy numbers using probabilities. Inf Sci 138: 237–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yamamoto D, Gill A (1999) Emerging trends in Japanese package tourism. J Travel Res 38(2): 134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Yao J, Wu K (2000) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on decomposition principle and signed distance. Fuzzy Set Syst 116: 275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zhang K, Kluck C, Achari G (2009) A comparative approach for ranking contaminated sites based on the risk assessment paradigm using fuzzy PROMETHEE. Environ Manage 44: 952–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing and Distribution ManagementNational Kaohsiung First University of Science and TechnologyKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Marketing ManagementShih Chien University Kaohsiung CampusNeimenTaiwan

Personalised recommendations