Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albadvi A (2004) Formulating national information technology strategies: a preference ranking model using PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 153: 290–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albadvi A, Chaharsooghi SK, Esfahanipour A (2007) Decision making in stock trading: an application of PROMETHEE. Eur J Oper Res 177: 673–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asady B, Zendehnam A (2007) Ranking fuzzy numbers by distance minimizing. Appl Math Model 31: 2589–2598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin JF, Guild NCF (1979) Comparison of fuzzy numbers on the same decision space. Fuzzy Set Syst 2: 213–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer RA (1960) Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Hancock RS (ed) Dynamic marketing for a changing world. American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp 389–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200: 198–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multicriteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman JR (1973) Perceived risk and its components: a model and empirical test. J Market Res 10(2): 184–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 1181–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 73–130

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 163–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans JP, Vincke PH (1985) A preference ranking organization method. Manage Sci 31: 647–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 408–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans JP, Vincke PH, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 24: 228–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley JJ, Chanas S (1989) A fast method of ranking alternatives using fuzzy numbers (Short communications). Fuzzy Set Syst 30: 337–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos L, Gonzalez A (1989) A subjective approach for ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst 29: 145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Springer, New York

  • Cheng CH (1999) Ranking alternatives with fuzzy weights using maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Set Syst 105: 365–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho J, Lee J (2006) An integrated model of risk and risk-reducing strategies. J Bus Res 59(1): 112–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choobineh F, Li H (1993) An index for ordering fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst 54: 287–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu T, Tsao C (2002) Ranking fuzzy numbers with an area between the centroid point and original points. Comput Math Appl 43: 111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen E (1972) Towards a sociology of international tourism. Sociol Res 39(1): 164–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagdeviren M (2008) Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. J Intell Manuf 19: 397–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decrop A (1999) Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tour Manage 20(1): 157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado M, Verdegay JL, Villa MA (1988) A procedure for ranking fuzzy numbers using fuzzy relations. Fuzzy Set Syst 26: 229–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 581–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Detyniecki M, Yager RR (2000) Ranking fuzzy numbers using α-weighted valuations. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 8(5): 573–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2004) A multicriteria classification approach based on pairwise comparisons. Eur J Oper Res 158: 378–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling GR, Staelin R (1994) A model of perceived risk and intended risk handling activity. J Cons Res 21(1): 119–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1328–1333

  • Dubois D, Prade H (1983) Ranking of fuzzy numbers in the setting of possibility theory. Inf Sci 30: 183–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JS (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 36(3): 249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 137–142

  • Facchinetti G, Ricci RG (2004) A characterization of a general class of ranking functions on triangular fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst 146: 297–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 133–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortemps P, Roubens M (1996) Ranking and deffuzi1cation methods based on area compensation. Fuzzy Set Syst 82: 319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 617–666

    Google Scholar 

  • Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment. Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Set Syst 115: 45–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 606–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halouani N, Chabchoub H, Martel JM (2009) PROMETHEE-MD-2T method for project selection. Eur J Oper Res 195: 841–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti OR (1968) Content analysis. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E (eds) The handbook of social psychology: research methods (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 596–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper P (1995) Evaluation strategies for packaging travel. J Travel Tour Market 4(2): 65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu TH, Lin LZ (2006) Using fuzzy set theoretic techniques to analyze travel risk: an empirical study. Tour Manage 27: 968–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde K, Maier H, Colby C (2003) Incorporating uncertainty in the PROMETHEE MCDA method. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 12: 245–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 1695–1710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Kassarjian HH (1977) Content analysis in consumer research. J Cons Res 4(1): 8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodziejczyk W (1986) Orlovsky’s, concept of decision-making with fuzzy preference relation—further results. Fuzzy Set Syst 19: 11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee ES, Li RL (1988) Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability measure of fuzzy events. Comp Math Appl 15: 887–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee K, Cho C, Kwang HL (1994) Ranking fuzzy values with satisfaction function. Fuzzy Set Syst 64: 295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepp A, Gibson H (2003) Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Ann Tour Res 30(3): 606–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabuchi S (1988) An approach to the comparison of fuzzy subsets with an α-cut dependent index. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb SMC 18: 264–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon KP, Wehrung DA (1986) Taking risks. The Free Press, New York, p 100

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March R (2000) The Japanese travel life cycle. J Travel Tou Market 9(1&2): 185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matarazzo B, Munda G (2001) New approaches for the comparison of L-R fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Set Syst 118: 407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mieszkowicz-Rolka A, Rolka L (2008) Fuzzy rough approximations of process data. Int J Approxi Reason 49: 301–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millet I, Wedley WC (2002) Modelling risk and uncertainty with the analytical hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 11: 97–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell VW, Boustani P (1994) A preliminary investigation into pre- and post-purchase risk perception and reduction. Eur J Market 28(1): 56–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modarres M, Sadi-Nezhad S (2001) Ranking fuzzy numbers by preference ratio. Fuzzy Set Syst 118: 429–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okrent D, Pidgeon N (1998) Risk perception versus risk analysis. Reli Eng Syst Safety 59(1): 1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson DL (2001) Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict known outcomes. Eur J Oper Res 130(3): 576–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 27–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez J (1995) Some comments on Saaty’s AHP. Manage Sci 41(6): 1091–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinhey TK, Iverson TJ (1994) Safety concerns of Japanese visitors to Guam. J Travel Tour Market 3(2): 87–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiroga I (1990) Characteristics of package tours in Europe. Ann Tour Res 17(2): 185–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raju KS, Pillai CRS (1999a) Multicriterion decision making in river basin planning and development. Eur J Oper Res 112: 249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raju KS, Pillai CRS (1999b) Multicriterion decision making in performance evaluation of an irrigation system. Eur J Oper Res 112: 479–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport A, Wallsten TS (1972) Individual decision behavior. Ann Rev Psy 23: 131–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 115–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehl WS, Fesenmaier DR (1992) Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: an exploratory analysis. J Travel Res 30(4): 17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 3–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Sage AP (1977) Interpretive structural modeling: methodology for large-scale systems. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone RN, Grønhaug K (1993) Perceived risk: further considerations for the marketing discipline. Eur J Market 27(3): 39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng W (2005) Risks perceived by Mainland Chinese tourists towards Southeast Asia destinations: a fuzzy logic model. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 10(1): 97–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesh S (1981) Disease causality and politics. J Health Politics Policy Law 6(3): 369–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tong RM, Bonissone PP (1984) Linguistic solutions to fuzzy decision problems. In: Zimmermann HJ (ed) TIMS/studies in the management science, vol 20, pp 323–334

  • Tourism Bureau: (2009) Annual survey report on R. O. C. outbound travelers. Tourism Bureau, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran L, Duckstein L (2002) Comparison of fuzzy numbers using a fuzzy distance measure. Fuzzy Set Syst 130: 331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 35–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai MC, Lin CT (2012) Selecting an optimal region by fuzzy group decision making: empirical evidence from medical investors. Group Decis Negot 21: 399–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsaur SH, Tzeng GH, Wang KC (1997) Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives. Ann Tour Res 24(4): 796–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 954–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 2853–2863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unser M (2000) Lower partial moments as measures of perceived risk: an experimental study. J Econ Psy 21(3): 253–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaillancourt K, Waaub JP (2004) Equity in international greenhouse gases abatement scenarios: a multicriteria approach. Eur J Oper Res 153: 489–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang KC, Hsieh AT, Huan TC (2000) Critical service features in group package tour: an exploratory research. Tou Manage 21(2): 177–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 305–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Wang H, Lung LC (2005) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on lexicographic screening procedure. Int J Info Tech Decis Mak 4(4): 663–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 2033–2042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Luo Y (2009) Area ranking of fuzzy numbers based on positive and negative ideal points. Comp Math Appl 58(10): 1769–1779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Triantophyllou E (2006) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36(1): 45–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZX, Liu YJ, Fan ZP, Feng B (2009) Ranking L–R fuzzy number based on deviation degree. Inf Sci 179: 2070–2077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (1990) Basic content analysis. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong S, Lau E (2001) Understanding the behavior of Hong Kong Chinese tourists on group tour package. J Travel Res 40(1): 57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR, Detyniecki M, Meunier BB (2001) A context-dependent method for ordering fuzzy numbers using probabilities. Inf Sci 138: 237–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto D, Gill A (1999) Emerging trends in Japanese package tourism. J Travel Res 38(2): 134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao J, Wu K (2000) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on decomposition principle and signed distance. Fuzzy Set Syst 116: 275–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 952–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing and Distribution Management, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Tsuen-Ho Hsu

  2. Department of Marketing Management, Shih Chien University Kaohsiung Campus, 200 University Road, Neimen, Kaohsiung, 84550, Taiwan

    Ling-Zhong Lin

Authors
  1. Tsuen-Ho Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ling-Zhong Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ling-Zhong Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hsu, TH., Lin, LZ. Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception. Group Decis Negot 23, 299–323 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9313-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9313-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation