Seçilmiş Akdeniz ülkelerinin destinasyon rekabetçiliğinin entropi temelli EDAS yöntemi ile belirlenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma, Akdeniz çanağında yer alan ülkelerin destinasyon rekabetçiliğinin entropi temelli EDAS yöntemiyle belirlenmesi ve rekabetçiliklerinin değerlendirilmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, Dünya Ekonomik Forumu tarafından iki yılda bir yayınlanan Seyahat ve Turizm Rekabetçilik Endeksi verileri kullanılmış; bu endekste yer alan dört ana gruba bağlı olan 14 alt grup kriter olarak belirlenerek entropi yöntemiyle bu kriterler ağırlıklandırılmış ve önem sırasına göre sıralanmıştır. Daha sonra Akdeniz çanağında yer alan ve en fazla turist çeken ilk 50 ülke arasında yer alan 10 Akdeniz ülkesi (Fransa, İspanya, İtalya, Türkiye, Yunanistan, Hırvatistan, Mısır, Fas, Portekiz, Tunus) ağırlıklandırılmış olan bu kriterlere bağlı olarak EDAS yöntemiyle incelenmiş ve bu ülkelerin destinasyon rekabetçilikleri ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre Akdeniz çanağında yer alan ülkelerin rekabetçilikleri açısından en önemli üç kriter seyahat ve turizmin önceliklendirilmesi, iş ortamı ve insan kaynağı ve iş gücü piyasasıdır. En rekabetçi ilk üç ülke ise sırasıyla Fransa, İspanya ve İtalya olarak belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seyahat ve Turizm Rekabetçilik Endeksi
• Rekabetçilik
• Destinasyon Rekabetçiliği
• Entropi
• EDAS

Determination of destination competitiveness of the selected Mediterranean destinations by entropy based EDAS method

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine and evaluate the destination competitiveness of the selected Mediterranean destinations with the entropy-based EDAS method. In this context, Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI) data published in 2019 by the World Economic Forum were used. 14 pillars that belong to the four subindexes in TTCI were determined as criteria and these criteria were weighted by entropy method and prioritized. Afterwards, the competitiveness of 10 Mediterranean destinations (France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Croatia, Egypt, Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia), which are among the top 50 countries attracting the highest number of international tourists, were examined by EDAS method and their competitiveness was revealed. According to the results of the research, the three most important criteria for the competitiveness of the Mediterranean destinations are prioritization of travel & tourism, business environment, and human resources and labour market while the top three competitive countries are France, Spain and Italy, respectively.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index
• Competitiveness
• Destination Competitiveness
• Entropy
• EDAS

Kaynakça

1. Ali, T., Ma, H., & Nahian, A. J. (2019). An analysis of the renewable energy technology selection in the southern region of Bangladesh using a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Method. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 9(4), 1838–1848.
2. Aslan, A. (2014). Tourism development and economic growth in the Mediterranean countries: Evidence from panel Granger causality tests. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.768607
3. Bahar, O., & Kozak, M. (2007). Advancing destination competitiveness research: Comparison between tourists and service providers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 22(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v22n02_05
4. Bălan, D., Balaure, V., & Vegheş, C. (2009). Travel and tourism competitiveness of the world’s top tourism destinations: An exploratory assessment. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 979–987.
5. Baldemir, E., & Kurnaz, H. A. (2013). İlçelerin turizm potansiyellerinin analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi ile sıralanması: Muğla örneği [To sort of the districts’ tourism potentials with analytic hierarchy process: The case of Mugla]. Muğla University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (30), 51–67.
6. Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362776
7. Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research, 44, 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00196-3
8. Çatı, K., Eş, A., & Özevin, O. (2017). Futbol takımlarının finansal ve sportif etkinliklerinin entropi ve TOPSİS yöntemiyle analiz edilmesi: Avrupa’nın 5 büyük ligi ve süper lig üzerine bir uygulama [Sportive and financial performance analysis of football team with entropi and TOPSIS methods: An application on major Europe’s 5 leagues and Turkey league]. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 13(1), 199–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.20173126270

9. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers and Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
10. Doğan, N., & Gencan, S. (2013). Seyahat acentası yöneticilerinin bakış açısıyla en uygun otel seçimi: Bir Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) uygulaması [Selecting the optimum hotel from the viewpoint of travel agency managers: An analytic hierarchy process (ahp) case study]. Erciyes University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, (41), 69–88.
11. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Rao, P. (2000). The price competitiveness of travel and tourism: A comparison of 19 destinations. Tourism Management, 21, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00081-3
12. Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination competitiveness: A quantitative approach. Tourism Management, 25, 777–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.06.008
13. Falzon, J. (2012). The price competitive position of Mediterranean countries in tourism: Evidence from the Thomson brochure. Tourism Management, 33, 1080–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.004
14. Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS). Informatica (Netherlands), 26(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2015.57
15. Gooroochurn, N., & Sugiyarto, G. (2005). Competitiveness indicators in the travel and tourism industry. Tourism Economics, 11(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.5367/0000000053297130
16. Göral, R. (2016). Turizm destinasyonu rekabetçilik faktörleri ve entropi yöntemiyle ağırlıklandırılması [Tourism destination competitive factors and weighting by entropy method]. Journal of Economics and Management Research, 5(2), 66–81.
17. Göral, R. (2017). Dünya ekonomik forumu turizm rekabetçilik raporu ışığında Türkiye turizminin rekabetçilik sorunları [Competitiveness problems of Turkey tourism in the light of world economic forum tourism competitiveness report]. Journal of Academic Sight, (61), 141–166.
18. Gündüz, H., & Güler, M. E. (2015). Termal turizm işletmelerinde çok ölçütlü karar verme teknikleri kullanılarak uygun tedarikçinin seçilmesi [Supplier selection in the thermal tourism enterprises with using multi criteria decision making techniques]. Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 30(1), 203–222.
19. Hassan, A., & Uşaklı, A. (2013). Seyahat ve turizm rekabetçilik endeksi: Akdeniz çanağındaki destinasyonlara yönelik karşılaştırmalı bir analiz [Travel and tourism competitiveness index: A comparison across Mediterranean destinations]. Journal of Travel and Hospitality Management, 10(2), 53–67.
20. Hassan, S. S. (2000). Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750003800305
21. Heath, E. (2003). Towards a model to enhance destination competitiveness: A Southern African perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 10(2), 124–142.
22. Huang, W., Shuai, B., Xu, Y., Zhang, S., & Mao, B. (2019). Railway express freight train service sites planning: A two-stage entropy-TOPSIS approach. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 15(2), 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2018.1534894
23. Hwang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications, a state of the art survey. Springer-Verlag.
24. Jovanović, S., Janković Milić, V., & Krstić, B. (2014). Homogeneity analysis of south-eastern European countries according to tourism competitiveness performances. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 27(1), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2014.952113
25. Nazmfar, H., Eshghei, A., Alavi, S., & Pourmoradian, S. (2019). Analysis of travel and tourism competitiveness index in middle-east countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 24(6), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2019.1590428
26. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2002). Multicriteria planning of post‐earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(3), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8667.00269
27. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. The Free Press.
28. Qian, G. (2019). Research on index weight of logistics integration based on cloud models. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 31(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.4632
29. Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. CABI Publishing.
30. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill.
31. Srinivasan, V., & Shocker, A. D. (1973). Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika, 38(3), 337–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291658
32. Syriopoulos, T. C., & Sinclair, M. T. (1993). An econometric study of tourism demand: The AIDS model of US and European tourism in Mediterranean countries. Applied Economics, 25, 1541–1552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036849300000158
33. Tağraf, H., & Ölmez, U. (2019). Entropi ve EDAS yöntemleri ile personel seçimi: Hipotetik çalışma [Personnel selection with entropy and EDAS methods: Hypothetical study]. T. Özseven (Ed.), in 4th International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Social, Human and Administrative Sciences (pp. 175–177). Samsun: SETSCI. https://doi.org/10.36287/setsci.4.8.030
34. Tomić, S., & Stoiljković, A. (2015). The competitiveness of Serbia on the international tourism market. Strategic Management, 20(3), 37–43. Tsai, H., Song, H., & Wong, K. K. F. (2009). Tourism and hotel competitiveness research. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(5–6), 522–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548400903163079
35. Ulucak, R., Yücel, A. G., & İlkay, S. Ç. (2020). Dynamics of tourism demand in Turkey: Panel data analysis using gravity model. Tourism Economics, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816620901956
36. Ulutaş, A. (2019). Entropi tabanlı EDAS yöntemi ile lojistik firmalarının performans analizi [The performance analysis of logistics companies with entropy based EDAS method]. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (23), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.458754
37. Ünal, E. A. (2019). Bütünleşik entropi ve EDAS yöntemleri kullanılarak BIST sigorta şirketlerinin performansının ölçülmesi [Measuring the performance of BIST insurance companies using integrated entropy and EDAS methods]. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(4), 555–566. https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.649946
38. Wang, X., Ma, X., Fan, J., & Ye, Q. (2019). Design of intelligent logistics drivers evaluation system-based on entropy-AHP method. In 16th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM) (pp. 1–6). The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen: IEEE. 10.1109/ICSSSM.2019.8887599
39. World Bank (2019, December 16). International tourism, number of arrivals. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?most_recent_value_desc=true&view=map
40. World Economic Forum [WEF] (2019, December 16). The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-travel-tourism-competitiveness-report-2019
41. World Tourism Organization [UNWTO] (2019, December 16). International Tourism Highlights 2019 Edition. https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421152
42. Zhang, S., Wei, G., Gao, H., Wei, C., & Wei, Y. (2019). Edas method for multiple criteria group decision making with picture fuzzy information and its application to green suppliers selections. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(6), 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.10714