ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

A fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for international

tourist hotels location selection
Tsung-Yu Choua,, Chia-Lun Hsub, Mei-Chyi Chenc
a
Department of Distribution Management, National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Taichung, 411, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Business Administration Management, Ling Tung University, Taichung 408, Taiwan, ROC
c
Department of Marketing and Logistics Management, Ling Tung College, Taichung 408, Taiwan, ROC

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to present a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (FMCDM) model for international tourist hotel
location selection. In this article we created 21 criteria for selecting the international tourist hotel location acquired from literatures
review and practical investigations. And the methods of fuzzy set theory, linguistic value, hierarchical structure analysis, and fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process are used to consolidate decision-makers’ assessments about criteria weightings. Finally, an empirical study for
identifying the international tourist hotel location selection in Taiwan is conducted to demonstrate the computational process and
effectiveness of FMCDM proposed by this paper.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: International tourist hotel; Location choice; Linguistic value; Fuzzy multi-criteria decision

1. Introduction So, good hotel location cannot only help increase market
share and profitability but can also enhance the conve-
In order to reduce passengers’ cost of seeking accom- nience of customer lodging because establishing a fine
modations, enforce the return ratio efficiency of guest location will shorten the payoff period for fixed capital
rooms and enhance total operating performance, evaluat- investments. Moreover, in the age of customer-based
ing and selecting a suitable hotel location has become one service, satisfying customer requirements or enhancing
of the most critical issues for the hotel industry. Location the convenience of customer lodging will directly raise
decision has drawn increasing attention from academic and customer loyalty.
business communities in the past two decades. It has been Many methods for location selection have been devel-
well recognized that selection of a facility location has oped. Aikens (1985) utilized mathematical programming to
important strategic implications because a location deci- develop the facility location models for distribution
sion will normally involve a long-term commitment of planning. Cheng and Li (2004) also used mathematical
resources. From the practical operating situation of a programming to identify the location selection of factory
hotel, we can gather that the influential factors for hotels to and retail store. Chen (1996) applied mathematical
achieve success are reputation, building style, financial programming to build a location choice model for
structure, marketing, staffs’ quality, and initial location distribution centers. In exploring the choice location of
selection. But location is the significant factor influencing factory or retail store, Chen (1999) presented a fuzzy group
operation performance in the future (Yang and Lee, 1997). decision model for the allocation of a distribution center.
Chen et al. (1997) adopted fuzzy multi-objectives facility
Corresponding author. Tel.: +866 4 23924505x6317; location programming to search for an airport fire station.
fax: +866 4 2393 2065.
Nicolau (2002) used regression analysis method to assess
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.-Y. Chou), new hotel opening through an event study. Teng (2000)
[email protected] (C.-L. Hsu), [email protected] (M.-C. Chen). applied multi-criteria decision-making method to deal with

0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.029
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
294 T.-Y. Chou et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301

the site selection of restaurants. Tzeng et al. (2002) developed model is developed to tackle international tourist hotel
the multi-criteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei. location selection in a fuzzy decision environment.
Other scholars applied the same method in the aviation In order to develop the fuzzy decision-making model for
industry (Chang et al., 1997), retail business (Kuo et al., tourist hotel location selection, the paper is organized as
2002), distribution center (Chen, 2001), and sales-delivery follows. In Section 2, we introduce the criteria of tourist
facility location (Aberbakh and Berman, 1995). hotel location selection under development in Taiwan. In
Almost every evaluation method has its strong points or Section 3, the basic concepts of Research methods are
defects and issues about the suitability for different introduced. Section 4 presents the empirical study by the
situations. AHP (analytic hierarchy process) is a popular decision model presented in this article. Finally, some
method used in finding a solution to the problem of conclusions are highlighted at the end of this paper.
location selection. Tzeng et al. (2002) evaluated the
alternative locations to the restaurant using AHP. Aras et 2. Tourist hotel
al. (2004) tried to select the best location of wind
observation station by AHP. Barbarosoglu and Yazgac 2.1. The criteria of international tourist hotel location
(1997), Xia and Wu (2007) and Wu et al. (2007) proposed selection
the use of the AHP to deal with location selection or
supplier selection. In short, AHP circumvents the difficulty Location selection involves the provision of an overall
of having to provide point estimates for criteria weights as distribution blueprint for the region, and traffic
well as performance scores in the basic linear weighting and transportation conditions are also very important
models. Instead, using AHP the managers or decision (Coltman, 1989). During the decision-making process of
makers are only required to give verbal, qualitative selecting the tourist hotel location, the objective of synergy
statements regarding the relative importance of one can be accomplished if facilities such as commercial areas,
criterion over another and similarly regarding the relative conventional centers, and airports can be taken into
preference of one location to another on a criterion. This consideration. Gray and Liguori (1998), in a feasibility
approach is more accurate than the other scoring methods. study of hotel establishment, suggested several considera-
Some methods apply to the evaluation of qualitative tions for location selection: local economic environment,
criteria evaluation while others are suitable for quantitative regional or zone regulations, height limit of buildings, car
criteria. But in reality, sometimes both qualitative and park facilities, public facilities, traffic convenience and
quantitative criteria exist simultaneously. In order to accessibility, geographic factors, natural resources, and the
confront this situation, we can adopt the AHP method to size of the location. Also, Pan (2002) categorized tourist
build a systemic evaluation structure integrating all of the hotel location selection factors according to base station
criteria and allowing easier operation based on consistence suitability, traffic convenience and fine visual perception,
test approving. Moreover, due to the availability and public facilities and other services, application of certain
uncertainty of information in our decision process as well regulations, and flexible space. The basis of these discus-
as the vagueness of human feeling and recognition, it is sions is focused on the overall facilities surrounding the
difficult to make an exact evaluation and convey the feeling hotel, traffic conditions, and future considerations for
and recognition of objects for decision makers. Fuzzy set expandability.
theory (Zadeh, 1965) can play a significant role in this kind On the other hand, some scholars have also utilized the
of decision situation. issues of location theory such as central place theory,
Generally, it is difficult to express the character and principle of minimum differentiation, and bid rent theory
significance of criteria exactly or clearly through traditional as the basis for making decisions on tourist hotel locations
methods. Using the concept of fuzzy sets theory and (Wey and Liao, 2004, Hsieh and Huang, 1998, Lee et al.,
natural language to evaluate the site selection criteria is 2000). From the standpoint of the central place theory, two
more convenient, allowing decision makers to express their primary concepts of service scope and demand threshold
ideas freely and adequately. Therefore, we combine fuzzy are survived for the hotel operator. Given these two
sets theory and linguistic value concept to establish a model concepts, we can theorize that the consumer characteristics
that can provide decision makers with the tool to deal with and scope covered under the overall market conditions
complex issues in a fuzzy environment. Thus, a fuzzy-based include factors such as consumption standard and number
decision model for tourist hotel location selection is more of consumers.
appropriate and effective than traditional precision-based Factors attributed to the principle of minimum differ-
models. In addition, by establishing an ideal to stimulate entiation mainly emphasized on the concept of cluster
the creativity and invention of a new alternative, the effect, which is a result of the consumer behavior of asking
direction to the process of generating alternatives becomes for quotations. In order to minimize the cost of transporta-
clear and definite. Based on the reasons stated above, by tion during the process in which consumers are seeking
combining the concepts of fuzzy set theory, hierarchical price information, companies will engage in cluster
structure analysis, ideal and anti-ideal, and analytic activities. According to Lee et al. (2000) and Hsieh and
hierarchy process, a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making Huang (1998), the number of competitive store locations is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.-Y. Chou et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301 295

an important factor for location selection, where competi- (http://www.dgbas.gov.tw, 2004), the tourism industry
tiveness is demonstrated by market share in commercial represented 2.77% of gross domestic product (GDP) in
circles. The degree of proximity to competitor locations is 2003. The GDP of tourism had surpassed that of
also an indicator of competitiveness. Therefore, when agriculture, making it an important industry for Taiwan.
businesses are making location selection decisions, future The 2006 annual report on tourism (http://202.39.225.136/
development potential is an important consideration in indexc.asp, 2007) noted that at the end of December 2006,
addition to projecting the competitiveness of the new Taiwan had 29 tourist hotels with a total of 3298 rooms
location. From the perspective of surrounding environ- and 60 international tourist hotels with a total of 17,832
ment, public order issues such as the outbreak of theft, fire, rooms. It is obvious that the number of hotels is not
and robbery are also major concerns in location selection. enough to meet the tourist demand of a developed country.
Through the viewpoints of cluster economy effect, this Therefore, a tourist hotel development plan was drafted
paper discusses the competitive situation, developmental with the objective of developing hotels in suitable
potential, and surrounding environment given certain agricultural lands, which are to be conducted in an orderly
market and geographic conditions. manner and without damage to agricultural production. By
Factors attributed to the bid rent theory involve an 2008, the target year of the plan, it is estimated that Taiwan
important location concept: the nature of land use is will require 15,100 additional tourist hotel rooms.
determined by the ability to pay the rent; the higher the Furthermore, by executing the policy for Asia–Pacific
rent-paying ability, the closer the location is to the city Region Operations Center (APROC), the administration
center. We can use this view to discuss the aspects of base actively promotes tourism industry education and person-
station characteristics, surrounding environment, accessi- nel training, such as tour guide and tour manager testing
bility, traffic volume, and financial conditions associated and assessment, qualification program for travel industry
with geographic, traffic, and management considerations. managers, on-the-job training for travel agency employees,
Lee et al. (2000) has indicated that the base station area is a and revision of basic materials for tourism personnel. All
major factor of location selection; operating area is of these policies demonstrate the government’s promise for
positively related to sales. Teng (2000) and Tzeng et al. the tourism industry.
(2002) noted that car parking conditions should also be
included into location selection factors, as additional 3. Research method
numbers of parking spaces will attract more customers.
Meanwhile, other base station traffic accessibility or 3.1. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
convenience is one of consumers’ primary concerns in
selecting a tourist hotel location. Herein, the AHP (Saaty, 1980) is used to solve multiple
Hotels’ unique core ability is also one of customers’ main criteria decision problems. By means of a systematic
consideration for selecting a tourist hotel. Entertainment hierarchy structure, complex estimation criteria can be
facilities, food and beverage services, and environmental clearly and distinctly presented. Ratio scales are utilized to
conditions are major attributes in hotel selection. Also, make reciprocal comparisons for each element and layer.
developing hotel genre, amalgamating with local culture, After completing the reciprocal matrix, the comparative
and using decorative styles to create competitive advantage weights for each element can be obtained. The AHP is
are all prime components influencing customers’ choice of widely used for tackling multi-criteria decision-making
hotels. Furthermore, the quantity and quality of local problems in real situations. In spite of its popularity
human resources is also a focal point for enterprises when and simplicity in concept, this method is often criticized
making decisions on the establishment of international for its inability to adequately handle the inherent
tourist hotels. uncertainty and imprecision associated with the mapping
Combining the criteria of selecting the hotel location of the decision-maker’s perception to crisp values. In
reported in the above literature review and considering the the traditional formulation of the AHP, human judgments
characteristics of Taiwan’s hotel industry and comments are represented as crisp values. However, in many
from expert academics as well as known hotel managers in practical cases the human preference model is uncertain
Taiwan, 21 criteria were selected to assess the superiority of and decision makers might be reluctant or unable to assign
an international tourist hotel location. The results are crisp values to the comparison judgments (Chan and
shown in Table 3. Kumar, 2007).
The use of fuzzy set theory allows the decision-makers to
2.2. The development of the international tourist hotel incorporate unquantifiable information, incomplete infor-
industry in Taiwan mation, non-obtainable information, and partial facts into
the decision model (Kroemer et al., 1999). Although fuzzy
Because the national income and level of education is AHP requires tedious computations, it is capable of
improving in Taiwan, people are gradually paying more capturing a human’s appraisal of ambiguity when complex
attention to their leisure activities. This will benefit the multi-criteria decision-making problems are considered
tourist industry. According to a Taiwan government report (Erensal et al., 2006).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
296 T.-Y. Chou et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301

3.2. Fuzzy set theory Determine the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria by
using pair-wise comparison matrices. The fuzzy scale
The fuzzy set theory introduced by Zadeh (1965) is regarding relative importance to measure the relative
suitable for handling problems involving the absence of weights is given in Fig. 1 and Table 1. This scale is
sharply defined criteria. In a universal set of discourse X, a proposed by Kahraman et al. (2006) and used for solving
fuzzy subset A of X is defined by a membership function fuzzy decision-making problems.
fA(x) which maps each element x in A to a real number in
the interval [0, 1]. The function value fA(x) represents the 3.5. Ranking of triangular fuzzy numbers
grade of membership of x in A. The larger the fA(x), the
stronger is the grade of membership for x in A. Obtaining the ideal and anti-ideal values is important
and essential, and the ranking method plays a key role.
3.3. Triangular fuzzy number Many fuzzy ranking methods have been developed (Chen,
1985; Chen and Hsieh, 2000; Cheng, 1998; Kim and Park,
A fuzzy number A in < (real line) is a triangular fuzzy 1991). Because the graded mean integration representation
number if its membership function f A : < ! ½0; 1 is (Chen and Hsieh, 2000) not only improves some drawbacks
8 of existing ranking methods but also possesses the
< ðx  cÞ=ða  cÞ cpx  a;
>
advantage of easy implementation and powerfulness of
f A ðxÞ ¼ ðx  bÞ=ða  bÞ apxpb;
>
: problem solving, it is adopted by this study to find the ideal
0 otherwise and anti-ideal solutions.
with NocpapboN. The triangular fuzzy number A Based on the graded mean integration representation
can be denoted by (c, a, b). method, we can obtain the presented and ranking value of
The parameter a gives the maximal grade of fA(x), i.e. triangular fuzzy number Ai ¼ (ci, ai, bi) as
fA(a) ¼ 1 and it is the most possible value of the evaluated ci þ 4ai þ bi
data. c and b are the lower and upper bounds of the RðAi Þ ¼ . (5)
6
available area for the evaluated data. They are used to
Using R(Ai), i ¼ 1,2,y,n, we can rank the n triangular
reflect the fuzziness of the evaluation data. The narrower
fuzzy numbers, A1, A2,y,An. Let Ai and Aj be two fuzzy
the interval [c, b], the lower is the fuzziness of the evaluated
data.
By the extension principle (Zadeh, 1965) the fuzzy
addition, , of any two triangular fuzzy numbers is also
triangular fuzzy numbers. But the fuzzy multiplication, , EI WMI SMI VSMI AMI
1
of any two triangular fuzzy numbers is only approximate
triangular fuzzy numbers. That is, if A1 ¼ (c1, a1, b1) and
A2 ¼ (c2, a2, b2) then
RI

A1  A2 ¼ ðc1 þ c2 ; a1 þ a2 ; b1 þ b2 Þ, (1)

k  A1 ¼ ðkc1 ; ka1 ; kb1 Þ; kX0; k 2 <, (2)

A1  A2  ðc1 =b2 ; a1 =a2 ; b1 =c2 Þ if c1 X0; c2 40, (3)

1/2 1 3/2 2 5/2 3 7/2
A1  A2  ðc1 c2 ; a1 a2 ; b1 b2 Þ if c1 X0; c2 X0. (4) RI

Fig. 1. Linguistic scale for relative importance.

3.4. Linguistic value
Table 1
The concept of linguistic values (Zadeh, 1975/1976) is Linguistic scales for importance
very useful in handling situations that are too complex or
Linguistic scale for importance Triangular Triangular
ill-defined to be reasonably described in conventional fuzzy scale fuzzy reciprocal
quantitative expressions. In this paper, the triangular fuzzy scale
numbers defined on [0,1] and/or the linguistic values
Just equal (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
characterized by triangular fuzzy numbers defined on [0,1]
Equally important (EI) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 2)
are utilized to convey the suitability evaluation of Weakly more important (WMI) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1)
alternatives versus criteria. For example, S ¼ {VG, G, M, Strongly more important (SMI) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
B, VB}. The membership functions of those linguistic values Very strongly more important (2, 5/2, 3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2)
are VB (very bad) ¼ (0, 0, 0.2), B (bad) ¼ (0, 0.2, 0.4), (VSMI)
Absolutely more important (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
M (medium) ¼ (0.3, 0.5, 0.7), G (good) ¼ (0.6, 0.8, 1), VG
(AMI)
(very good) ¼ (0.8, 1, 1).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.-Y. Chou et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301 297

numbers and define: Ai 4Aj 3RðAi Þ4RðAj Þ; Ai ¼ Aj 3 Then, D k and D

k can be utilized to denote the distance
RðAi Þ ¼ RðAj Þ; Ai oAj 3RðAi ÞoRðAj Þ. of alternative k versus ideal and anti-ideal solutions,
respectively.
3.6. Distance between two triangular fuzzy numbers Allow C k , k ¼ 1,2,y,m, to denote the relative approx-
imation value of alternative k versus the ideal solution.
There are three distance formulae constructed on Define
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers (Chen, 1985; Chen and Hsieh,
2000; Kaufmann and Gupta, 1991; Kim and Park, 1991). D

k
C k ¼ , (9)
In 1999, Chen and Hsieh studied the Heilpern’s (1997) D k þ D

k
geometrical distance based on the geometrical operation of where 0pC k p1. Then the value of C k close to 1 implies a
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, and proposed the modified closer alternative k approach to the positive ideal solution.
geometrical distance method. Based on this method, the
distance between Ai and Ak, denoted by d p ðAi ; Ak Þ, is 4. Empirical study
8
>
> ½0:25ðjci  ck jp þ jai  ak jp þ jbi  bk jp þ jd i  d k jp Þ1=p
>
>
< for 1ppo1; One hotel was established in Taipei in 1952. In 1973, a
d p ðAi ; Ak Þ ¼ new hotel was opened in Kaohsiung. Owing to the rapid
>
> maxfjc i  ck j; jai  ak j; jbi  bk j; jd i  d k jg
>
>
: for p ¼ 1: central Taiwan development in recent years, hotel investors
were prepared to launch a new hotel. At first, the investors
We utilized this modified geometrical distance with asked two academic experts and three professional hotel
parameter p ¼ 2 that can meet the concept of the classical managers to form a committee and make a recommenda-
distance in order to solve the distance between two tion on the location selection. The evaluation processes of
triangular fuzzy numbers mentioned in this paper. Based this model are described as follows.
on the concept, the distance between two triangular fuzzy Three alternatives are available to this empirical study
numbers Ai ¼ (ci,ai,bi) and Ak ¼ (ck,ak,bk) with distance and the details of these alternatives are described as
parameter p ¼ 2 can be denoted as D(Ai,Ak), follows:

DðAi ; Ak Þ ¼ f14½ðci  ck Þ2 þ 2ðai  ak Þ2 þ ðbi  bk Þ2 g1=2 . 1. Alternative 1: This case concerns Taichung’s business
(6) district, which is next to the National Museum of
Natural Science, National Taiwan Museum of Fine
3.7. Ideal and anti-ideal concepts Arts, and the Botanical Garden. It is located about
50 min away from the airport, 25 min away from the
The ideal point represents a point at which all criteria train station and freeway. The surrounding land has
would be optimized. It provides an anchor for human almost been fully developed and there are five compe-
adaptivity, intransitivity, and dynamic adjustment of titors within close proximity of this location.
preferences, and can also be as close as possible to the 2. Alternative 2: The site is located on the north of
perceived ideal that is rational of human choice (Zaleny, Taichung’s business district, which is close to the
1982). The operation method of ideal and anti-ideal Da-Ken scenic area. Tourists can go to the famous
concepts can be summarized as follows. night market, which is within walking distance, but
Assume that there are m alternatives versus n evaluation public security is not ideal. It is located just 30 min away
criteria. Let xki ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m, be the lin- from the airport and 25 min away from the train station
guistic rating assigned to alternative k for criteria i. and freeway. The surrounding land has almost been
Let x i and x
i be the ideal value and anti-ideal value, fully developed. No competitor is within close proximity
respectively of criterion i. Then, (1) For the positive to this location.
criterion i, x i ¼ maxk fxki g, x
k
i ¼ mink fxi g; (2) For negative
3. Alternative 3: This location is on the border of the
k

criterion i xi ¼ mink fxi g, xi ¼ maxk fxi g. k Da-Du scenic area, which is considered a remote
Let li, i ¼ 1,2,y,n, be the integrated weight of criterion district. However, the landscape and scenic view are
i. And let x ¼ ðx 1 ; x 2 ; . . . x i ; . . . ; x n Þand x
¼ ðx

very good, although the public security is of medium
1 ; x2 ; . . . ;

xi ; . . . ; xn Þ be the ideal and anti-ideal solutions, respec- quality. It is located just 20 min away from the airport
tively. Define and 10 min away from the freeway. The surrounding
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi land has not been fully developed. No competitor is
X n
within close proximity of this location.

Dk ¼ l2i Dðx i ; xki Þ2 , (7)
i¼1
4.1. Hierarchical structure of criteria
and
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X n The systemic hierarchical structure of criteria is adopted
D

k ¼ l2i Dðx
k 2
i ; xi Þ . (8) to select the international tourist hotel location. The first
i¼1 level reveals the objective of this study and the second level
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
298 T.-Y. Chou et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301

describes four perspectives taken into consideration for could be transferred into triangular fuzzy numbers as
selecting the location. The third and fourth levels illustrate defined in Section 3.2.2 (shown in Table 4). After obtaining
the factors and criteria determined for each perspective. all the triangular fuzzy numbers by committee, we can
The last level, the alternatives of decision-making, demon- adopt the average method to get the average evaluation
strates three locations for consideration. The details are rating of each criterion.
presented in Table 2.
4.4. Calculate the ideal value x i and anti-ideal value x

i of
4.2. Fuzzy weight of criteria for each level alternatives versus evaluation criteria

In this study, on the basis of the concept of Kahraman et To utilize the ranking of triangular fuzzy numbers method
al., we measure the relative weights scale of each criteria or (presented in Section 3.2.3) and the concept of ideal and
sub-criteria. And then we employ the method presented by anti-ideal solution, we could obtain the idea solution and
Buckley (1985) to use the geometric mean method to anti-ideal solution of alternatives versus criteria.
calculate the fuzzy weights for each fuzzy matrix. At this point, we could determine whether or not the
Given a positive reciprocal matrix A ¼ [aij], first performance of each criterion is excellent, meaning that
compute
Q the geometric mean of each row as managers will be able to know the gap between the location
ri ¼ ð m a
j¼1 ij Þ
1=m
, then wi ¼ ri+(r1?rm). The fuzzy criteria rating and the ideal target as well as the strength or
weight and integrated weight are presented in Table 3. weakness of the location.

4.3. Tabulate the evaluation ratings of alternatives versus 4.5. To solve the distance between alternatives and the ideal
criteria by fuzzy numbers and anti-ideal solution.

The preponderances of alternatives versus criteria could Eqs. (7) and (8) shown in Section 3.3 were used to obtain
be obtained by using the linguistic values and these values the distance between two triangular fuzzy numbers and to

Table 2
The hierarchical structure of location selection model

Perspectives Factors Criteria Description

C1 Geographical C11 Surrounding C111 Proximity to public facilities Distance to the public facilities such as theatre or large
Conditions environment park
C112 The distance to existing competitors Regional competitiveness
C113 Public security Whether the regional public security is good or not
C12 Rest resources C121 Natural resources characteristic Where has nature resource like as hot spring or landscape
C122 Nearby rest facilities The access of rest facilities
C2 Traffic C21 Access C211 The distance to airport or freeway The spend time from hotel to traffic facilities or not
Conditions
C212 The distance to downtown area The area is prosperous or not
C213 The distance to tourism scenic spots Distance near by the tourism scenic spots or not
C214 Parking area Easy for parking or not
C22 Convenience C221 Convenience of airport or freeway Easy to arrive main traffic facilities
communication
C222 Extensiveness of traffic routes Perfect routes planning
C223 Convenience of traffic to tourism Have many alternative of transportation tool to reach
scenic spots scenic spots or not
C3 Hotel C31 Internal C311 Indoor leisure facilities Many facilities such as fitness center or play area
Characteristic development
C312 The diversity of restaurants in the Have local character to combine with restaurant
hotel
C32 External C321 Amalgamation with local culture Have local characteristic to combine with hotel design or
development not
C322 Outside leisure facilities area Many facilities such as golf ground or swimming pool
C323 Convenience of obtaining nearby land Facilities establishing or developing is easy or not
C4 Operation C41 Human C411 Sufficient human resources Human resource is enough or not in the area
Management resource
C412 Quality of manpower Human ability is enough or not, such as university
support or not.
C42 Operating C421 Land cost Land cost is good for hotel developing or not
conditions
C422 Regulation restrictions Legal rules is good for hotel developing or not
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.-Y. Chou et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301 299

Table 3 get the distance of alternatives versus the ideal and anti-
The integrated fuzzy weight and weight in each level ideal solutions (D k and D

k , shown in Table 5).

Item Integrated fuzzy weight Weight
4.6. To obtain the close index of alternative k versus the
C1 (0.1133, 0.2326, 0.3870) 0.23842 ideal solution and select the best alternative
C2 (0.1336, 0.2473, 0.4285) 0.25855
C3 (0.1524, 0.2648, 0.4855) 0.28283
C4 (0.1488, 0.2554, 0.4764) 0.27445
Using Eq. (9) (Section 3.3), the close index (C k ) of three
C11 (0.0357, 0.1083, 0.2515) 0.12008 alternatives was obtained (shown in Table 6), which
C12 (0.0417, 0.1243, 0.3149) 0.14226 expressed the final results clearly. Moreover, managers
C21 (0.0488, 0.1282, 0.2997) 0.14354 will be able to know the criteria gap between location
C22 (0.0479, 0.1191, 0.2924) 0.13612 characteristics and the ideal target and devise the operation
C31 (0.0581, 0.1471, 0.3785) 0.17088
C32 (0.0500, 0.1176, 0.3060) 0.13773
strategies for the location they selected.
C41 (0.0512, 0.1295, 0.3344) 0.15058 Using Eq. (9) in Section 3.3, the relative approximation
C42 (0.0527, 0.1259, 0.3481) 0.15074 value of each alternative k versus ideal solution (C k ) could
C111 (0.0073, 0.0353, 0.1256) 0.04569 be obtained. As Table 6 demonstrated, alternative 1 was
C112 (0.0116, 0.0484, 0.2227) 0.07135 the best location. As the final result was integrated by the
C113 (0.00220, 0.1083, 0.4092) 0.14406
C121 (0.0159, 0.0682, 0.2374) 0.08768
weight of each criterion, managers can therefore trace each
C122 (0.0141, 0.0561, 0.2002) 0.07308
C211 (0.0061, 0.0262, 0.0989) 0.03499
Table 5
C212 (0.0069, 0.0312, 0.1206) 0.04203
The distance between alternatives and the ideal and anti-ideal solution
C213 (0.0079, 0.0356, 0.1438) 0.04899
C214 (0.0080, 0.0352, 0.1423) 0.04854 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
C221 (0.0100, 0.0418, 0.1726) 0.05833
C222 (0.0147, 0.0655, 0.2792) 0.09263 D k 0.08129 0.08419 0.1112
C223 (0.0302, 0.1321, 0.5684) 0.18785 D
0.04240 0.03919 0.04558
k
C311 (0.0202, 0.0630, 0.2269) 0.05681
C312 (0.0202, 0.0630, 0.2269) 0.08911
C321 (0.0103, 0.0414, 0.1649) 0.17763
C322 (0.0160, 0.0641, 0.2624) 0.08315 Table 6
C323 (0.0333, 0.1295, 0.5146) 0.08315 The close index of alternatives versus the ideal solution
C411 (0.0206, 0.0741, 0.2673) 0.09734
C412 (0.0206, 0.0741, 0.2673) 0.09675 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
C421 (0.0158, 0.0471, 0.1578) 0.06035
C422 (0.0222, 0.0705, 0.2449) 0.09151 C k 0.3428 0.3176 0.2907

Table 4
The average evaluation ratings of each criterion

Alternative1 Alternative2 Alternative3 Ideal solution Anti-ideal solution

C111 (0.7, 0.7, 0.7) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
C112 (0.6, 0.8, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C113 (0.6, 0.8, 1.0) (0.6, 0.8, 1.0) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.6, 0.8, 1.0) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C121 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C122 (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.5, 0.7, 0.8) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C211 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.6, 0.8, 0.8) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
C212 (0.6, 0.8, 1.0) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9 ) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
C213 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
C214 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C221 (0.6, 0.8, 1.0) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.6, 0.8, 1.0) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C222 (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C223 (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C311 (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C312 (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.6, 0.8, 1) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C321 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C322 (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.6, 0.8, 1) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
C323 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
C411 (0.5, 0.7, 0.7) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.8) (0.6, 0.8, 0.9) (0.5, 0.7, 0.8)
C412 (0.5, 0.7, 0.7) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.5, 0.7, 0.7) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
C421 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
C422 (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
300 T.-Y. Chou et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301

criterion in order to understand the superiority or communication ability. Meanwhile, tourist hotel managers
inferiority of the strategies established. For instance, and investors should decide on the strength of each
empirical results of this study indicated that the criterion location in an effort to enhance their understanding of
of ‘‘public security,’’ alternative 3 versus C113, is quite the new hotel’s competitiveness. The paper also demon-
distant from the ideal solution and the weight of C113 was strates how comparisons could be made while selecting the
substantial. Therefore managers could make operation model, which gives a clear direction for hotel managers and
strategies for this criterion, public security, in advance. investors when devising operating strategies and activities.

5. Conclusion
References
Because hotel location is directly related to the level of
hotel business activity, the hotel budget plan, when settled, Aberbakh, I., Berman, O., 1995. Probabilistic sales-delivery man and
will affect future hotel customer quantity as well as access sales-delivery facility location problems on a tree. Transportation
of foreign independent tourists. Therefore, developing a set Science 29, 184–195.
Aikens, C.H., 1985. Facility location models for distribution planning.
of integrated tourist hotel location selection system and European Journal of operational Research 22, 263–279.
comparing its suitability to major alternatives are needed Aras, H., Erdoǧmus, S., Koc, E., 2004. Multi-criteria selection for a wind
for managers to sharpen their competitive edge. This article observation station location using analytic hierarchy process. Renew-
presents a fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for selecting able Energy 29, 1383–1392.
Barbarosoglu G., Yazgac T., 1997. An application of the analytic
a location for a tourist hotel. The process of deriving the
hierarchy process to the supplier selection problem. Production and
solution is illustrated through an easy-to-understand Inventory Management Journal 1st quarter, 14–21.
empirical study. Results demonstrate that the model can Buckley, J.J., 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17
provide a framework to assist decision makers in analyzing (1), 233–247.
location factors and making a dispassionate and objective Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N., 2007. Global supplier development considering
location selection. risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35,
417–431.
At the process of model building, the weights of four Chang, Y.H., Hsu, T.H., Chen, S.L., 1997. Evaluation process in selecting
perspectives, four factors, and 21 criteria are presented. airport location. Transportation Planning Journal 26 (1), 37–68.
From the result of weights of perspectives, the C3 (hotel Chen, C.T., 1999. A fuzzy group decision model of location selection for
characteristic) and C4 (operation management) are the first distribution center. Journal of Management and Systems 6 (4),
and second important perspectives in the four perspectives. 459–480.
Chen, C.T., 2001. A fuzzy approach to select the location of the
And the C31 (internal development) is the most important distribution center. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118, 65–73.
factor in all factors. In the 21 criteria, we know that criteria Chen, C.Y., 1996. Delivery systems of distribution centers in Taiwan.
C113 (public security), C223 (convenience of traffic to Journal of the Chinese Institute of Transportation 9 (1), 65–80.
tourism scenic spots), and C321 (amalgamation with local Chen, S.H., 1985. Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and
minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17, 113–130.
culture) are more important in the evaluation model. From
Chen, S.H., Hsieh, C.H., 2000. Representation, ranking, distance, and
the above results, the managers focus on whether the similarity of L-R type fuzzy number and application. Australian
characteristic of a hotel can combine with the local culture Journal of Intelligent Processing System 6 (4), 217–229.
characteristic when they survey location. The managers Chen, Y.W., Tzeng, G.H., Lou, P.J., 1997. Fuzzy multi-objectives
pay more attention to other criteria such as public security, facility location programming: a case study of C.K.S. International
modes of transportation to reach scenic spots and to Airport in Taiwan. The Chinese Public Administration Review 6 (2),
17–42.
combine these with the local character when a hotel is Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H., 2004. Exploring quantitative methods for project
being designed. Since these criteria provide relief, conve- location selection. Building and Environment 39, 1467–1476.
nience and a good experience to the customers, an Cheng, S.M., 1998. A new approach for ranking fuzzy numbers by
experiential marketing strategy can also be developed for distance method. Fuzzy Sets and System 95, 307–317.
Coltman, M.M., 1989. Tourism Marketing. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
the hotel.
New York.
In real life, due to the uncertainty of information as well Erensal, Y.C., Özcan, T., Demircan, M.L., 2006. Determining key
as the vagueness of human feeling and recognition, it is capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy
difficult to exactly evaluate and convey the feeling and process: A case study of Turkey. Information Sciences 176, 2755–2770.
recognition of objects. Hence, the authors, based on the Gray, W.S., Liguori, S.C., 1998. Hotel and Motel Management and
AHP method, combine fuzzy sets theory with linguistic Operations, third ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hsieh, J.C., Huang, J.K., 1998. The preference of housing needs
value concept in setting up a model that can help decision- in Taichung City. Journal of the Land Bank of Taiwan 35 (3),
makers deal with complex issues under the fuzzy environ- 173–195.
ment. Thus, this paper proposes a simple and practical Kahraman, C., Ertay, T., Büyüközkan, G., 2006. A fuzzy optimization
decision model that will provide significant managerial model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach.
insights to evaluation committees when making location European Journal of Operational Research 171, 390–411.
Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M., 1991. Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic
selection decisions. Also, the committee members Theory and Application. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
can understand the organizational goal and decision Kim, K., Park, K.S., 1991. Ranking fuzzy numbers with index of
process. The model will further enhance organizational optimism. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 35, 143–150.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.-Y. Chou et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 293–301 301

Kroemer, K., Kroemer, H., Kroemer-Elbert, K., 1999. Ergonomics. Tzeng, G.H., Teng, M.H., Chen, J.J., Opricovic, S., 2002. Multicriteria
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. selection for a restaurant location in Taipei. International Journal of
Kuo, R.J., Chi, S.C., Kao, S.S., 2002. A decision support system for Hospitality Management 21, 171–187.
selecting convenience store location through integration of fuzzy AHP Wey, W.M., Liao, C.T., 2004. A study of urban parking facility location.
and artificial neural network. Computers in Industry 47, 199–214. Journal of Design 9 (1), 13–32.
Lee, C., Lee, W.R., Hsu, H.W.W., 2000. An empirical study on the Wu, C.R., Lin, C.T., Chen, H.C., 2007. Optimal selection of location for
relationship between strategic groups and performance in Taiwan’s Taiwanese hospitals to ensure a competitive advantage by using the
international tourist hotel industry. Journal of Business Administra- analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis. Building and
tion 48, 89–120. Environment 42, 1431–1444.
Nicolau, J.L., 2002. Assessing new hotel opening through an even study. Xia, W.J., Wu, Z.M., 2007. Supplier selection with multiple criteria in
Tourism Management 23, 47–54. volume discount environments. Omega 35 (5), 494–504.
Pan, C.M., 2002. Market concentration ratio analysis of the international Yang, J., Lee, H., 1997. An AHP decision model for facility location
tourist hotel industry in Taipei area. Tourism Management Research 2 selection. Facilities 15, 241–254.
(2), 57–66. Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 3, 338–353.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New Zadeh, L.A., 1975, 1976. The concept of a linguistic variable and its
York. application to approximate reasoning. Information Science 8, 199–249,
Teng, M.H., 2000. Application of multi-criteria decision making for site 301–357; 9, 43–80.
selection of restaurants: case study of Pao-San restaurant. Journal of Zaleny, M., 1982. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill,
Living Science 6, 47–62. New York.