1. Dr. BOTTI Laurent
Dr. GONCALVES Olga
RAKOTONDRAMARO Hanitra
Perpignan University / CAEPEM
1st International Winter University
04/02/2014
1
29th, 30th and 31st January 2014 , LABEX Item

2. The competitiveness of French ski
resorts : Multi-criteria approach
1.
2.
The ski resorts competitiveness
4.
2
Multi-criteria Methods
3.
04/02/2014
Introduction
Conclusion

3. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Tourism destinations are the central elements of the tourism
system

Tourists consider overall destinations when deciding where to
vacation. It maybe:
– Country (Omerzel Gomezel & Mihalic, 2008),
– Regions (Cracolici & Nijkamp, 2008)
– City (Clavers-Cortés et al, 2007)
– Or type of tourism (Melian-Gonzalez et Garcia-Falcon, 2003)
04/02/2014
3

4. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
There is competitiveness between a multiplicity of actors
implicated in the tourism experience

This competitiveness is relative (Dwyer et al. ,2011)

Helene Michel and Gabriel Guallino give some information about
the competitiveness of sky resorts in France
(http://www.lexpress.fr/palmares/ski/default.asp)

This paper aims to compare this competitiveness with considering
the tourist profiles: Real ski enthusiastic, family, snowboarder and
04/02/2014
4
freerider, cross-country skier.

5. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Why are MCDA methods relevant to deal with
competitiveness of sky resort destination ?
– MCDA for methods providing quantitative approach to support
decision making in problems involving several criteria and
choices (alternatives or actions) (Figueira, Mousseau & Roy,
2005)
04/02/2014
5

6. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Step of decision making process:
1. Tourist determines his profile
Real ski
enthusiastic
Family
Snowboarder and
freerider
Cross-Country
skier
2. Identification of the alternatives
Ski resorts destinations in France (Alpes, Massif Central, Jura, Vosges et Pyrénées)
3. List the Criteria
The ski area
04/02/2014
6
The quality of
snow
The budget
Extreme
activities
Events
4. Evaluation of alternatives under each criteria
5. Select one destination from a set of n alternatives possibles

7. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Although MCDA methods can be applied to different areas, the
litterature is quite narrow when considering the tourism field
– TOPSIS was used by Zhang et al. (2011) to rank 16 cities in China
– TOPSIS, PROMETHEE and the WSM was used by Ishizaka, Nemery and
Lidouh (2013) to select the location of a casino in London
– ELECTRE I was used by Botti and Peypoch (2013) to choose the best
destination in Hawaï
– ELECTRE II was used by Andrades-Caldito et al. (2013) to rank provinces
of Andalusia (Spain)
04/02/2014
7

8. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Here, we try to rank a set of alternatives (ski resorts) by
tourists profils. So, we use ELECTRE III (Elimination et Choix
Traduisant la Réalité ).
Concordance Index
Construction of
the outranking
relations
Veto ?
Yes
Disconcordance
Index
No
Credibility matrix
Descending preorder
04/02/2014
8
Exploitation of
the outranking
relations
Ascending Preorder
Final ranking

9. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
For each criterion, thresolds and criteria weights are determined by user
–
–
n: number of criteria
–
qi: indifference threshold for the criterion i
–

Pi : weight of the criterion i
pi: preference threshold of the alternative on the criterion i
To construct the outranking relations, we determine:
– The concordance indices to indicate the truthfulness of assertation “destination di
outranks destination dk” (di S d)
Crédibilité de la
concordance pour
« i surclasse k »
1
m
C ik 
04/02/2014
9
P
j 1
j
* c j (d i , d k )
cj(di,dk)
m
P
j 1
j
0
qj
gj(dk)-gj(di)
pj
Performance de la destination
k moins performance de la
destination i sur le critère j

10. 1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
– The discordance index is cautious to refuse the assertation
“destination di outranks destination dk” (dj(di,dk))

Compare gj(dk)-gj(di) with preference theresold pj and veto theresold vj
– We combine the concordance and discordance indices to obtain the
degree of credibility. It indicates if the outranking hypothesis is true
and are gathered in a credibility matrix.
 ik  C ik * 
jF
04/02/2014
10
1  d j (d i , d k )
1  C ik
Avec F  j / j  F , d j (d i , d k )  Cik  et F  F
0<δik<1

11. 1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
To illustrate the ranking process of ELECTRE III, we use in

following example with 59 ski resorts and 5 criteria
Alternatives
04/02/2014
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
SKY RESORTS
A0001
A0002
A0003
A0004
A0005
A0006
A0007
A0008
A0009
A0010
A0011
A0012
A0013
A0014
A0015
A0016
A0017
A0018
A0019
A0020
A0021
A0022
A0023
LA PLAGNE
LES ARCS BOURG ST MAURICE
COURCHEVEL
VAL THORENS
LES MENUIRES
TIGNES
ALPE D'HUEZ
VAL D'ISERE
LES 2 ALPES
SERRE CHEVALIER
MERIBEL (LES ALLUES)
AVORIAZ 1800
FLAINE (GRAND MASSIF)
CHATEL
MEGEVE
LA CLUSAZ
LES GETS
La Mongie (Domaine du Tourmalet)
MORZINE
LES SAISIES
MONTGENEVRE
VALMOREL
VARS
Ski area
15.5
17.75
19
16.75
14.5
16.75
15.5
16.75
14.5
14
17
14.75
12
12.25
16.5
13.5
16.5
9.75
12.75
12.25
15.25
11.25
14.25
Quality of
snow
18
18
18
20
18
20
20
20
20
16
16
14
14
6
16
16
12
14
10
14
18
12
16
Budget
10
4
4
4
2
4
6
4
10
8
4
4
4
8
6
4
6
4
8
8
8
4
10
Extreme
activities
15.38
16.92
13.85
10.77
7.69
13.85
13.85
10.77
12.31
12.31
13.85
10.77
9.23
7.69
13.85
15.38
9.23
6.15
15.38
10.77
7.69
10.77
13.85
Events
18
14
17
16.5
15
12
13
17
16
14
16
10
6
10
15
14
10
10
6
15
6
6
7
performance

12. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
We attribute weight for each profile
Profile
Ski area
Quality of
snow
Budget
Extreme
activities
Events
Real ski
enthusiastics
Family
Snowboarder
and freerider
Crosscountry skier
30%
20%
20%
15%
15%
20%
20%
30%
15%
15%
15%
30%
15%
25%
15%
20%
40%
20%
10%
10%
Where
5
𝑤𝑖 = 1
𝑖=1
04/02/2014
12
for each criterion

13. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
We define the preference, indifference and veto
thresolds by criterion for each profile
q= 0,2; p=3
Profile
Real ski
enthusiastics
Family
Snowboarder
and
freerider
04/02/2014
13
Crosscountry skier
Thresolds Ski area
q
p
v
q
p
v
q
p
v
q
p
v
Quality
of snow
Budget
Extreme
activities
Events

14. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Now, alternatives (sky resorts) are pairewise compared (di,dk)
d3
d4
d5
d6
…
di
d1
-
d1,d2
d1,d3
d1,d4
d1,d5
d1,d6
…
d1,di
d2,d1
-
d2,d3
d2,d4
d2,d5
d2,d6
…
d2,di
d3,d1
d3,d2
-
d3,d4
d3,d5
d3,d6
…
d3,di
d4
d4,d1
d4,d2
d4,d3
-
d4,d5
d4,d6
…
d4,di
d5
d5,d1
d5,d2
d5,d3
d5,d4
-
d5,d6
…
d5,di
d6
d6,d1
d6,d2
d6,d3
d6,d4
d6,d5
-
di,d1
di,d2
di,d3
di,d4
di,d5
di,d6
…
…
d6,di
…
di
14
d2
d3
04/02/2014
d1
d2
Outranking
relation
With i=59 the total number of alternatives
-

15. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Distillation procedures must be used to rank the alternatives:
– A descending distillation: select the best rated alternatives initially and
finishing with the worst
– An ascending distillation: the worst rated alternatives are selected first and
the distillation terminates with the assignement of the best alternatives

04/02/2014
15
The combination of the two pre-ranking gives the final ranking

16. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Rank of top 15 by profile : ELECTRE III vs WSM
– Real ski enthusiastic
04/02/2014
16
Ranking
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
13th
14th
15th
Sky resort
LA PLAGNE
COURCHEVEL
LES 2 ALPES
LES ARCS BOURG ST MAURICE
VAL D'ISERE
VAL THORENS
ALPE D'HUEZ
TIGNES
MEGEVE
MERIBEL (LES ALLUES)
LES 7 LAUX
LA TOUSSUIRE
SERRE CHEVALIER
VARS
LA CLUSAZ

17. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
Family
1st • LA PLAGNE
• COURCHEVEL
2nd • LES 2 ALPES
• LES 7 LAUX
3rd
• LA TOUSSUIRE
• LES ARCS BOURG ST
MAURICE
4th • VARS
• SAINT-LEGER-LES-MELEZES
• ALPE D'HUEZ
5th • MERIBEL (LES ALLUES)
• MEGEVE
• VAL THORENS
6th • VAL D'ISERE
• SERRE CHEVALIER
04/02/2014
17
• TIGNES
• LA ROSIERE
7th
• QUEYRAS (CEILLAC-ENQUEYRAS)
Ranking
Sky resort
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
13th
14th
15th
LA PLAGNE
LES 2 ALPES
LES 7 LAUX
COURCHEVEL
LA TOUSSUIRE
LES ARCS BOURG ST MAURICE
ALPE D'HUEZ
VAL D'ISERE
VAL THORENS
MEGEVE
TIGNES
SERRE CHEVALIER
MERIBEL (LES ALLUES)
VARS
LES HOUCHES

18. 1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion
ELECTRE III allows to:
– Determinate a ranking who reflects the preference
– Bypass the problem of the full aggregation of incommensurate
performances

For a larger number of alternatives, the graph is highly complex

Perspectives :
– Actualize the data base
– Compare ELECTRE rankings with other rankings – for example
04/02/2014
18
efficiency ranking (obtained with DEA method or others)

19. 1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction
Multi-criteria Methods
The ski resorts competitiveness
Conclusion


olga.goncalves@univ-perp.fr

19
laurent.botti@univ-perp.fr

04/02/2014
Thank you for attention!
hanitra.rakotondramaro@univ-perp.fr