سطح بندی شهرستان‌های استان اصفهان از لحاظ زیرساخت‌های گردشگری با استفاده از مدل TOPSIS و AHP

نویسندگان

چکیده

  یکی از مسایل و مشکلات گردشگری در ایران از جمله استان اصفهان، عدم توازن در سازمان فضایی و عدم سلسله مراتب مبتنی بر رابطه تعاملی میان نواحی گردشگری است. رتبه‌بندی زیرساخت‌های گردشگری در نواحی مختلف یک استان و توزیع متعادل زیرساخت‌ها و تعدیل نابرابری در نواحی مختلف، یکی از اقدامات اساسی توسعه گرشکری است. بنابراین، در برنامه‌ریزی‌های آمایش سرزمین به منظور هدایت گردشگران با توجه به امکانات و زیرساخت‌های گردشگری و همچنین برای رفاه گردشگران و کاهش آسیب‌های زیست محیطی رتبه‌بندی نواحی ضروری است. هدف این مقاله، سطح‌بندی بر اساس برخی از عوامل موثر در جذب گردشگر شهری با بهره گیری از دو مدل TOPSIS و AHP است. روش پژوهش، توصیفی- تحلیلی و پیمایشی است. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها از مدل AHP و TOPSIS و برنامه SPSS استفاده شده است. نتایج اولیه تحقیق نشان می‌دهد که با توجه به معیارهای در نظر گرفته شده برای سطح‌بندی شهرستان‌ها، شهرستان‌های اصفهان، شاهین شهر و کاشان از طریق مدل TOPSIS به ترتیب در سطح یک تا سه از نظر دارا بودن زیرساخت‌های گردشگری قرار دارند. و با ترکیب دو مدل فوق‌الذکر، شهرستان اصفهان و کاشان به ترتیب به عنوان نواحی اول و دوم گردشگری بیشترین امتیاز را به خود اختصاص داده‌اند. همچنین همبستگی بین متغیر زیرساخت ‌ها و تعداد گردشگران، مثبت و ضریب همبستگی بیش از 98 درصد را نشان می‌دهد.   

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Classification of cities of Isfahan province in view point of tourism infrastructure by using TOPSIS and AHP models

نویسندگان [English]

  • A. Shamai
  • J. Mosivand
چکیده [English]

  Classification of cities of Isfahan province in view point of tourism infrastructure by using TOPSIS and AHP models   A. Shamai ( * )   Assistant Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Tarbiat Moallem University, Tehran, Iran   e-mail: shamai1344@yahoo.com J.Mosivand   M.A of Geography and Urban Planning, Tarbiat Moallem University, Tehran, Iran   Received: 16 April 2011 / Accepted: 13 July 2011, 5-10 P     Extended abstract   1- Intro duction   The hierarchical tourism areas, in fact, are criteria for determining the centralization and adjusting the in equality between different regions. Little has been published, up to 1990s, in terms of doing hierarchy of tourism areas. But during last decades, investigators have paid more attention to make areal, national, ultra national hierarchy of tourism industry.   Today, with advances in statistical and digital systems and by using different indices in various fields, geographical studies have facilitated the process of tourism areal hierarchy.   These studies help the most to arrange the hierarchy, providing a useful form to distribute tourists around the province as an appropriate service leading to desired function. The purpose of this research is to study the effective factors in tourist attraction, showing towns hierarchies of Isfahan based on tourism substructures, keeping balance among regions in order to attract tourist more. The effective factors including: hotel, motel, suburban unit, restaurant, tours travel agency, travel Service offices, transportation companies, art gallery and cultural exhibition, public parks, a number of public transports, special tourism areas, and capitalization opportunities, have been analyzed and declared to each town of Isfahan.   As was stated above, the purpose is to answer this question too:   How are the ranking and hierarchy of Isfahan towns in term of tourist?   Which towns of Isfahan can attract more tourists?   To what extent is there a harmony between substructures related to tourism and tourist satisfaction?     2- Theoretical Bases   Tourism studies present tow higher views:   - Gaining cultural experience: According to this view, the purpose of tourism marketing is to gain social and cultural experience. So, most of tourists in terms of cultural and social view attach great importance to the current substructures.   - Making economic profit: According to this view, tourism industry is an economic system, just like the other ones, managed to seek ways for making profit. In their point of view, tourism marketing is a basic economical activity and making profit provides the most important purpose in this way. Having area substructure or regional one is a matter of the greatest importance to make more profit.   Providing appropriate residences and suitable geographical locations (for tourists) will increasingly thrive tourism industry: Target (a thriving production investment and supplying tourism services) and origin (offering tourist demand). This article focused only on target and appropriate substructures for tourism attraction although the main purpose is to make a hierarchy of tourist areas and demanding which area is a center of excellence.   Accordingly, in order to provide the best condition, the following factors need to be considered.   Tourism attractor or attraction such as natural and historical places.   Having appropriate substructures including the ways, water, power, phone, sewage system, and the recycling of rubbish or trash in best way.   Offering and supplying services related to tourists including residential place, hotels and various tourism agencies.   Good ads, introducing attractive place services.   A firm policy making with effective official systems.     3- Discussion   In this article, TOPSIS model is used for making a hierarchy of substructures related to tourism marketing based on need-report questionnaire. AHP approach is used as a final hierarchy. It is worthy of mention that factors applied to TOPSIS have model facilities including residential place such as hotel, suburban unit, tour travel agency, travel Service offices, Transportation companies, art gallery and cultural exhibition, public parks, a number of public transports, special tourism areas and capitalization opportunities. Table 1 shows the final criteria of AHP model.     Table 1- characteristics of Isfahan town for computing at AHP model   Towns   The number of tourists   Tourist satisfaction to quality and quantity   The number of natural attractor   National and ultra national tourism attraction   Cultural and historical attractions   Substructure score based on TOPSIS model   Isfahan   165162   A   21   1   22   40158.83   Arano idgol   550   B   16   2   14   4.337007   Ardestan   4090   A   14   1   16   11.69105   Khomainy Shahr   3957   C   10   0   7   8.079748   Khansar   800   E   11   1   14   1.855998   Semirom   8823   D   24   3   3   2.122958   Shahin shahr   5468   A   0   0   8   940.4607   Shahreza   30961   B   11   0   12   22.61125   Kashan   4094   A   21   1   15   229.9641   golpayegan   2000   B   7   1   7   5.261282   Naein   20673   D   3   0   11   4.150285   Natanz   7500   E   27   1   10   1.258400     It is note worthy that the Expert Choice 2000 software with less than 0/02 percent error has been used as a tool for computing.   In the next stage we see another main process related to AHP model which explains paired comparison of criteria to each other and determines importance coefficient of them. To illustrate table, it must be mentioned that tourists points of view to ward quality and quantity of substructures play a more important role than the others. Because they are the main users of tourism substructures, their idea, first of all, must be considered. So, the most attention has been paid to these criteria, considered as a most important on equivalent 0/515 of 1.     Table 2- Final result in paired comparison criterions     Substructure score based on TOPSIS model   Cultural and historical attractions   National and ultra national tourism attraction   The number of natural attractor   Tourist satisfaction to quality and quantity   The number of tourists   Final result   0.124   0.052   0.066   0.087   0.481   0.190     The final results are shown a table (3). Accordingly, the final result is easily achieved by multiplying the weight of each town in its bench mark.   Ranking is in this way:   First rank: Isfahan   Second rank: Kashan   Third rank: Shahin shahr     Table 3- Final result in paired comoarison criterions   Final rank   Final result   Substructure score based on TOPSIS model   Cultural and historical attractions   National and ultra national tourism attraction   The number of natural attractor   Tourist satisfaction to quality and quantity   The number of tourists   towns   1   0.210247   0.032488   0.058426   0.004092   0.007917   0.074074   0.03325   Isfahan   2   0.138729   0.020212   0.021516   0.004686   0.011223   0.073112   0.00798   Kashan   3   0.124174   0.032364   0.009657   0.001848   0.00087   0.069745   0.00969   Shahin shahr   4   0.098824   0.007564   0.008479   0.004686   0.005394   0.063011   0.00969   Ardestan   5   0.094784   0.010912   0.006688   0.00165   0.002349   0.040885   0.0323   Shahreza   6   0.074072   0.00186   0.000195   0.018612   0.014268   0.022607   0.01653   Semirom   7   0.068375   0.003596   0.000696   0.004686   0.003045   0.039442   0.01691   golpayegan   8   0.057443   0.002976   0.00144   0.001518   0.004524   0.012025   0.03496   Naein   9   0.054023   0.005084   0.001025   0.001518   0.004176   0.03367   0.00855   Khomainy Shahr   10   0.052828   0.001984   0.0008   0.004554   0.019227   0.011063   0.0152   Natanz   11   0.05044   0.003472   0.002856   0.013794   0.00957   0.018278   0.00247   Arano idgol   12   0.037402   0.001364   0.001243   0.004422   0.004524   0.023569   0.00228   Khansar     3-1- Answers to Questions   - How are the hierarchy and ranking of towns of Isfahan related to town tourist?   According to the obtained results Isfahan, Kashan, Shahin Shahr, Ardestan and Shahr Reza are in the order of first to five respectively.   - Which one of Isfahan towns can attract more tourists?   Kashan is in the first rank. It contains 4009 tourist. According to its substructures which are placed in second order after Isfahan, it totally has 37 tourism attractions. Its tourists satisfaction score is A. So, Kashan has high ability and capacity to attract tourist.   The second priority is given to Golpaygan which contains 2000 tourist. According to its substructures, it totally has 15 tourism attractions and its tourist satisfaction score is B. Therefore, Golpaygan has high capacity to attract tourist. The third priority is given to Arano Bidgol. This town contains 550 tourists. According to it their substructures, it totally has 32 tourism attractions. B score has been allotted to it in terms of tourist satisfaction consequently, it has high capacity to attract tourists.   - To what extent is there a harmony between tourism substructure and tourist Satisfaction?   The results show that there isn’t any accordance or harmony between the number of tourism substructures and tourist satisfaction. In means that having large number of tourism substructures are not enough for attracting tourist, but what seems to be important is the quality and servicing offer to tourists as the first priorities. Also, there is a positive correlation between substructures of each town in Isfahan equivalent to 98 percent.     4- Conclusion   Though tourism marketing is a hardworking one that leads to effective results and evolutions in areas, it has lately attached more attention not only in ultra national levels, but also in national, regional and local. Many tourism stake holders, authorities, planners and managers seeking to make the highest improvement in tourism industry in order to increase the value added perfectly. It may be necessary to pay more attention to tourism substructures as a considerable policy in this way.   First, each of towns was separately given priority, by identifying tourism substructures based on TOPSIS model. In fact, in the first stage, the emphasis was only on substructure role in order to attract tourists. So cities like Isfahan, Shahin Shahr and Kashan were given first priorities. What gives Isfahan higher and better level than others in terms of substructure is it width and being the center of province, of course. Therefore, AHP model is used to omit index errors. It’s to pay more attention to the number of attractions in each town, the quality and quantity of substructures based on tourist points of view and the number of tourists in each town, in addition to substructure criteria.   Tourist satisfaction parameter, which is gathered randomly in each town, is more important than other ones, in a case of related substructures, since tourists are the final consumer of production and services, and host city is responsible for supplying their requirements.   At last, by considering the whole criteria and paired comparison between towns in Isfahan based on AHP model, the final ranking is in this way: Isfahan is in the first place, Kashan in the second place, and Khansar in the last place. It is not worthy that in this article, AHP and TOPSIS models have been combined compensate the weak points of each other.   Finally, it can be said that towns like Khansar in spite their potential abilities to attract tourists are placed in the last rank because of their weak substructures.     5- Suggestions   Tourism should be developed as a national policy and strategy: Encouraging people to travel around the country by providing appropriate advertisings, facilities and fund generated by related tourism organizations which lead to the development of tourism industry in Iran in which Isfahan won’t be deprived of it   Distribution of equal tourism infrastructure in different cities of Isfahan province as well as making a regional balance in this regard   Improving the quality of the existing infrastructure to reach tourist satisfaction as well as to attract more tourists   Paying more attention to the tourists opinion in tourism infrastructure development as the ultimate consumers   Paying more attention to the cities that have lower infrastructure and providing schedule for their development.   Key words: Classification, urban tourism, TOPSIS, AHP, Isfaha     Refrences   Abdolmaleki, A. (1999), “Review factors and tourist attractions in Hamadan and its role in transformation of this city", Nazarian, Asghar, Tarbiat moalem of Tehran.   Anvary Rostami, A.A. and KhotanLu, M. (2006), "Comparison top ranking companies based on profitability ratios and indices of Tehran Stock Exchange", Journal of Accounting and Auditing Review, No. 43.   Araqi, K. (2008), "Capital budgeting group multiple criteria", Economic Journal .183, No. 27.   Cultural Heritage Organization Documentation Center of Isfahan Province.   Dehestani, B. (2004), "Physical planning tourism", Shakoei, Hussein, Tarbiat Modarres University.   Fround , J. ( 2007), “Statistics and mathematics" , translated Amidi , Ali and Vahidi Asl , Mohammad Qasem, Payam Nor Publications .   Hodenm, A. (2000), "Enviroment and Tourism", Routledge published, London.   Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K. (1981), "Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications", Berlin: Springer.   Inskeep, E. (1991), "Tourism planning: anintegrated and sustainable development approach", Van Nostand Reinhold. New York.   Law Christopher m. (2000), "The tourist city review, urban studies", vol 37, no 7.   Maicel Hall , Colin and Jkynz , Jon M. ( 2008), " Tourism policy", translation Arabi , Sayed mohamad and Izadi, Davood , publishing Anjoman Iran.   Mc Kercher, B. (1993), " Some Fundamental Truths about tourism: understanding tourism sosical and environmental impacts". Jornal of Sustainable Tourism   Movahed, A. (2002), "Review and analysis of pattern space urban tourism, Case study of Isfahan", Shakoei, Hussein, Tarbiat Modares University.   Organization of Tax affair. (2005), Regulations and guidelines governing permit, approval letter No. 28621 / d. 3354, dated 05/10/1384.   Paoageorgiou, k and Brotherton. (1999), " A management planning framework based on ecological, perceptual and economic carrying capacity: the case study of Vicos- Aoos national park". Greece, Journal of Enviromental management, 56, 271, 284.   Rahnemaei, Mohamad Taghi and others. (2008), "Bearing capacity of tourism destination areas with emphasis on the host community (case study: Kelar Dasht) ", Journal of Geographical Research.   Saaty, T. L. (1980), "The Analytic Hierarchy Process", New York, NY: Mc Graw-Hill.   Sadr Mousavi , Mir satar and Dakhili Kahnamoei , J. ( 2007), "Evaluation of tourism facilities of East Azerbaijan province" , Journal of Geographical Research 61 .   Sasanpour , Farzaneh and Mosavand, J. ( 2011), “set poles tourism province" , the first International Conference on Economics and Tourism Management Tehran.   Statistical Yearbook. (2008) , Isfahan, Statistic Center of Iran .   Tavakoli, mortrza and Akbar, Kiani and Hedayaty, S. (2010). “Effect of sample areas in the eradication of poverty from the viewpoint of tourism communities Local (Case Study: Region of Kurdistan Uraman bed) ", Jornal of Urban – Regional Studies and Research. Williams Stephen. (2000), "Tourism Geography", second published, Routledge, London.   World Tourism Organization , " Tourism planning in national and regional levels" . Znjyryan , Bahram and Zahedi, Mohammad , Isfahan Jihad Dneshgahi , First Edition 2000.   Zangi Abadi, A., and others. (2006), " Isfahan domestic tourism market analysis " , Journal of Geography and Development.         

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Classification
  • Urban Tourism
  • TOPSIS
  • AHP
  • Isfaha