Index

Abstract

Selection of the best hotel for vacations requires a highly complex decision-making process. This complexity stems from factors including, but not limited to, the products of the hotel, information regarding the hotel and personal preferences. Determining the factors which affect the selection of the hotel by consumers traveling for vacations can improve their satisfaction by providing better quality services. The main purpose of this study is to define the factors which affect the selection of hotels by consumers traveling for vacation and to prioritize these factors from the customers’ viewpoint. Another purpose of this study is to analyze whether these factors vary by gender. In this context, a comprehensive literature research has been done in order to define the factors for selection of hotels. The method of analysis for carried out for this study is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, and the data for analysis has been gathered by survey method. The survey has been conducted on a panel of instructors employed at S.U. Beyşehir Ali Akkanat Campus who travel for vacation at least once a year. Research findings show that prioritizing the factors which affect the selection of hotels can vary by gender. However, putting the role of gender aside, factors which affect consumers the most for their travels for vacation are Safety and Security, Pleasure, Room Facilities; whereas factors which affect the consumers the least are Informing, Parking Lots and Network Services.

Keywords: AHP, Collective, Decision, Decision-making, Hotel selection factors, Individual Judgements (AIJ), Individual Priorities, (AIP).

Received: 28 November 2019 / Revised: 6 January 2020 / Accepted: 10 February 2020/ Published: 12 March 2020

Contribution/ Originality

This study contributes to the literature in terms of the feature of using AHP method for the first time in determining the importance level of customer-based hotel selection factors, and evaluating whether hotel preference factors differ according to gender. The importance of this study is that it is an attempt to provide researchers and hotel managers with the broadest internationally accepted and applicable hotel selection factors within the scope of the literature reviewed.

1. INTRODUCTION

It is crucial for hospitality managements to define the requests and needs of their consumers, and the factors by which their selection is influenced, due to the competitive market they carry business in.

A hospitality management with a clear vision regarding the customer needs can have more profit than the average due to having competitive advantage (Baruca & Civre, 2012). Especially in the regions with room supply more than demand, the survivors can only be the hotel managements which can provide the requests and needs of customers (Yavas & Babakus, 2005). In addition to this, the biggest challenge in this sector is to offer quality service to consumers and please them (Kuo, 2009). For customer satisfaction, it is important to know how the customers perceive the qualitative characteristics, importance and performance of a product or services, compared with other competitors. Hotel managements should analyze the strong and weak sides of their products and services (Chu & Choi, 2000). Market research for hotels are limited to socio-demographic and geographic data provided by customers during reservation or check-in. However, this data is not sufficient to have an understanding of the decision-making behavior of a customer. Understanding the factors which affect consumers’ decision-making process in order to estimate their intentions is vital for the success of the business (Baruca & Civre, 2012).

In addition to this, it is hard and complicated to evaluate the scope of psychological processes in which the consumer has chosen to buy a product or service. Consumers are exposed to two types of stimuli in their decision-making process. These are; a) marketing stimuli which are controlled, planned and implemented by marketing units and b) peripheral/external stimuli which are predicated on the economic, political and cultural conditions of a society. Concurrently, factors such as the consumer’s attitude, motivation, perception, personality, lifestyle and others further impact the decision-making process (Baruca & Civre, 2012).

As a part of rational problem solving during the decision-making process, tourists research and use information on products and services. In this context, tourists utilize four main sources of information in their decision-making process: tourist offices; travel agencies and tour operators; friends and family; and publicity sources (Bargeman & van der Poel, 2006). The informative and persuasive functions of advertisements carry great importance in this process, as well as interpersonal interactions. Moreover, the personal experiences of the consumers are important in the decision-making process (Baruca & Civre, 2012).

Prior to the final decision of purchase, consumers evaluate the various alternatives based on the information obtained. In the purchase of hotel accommodation as a product, the decision-making process becomes even harder due to the abstract nature of the hotel services. According to Yavas and Babakus (2005) the behavior of hotel selection is comprised of a set of discrete yet interconnected processes which make up the decision-making, and selection factors can be found in the center of these. The information relating to selection of hotels are based on product specifications, service, quality, facility characteristics, location, the reputation of the hotel, etc (Chu & Choi, 2000; Sohrabi, Vanani, Tahmasebipur, & Fazli, 2012; Yavas & Babakus, 2005). While making the decision for a purchase, the consumers evaluate the factors which overlap with their personal values, needs and preferences. Consequently, in the process of decision making, the consumer evaluates the importance of each feature of multi-featured product alternatives, collects the feature values for each product and and selects the one with the highest net value (Baruca & Civre, 2012).

Customers nowadays expect a satisfactory value to be presented as well as their requests and demands being met. Failing this can result in unwanted consequences such as low customer satisfaction, high market loss and, all in all, a decreasing profit margin (Mammadli, 2016).

Therefore, it is crucial for hotel managers/executives to be aware of the differences in customer perceptions, and review customer behaviors systematically in order to specify the factors which influence the purchasing behaviors of consumers and provide a value based on these factors.

Within this context, the main purpose of this study is to define the factors which affect the selection of hotels by consumers traveling for vacation and to prioritize these selection factors. Yet another purpose of this study is to determine whether these factors change in priority based on gender. For this purpose, 11 main factors and 40 related sub-factors have been determined within the scope of the literature, which have been assessed to be influential in the selection of hotels.  Thereafter, in light of the data collection, these factors have been sorted with use of the multi-criteria decision-making method Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Thus, the factors which affect the selection of hotels are prioritized based on a consumer perspective.

The characteristic which distinguishes this study from prior studies on the measurement of hotel selection factors is that the analysis utilizes the AHP method. The literature review has shown that a large number of studies have been conducted on the factors which affect hotel selection. However, no studies which analyze the selection factors with AHP have come to our attention. The constraints of consumer-based approaches can be that they overlook important aspects of businesses and rest on indexes which are not objective. These can complicate the efforts for measurement. On the other hand, with the AHP method of determining the importance levels of consumer-based selection factors, a paired comparison of each factor can be conducted and presented in quantitative terms from a consumer perspective (Battistoni, Colladon, & Mercorelli, 2013). Another importance of this study is that it attempts to provide the most widely internationally accepted and applicable hotel selection factors within the scope of the literature review to the researchers and hotel managers. In this regard, a wide range of hotel selection factors being specifically linked to the selection of hotels for vacations is one other aspect which distinguishes this study from others. Furthermore, the variation of the selection factors both with the variable of gender and without are investigated in the study. With such above mentioned aspects, this research can contribute to the existing literature.

This study consists of four parts. The first part is the introduction, which includes consumer decision processes; and the purpose and importance of the study. The second part consists of the literature section. This part investigates the factors which affect the selection of hotel alternatives within the scope of the literature and determines the factors which constitute the research section of the study. Additionally, this part includes the AHP method and the literature review relating to Collective Decision Making with AHP. The last part comprises of the results and evaluations.

2. FACTORS WHICH AFFECT THE SELECTION OF HOTEL ALTERNATIVES

The attributes which evoke the customers’ intents of purchase, which can differ from the competitors’ offers, and can directly influence the selection process are called determinant attributes. The services and facilities provided by the hotel are determinant attributes which influence consumers. These attributes elicit the selection of a service unit by consumers compared to alternatives (Sohrabi et al., 2012). In other words, the attributes of the services and facilities provided by a hotel are similar to the attributes of other products or services which consumers select over others (Chu & Choi, 2000).

The perceptions of hotel determinants are the availability level of various service and facilities at a hotel, which are important to consumer satisfaction (Wuest, Tas, & Emenheiser, 1996). Evaluating a hotel’s performance from the perspective of consumers can improve the management’s understanding of customer satisfaction and eventually can ensure customer loyalty (Atkinson, 1988).

In previous studies which explore the factors which affect the customer’s selection of hotels, it can be seen that varying results have been reached. For instance, Atkinson (1988) established upon his study, that the most important determinants for the selection of hotels by consumers were firstly cleanliness, followed by safety and security, price, and the courtesy and helpfulness of the staff.

Chu and Choi (2000) in their study which gathers the views of 343 tourists from Hong Kong on hotel determinants, they determine the main ones in hotel selection as service quality, business opportunities (for businesspeople), price, the rooms, the food, recreate facilities and security.

Sohrabi et al. (2012) demonstrate in their study of the factors impacting selection of hotels in Tehran that comfort, safety and security, network services, satisfaction, the service mentality of the staff, recreative informing, cleanliness, room comfort, price, room facilities and carpark.

Yavas and Babakus (2005) have distinguished the factors which affect selection of hotels according to business and recreational travels. According to this study, comfort is the most important factor for both groups. Basic services are the second most important factor for those traveling for vacation. As for those traveling for business it is the third most important factor.

On the other hand, Rivers, Toh, and Alaoui (1991) study has reached the conclusion that the “location” of a hotel is an element which strongly influences selection of hotels. Clow, Garretson, and Kurtz (1994) have shown in their study that security, personal interactions and room prices are important factors for those traveling for vacation. Lamey, Deleersnyder, Dekimpe, and Steenkamp (2007) findings state that the “brand” can be an important element in the consumer decisions.

Within the scope of the literature review, the hotel selection factors Figure 1 were determined to be the most important criteria that consumers can consider when selecting appropriate hotels.

Figure-1. Hotel selection factors.

Source: (Atkinson, 1988; Baruca & Civre, 2012; Sohrabi et al., 2012; Yavas & Babakus, 2005).

The sub-categories of the factors on Figure 1 which affect the hotel selection have been listed as follows.
A: Location and Comfort

1. The proximity of the hotel to the holiday region, the sea.
2. The hotel being located in the city center.
3. The hotel room including a telephone.
4. The hotel providing flight booking service.
5. The hotel providing taxi service.
6. The hotel having 24-hour available housekeeping.

B. Security and Safety

1. The hotel having fire exits.

2. The hotel having fire extinguishing system.

3. The hotel having safe boxes.

4. The hotel providing first-aid service.

C. Network Services

1. The hotel having Wi-Fi internet connection.

2. The hotel being suitable for e-banking procedures.

3. The hotel being available for e-booking procedures.

D. Satisfaction

1. The region in which the hotel is located not having polluted air.

2. The rooms overlooking scenery.

3. The food quality of the hotel.

4. The landscaping and green areas of the hotel.

5. The availability of recreate facilities (Swimming pool, Spa, Fitness center, etc.)

E. Hotel Staff and Provided Services

1. The effective service of the staff.

2. The courtesy of the staff.

3. The cleanliness and tidiness of the staff.

F. Informing

1. The availability of daily newspapers and magazines at the hotel.

2. The availability of satellite systems which provide news channels in various languages.

3. The hotel providing information on recreation, natural beauties and cultural heritage sites.

G. Cleanliness and Room Comfort

1. Room cleanliness.

2. The bedsheets being frequently changed.

3. The orderliness and appropriateness of beds, pillows and sheets.

4. Laundry and shoeshine services.

H. Expenditure

1. Room prices.

2. Food prices at the hotel.

3. The price/benefit value of the accommodation service provided at the hotel.

I. Room Facilities

1. The availability and well-functioning of a room temperature control system (e.g. air-conditioning).

2. The availability of an appropriately sized and new technology television.

J. Car Park Facilities

1. The availability of vehicles for the transportation of customers.

2. The availability of sufficient car park areas for guests.

K. Brand and Public Image

1. The hotel being an International Chain Hotel.

2. The hotel being a national hotel.

3. Advertisements and Promotions.

4. Friend and Family Recommendations.

5. Customer reviews online.

These factors should be assessed as providing the most widely internationally accepted and applicable indexes to academics and hotel managers.

3. MAKING COLLECTIVE DECISIONS WITH ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS METHOD

3.1. AHP

Decision-making is defined as the process of determining the best alternative amongst all possible options. Decision makers often face situations of making multiple choice decisions on various issues (Darko et al., 2019). In these cases, it is possible to utilize Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) techniques. MCDM attends to the structuring and resolution of multiple-criteria decisions and planning problems. The aim is to support decision makers who face these problems at the point of decision-making (Majumder, 2015). Various methods, including AHP, have been developed for this support of decision makers in situations of multi-criteria decision making. Advanced by Saaty, AHP represents a popular MCDM method which has drawn attention among all industries in the last 20 years (Darko et al., 2019).

AHP, has been developed in order to overcome complex and multi-criteria decision-making problems, and is based on its developer Saaty’s experiences while conducting research projects at the USA Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Since that time, the simplicity and power of AHP has enabled its widespread use in multiple fields around the world. Fundamentally, AHP lends assistance with the structuring of the complexity, managing the sorting and measurement analysis. These characteristics make it possible to apply in many different ways (Bhushan & Rai, 2004).

AHP assists in making decisions defined by interconnected and often competing criteria, and determines the priorities amongst the decision criteria within the scope of the decision objectives (Shapira & Goldenberg, 2005). The method is the best evaluation method for all decision-making cases and reflects the opinions of each participant correctly (Schmidt, Aumann, Hollander, Damm, & Schulenburg, 2015).

AHP provides a path into a hierarchy of sub-problems where the problem can be better grasped and subjectively evaluated. These evaluations are transformed into numerical values and processed in order to sort each alternative on a numerical scale (Bhushan & Rai, 2004). The methodology of AHP can be clarified as follows;

Firstly, in order to “reduce the complexity”, decision factors are structured in a hierarchical manner. The primary aim is sat atop the hierarchy, while the criteria, sub-criteria and decision criteria structure the hierarchical decision problem (Shapira & Goldenberg, 2005). The hierarchical structure concerning the problem is a more organized form of a web. It resembles an upside-down tree. In Figure 2, a general hierarchical structure is illustrated. The root of the hierarchy is the aim or objective of the problem which is being studies and investigated. The knots are the alternatives which are to be compared. Between these two levels, various criteria and sub-criteria can be found (Bhushan & Rai, 2004).

Figure-2. General hierarchical structure.

Source: Bhushan and Rai (2004).

The second step is the pairwise comparison of the criteria. At this stage, the decision makers (who are often field experts) are asked to complete the pairwise comparisons of the items on all levels of the hierarchy. In this context, bearing in mind the decision objectives, each criteria’s relative level of importance on the second level of the hierarchy is detected through pairwise comparisons. These pairwise comparisons are based on a nine point scale, as shown in Table 1 (Darko et al., 2019).

Table-1. AHP Paired comparison scale.

Level of importance	Value Definitions
1	Both factors have equal importance
3	1st factor is more important than 2nd factor
5	1st factor is far more important than to 2nd factor
7	1st factor is highly significant compared to 2nd factor
9	1st factor is very highly significant compared to 2nd factor
2,4,6,8	The intermediate value of degrees in the choice between two factors

Source: Darko et al. (2019).

At this stage, each specialist compares two different criteria, and after deciding which one is more important than the other, assigns a degree of importance from 1 to 9 (see Table 2). Here, 9 indicates that the criteria have the highest order of approval possible; 1 means that the two criteria are equally located.

Table-2.Pairwise of question.

Criteria1

9

7

5

3

1

3

5

7

9

Criteria2

In the third step, the various criteria which had been formed in the second step are organized into a square matrix (i, j). The diagonal elements of this matrix are 1. If the element’s value (i, j) is above 1, the criteria on the i row is better than the criteria on the j column; otherwise, the criteria on the j column is better than the criteria in i row. The (j, i) element of the matrix is the opposite of the (i, j) element (Bhushan & Rai, 2004).

The fourth step is detecting the relative importance of the criteria, using the value of the main eigenvalue of the comparison matrix and the corresponding normalized eigenvector. The normalized eigenvector’s elements are called weights in terms of criteria and sub-criteria and rankings in terms of alternatives (Bhushan & Rai, 2004).

The fifth step is the confirmation of Consistency. Since subjective judgements of decision makers are permitted in AHP, the consistency of such decisions cannot be guaranteed. For this reason, the confirmation of consistency is essential for obtaining an optimized result. In order to control the consistency of paired comparisons, the rate of consistency needs to be calculated. Therefore, firstly a Consistency Index (CI) is computed. CI is calculated according to Equation 1.

The l, the Equation 1 is the maximum eigenvalue of the decision matrix. Thereafter, the CI is divided by the Random Index (RI) which is the standard correction value and is illustrated in Table 3. At this stage, if the decision makers’ calculated rate of consistency is over the 0,1 threshold, they are asked review their original decisions (Darko et al., 2019; Omürbek, Makas, & Omürbek, 2015).

Table-3. Random index (RI) values.

N	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
RI	0	0	0,58	0,90	1,12	1,24	1,32	1,41	1,45	1,49	1,51	1,48	1,56	1,57	1,59

Source: Omürbek et al. (2015).

At the sixth step, the ranking of each alternative is multiplied by the weight of sub-criteria and summed in order to obtain local rankings according to each criterion. Local rankings are then multiplied when the standards’ weights and summed in order to obtain global rankings. This way, weight values will have been produced based on the importance of each alternative compared with another in regards to a common criterion (Bhushan & Rai, 2004).

3.2. Making Collective Decisions with AHP

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the most popular and powerful decision-making techniques used nowadays (Forman & Peniwati, 1998). AHP is often used for reproducing priorities based on paired comparison clusters. AHP is built upon the hierarchical structuring of a person’s perceptions or ideas, comparing similar things in pairs with a specific standard, and making decisions in terms of which thing bears bigger importance. If multiple people join the decision-making progress, the matter becomes one of collective decision making. The biggest issue with collective decision making is the collecting of individuals’ orders of preferences according to a consensus ranking. Consensus is the forming of a general agreement process for the topics open to general public (Basak & Saaty, 1993).

With that being said, there is a few possible ways of collecting information when the decision process is joined by multiple people. The most preferred among these methods is the combining of individual judgements (AIJ) and individual priorities (AIP) (Ossadnik, Schinke, & Kaspar, 2016). In the case of multiple people making judgements, their individual judgements and individual priorities can be taken into consideration. The selection of methods is dependent on whether a group should be considered as a unit (individual) or as separate individuals. The (weighted) geometrical mean of individual judgements unites the group into a new “individual” and act accordingly. Therefore, individual judgements are likened to the group at each step of collection. The geometrical mean is more consistent with the meanings of both judgements and priorities in AHP. If one considers that members of the group do not carry the same importance, (weighted) geometrical or (weighted) arithmetical means can be used with AIP. In addition to this, geometrical mean is more consistent with the meanings of both individual judgements and individual priorities (Forman & Peniwati, 1998).

A critical issue in AHP studies where collective decision is important is determining the size of the sample. A certain rule does not exist on the matter. There is a general consensus on AHP method not requiring a large sample size. In certain studies, sample sizes differing between four and nine have been used (Schmidt et al., 2015).

Small sample size, the data analysis and interpretation of result can all influence many aspects of the study negatively. The biggest advantage of AHP compared to other MCDM methods is that it does not require a large sample size for acquiring credible and statistically meaningful results. According to some researchers, AHP renders using large sample size redundant for studies focusing on a certain issue. Moreover, the AHP method is not practically suitable for large sample sizes, as the participants may tend to answer arbitrarily which increases the inaccuracies (Wong & Li, 2008).

According to some researchers, between five and fifteen experts represent an appropriately large sample size for decision-making (Božić, Vujičić, Kennell, Besermenji, & Solarević, 2018). Sahin and Yurdugül (2018) have investigated local and foreign studies in the field of education that are based on AHP from the last five years through content analysis. Their findings on the sample size show that studies often employ a sample size between 2 and 100 (Sahin & Yurdugül, 2018).

These findings demonstrate that AHP can be conducted with small sample size for acquiring beneficial decision results and models, as well as showing that AHP is more frequently preferred amongst other MCDM methods. With that said, it is imperative for researchers to consider the AHP sample size with care (Darko et al., 2019).

4. METHODOLOGY

In this study, the 11 main and 40 sub-factors which are assumed to influence hotel selection have been prioritized through AHP method. The analysis intended for the prioritization has been conducted separately as divided by gender and together. Thus, it becomes possible to better understand the factors which influence customers and affect the selection of hotels. The literature includes studies on the factors relating to business or holiday related hotel selection through various statistical methods. However, no study has been encountered which utilized AHP method. However, studies which apply the AHP method to determining factors which affect restaurant selection, destination selection, travel agency selection. Some of these are mentioned below.

Siew, Wai, and Hoe (2017) have ranked the importance levels of price, customer service, environment, flexibility, efficiency, location and cleanliness while selecting fast food restaurants through AHP method.

In their study, Kecek and Gürdal (2016) compare the factors which students at Dumlupınar University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences consider while choosing fast food restaurants with the restaurants Burger King, McDonalds, Mr. Kumpir, Pizza Pizza, Popeyes, Sbarro using AHP method. According to research findings, flavor and freshness are the most valued factors by the customers. Consequently, Burger King is the fast food brand which is selected the most. Ku and Fan (2009) have, through AHP, analyzed the factors which influence the choices of customers who purchase hotel rooms through the web pages of travel agencies. According to this study, the most important factors influencing the room sales over the internet are privacy, security and product quality. Doğan and Gencan (2013) have utilized AHP method in their study of the four five-star hotels in Cappadocia region through the perspective of travel agencies, with aims of determining the most proper hotel out of them. In identifying the most proper hotel, they have used the criteria Price, Quality of Service, Recommendation Rate, Location of Hotel, Customer Security.

In the analysis section of our study, the following order has been followed:

4.1. Defining the Decision Problem and Forming the Hierarchical Model by Identifying Objectives and Criteria through AHP Method

The decision problem and objective of the operation is “The Prioritization of Factors which Affect Selection of Hotels in Holidays for Vacation”. Upon identifying the decision problem in the AHP method, the related criteria (factors) need to be defined correctly. It will not be possible to determine the consumer preferences without correctly defining the related criteria (Lee, 2014). In this context, the comprehensive selection factors which have been used in this study have been identified upon examining previous studies about the factors which affect the selection of hotels by customers.

4.2. The Preparation and Implementation of the Surveys

Consequent to the forming of the study’s hierarchical model, questionnaire forms for the survey have been prepared in order to conduct paired comparisons of the main and sub-factors. The comparisons in the survey are a) the paired comparisons of the scales (sub-criteria) within each feature, b) the paired comparison of the features (criteria). According to Saaty’s AHP, paired comparisons are conducted on a scale different between 1 to 9 Table 1. The survey questionnaire has been administered between February 1-20, 2019 on instructors employed at the Selçuk University Beyşehir Ali Akkanat campus and who, at least once a year, select hotels for vacations. The sample size selection for AHP survey, especially in a study focusing on a specific issue, is fitting for an appropriately selected small sample size (Cheng & Li, 2002). In collective decision-making with AHP, groups consisting of two to five people are defined as small sample groups, while groups consisting of more than five people are defined as large sample groups (Ossadnik et al., 2016). In this regard, this study’s sample size consists of 12 people, 6 being men and 6 being women.

Table-4. The paired comparison results and inaccuracy rates of factors and sub-factors divided by gender and collective (CR).

4.3. Entering the Data into Relevant Software and Combining Personal Priorities

As has been mentioned above, the fundamental method for collective decision-making with AHP is the summing of individual judgements (AIJ) and individual priorities (AIP). AIP is the most recommended summing technique for resolving highly complex decision problems within a small expert group. Furthermore, the AIP procedure is appropriate for any sample size (small or big). In a decision-making situation where members of the group act individually according to their own value systems, AIP can be utilized for reaching a consensus (Ossadnik et al., 2016). In this regard, this study has chosen to combine the individual priorities (AIP) in order to make collective decisions. In this method, after determining the independent AHP based ranking of each decision maker, the individual priorities that emerge are used for reaching an eventual collective decision, through the methods of (weighted) arithmetical or (weighted) geometrical mean (Ossadnik et al., 2016). The paired comparison values acquired through the survey are entered into the questionnaire of the program Super Decision, in order to determine the individual priorities. In this way, the priorities of each member of the group are specified. Afterwards, the individual priorities of each factor affecting hotel selection are calculated with the help of Excel. Thus, the priority (weight) levels of the factors which affect hotel selection.

5. FINDINGS

Inaccuracies in the comparisons can result in the inaccuracy of the priority levels of the ranking preferences of the alternatives. An inaccuracy rate of “0” would show that it is accurate with all judgements of decision makers. It is often acceptable for this rate to be 10% or less. Since the inaccuracy rate Table 4 of the pairwise comparisons of individual priorities of decision makers in this study are within acceptable limits, the values from the priority vector are accepted as interpretable. In the analysis conducted for determining whether gender impacts the priorities of factors for selection of hotels, it has been observed that the priority ranking of the factors change according to gender Table 5. Accordingly, while for Men the most important issues for selection of hotels is Room Facilities, Expenditure and Satisfaction, for Women these are Safety and Security, Satisfaction and Cleanliness and Room Comfort.

Table-5. The ranking of factors which affect hotel selection by gender and collective.

Rank	Factors	Men	Factors	Women	Factors	Collective
1	Room Facilities	0,1660	Safety and Security	0,1846	Safety and Security	0,1576
2	Expenditure	0,1422	Satisfaction	0,1553	Satisfaction	0,1479
3	Satisfaction	0,1404	Cleanliness and Room Comfort	0,1331	Room Facilities	0,1347
4	Cleanliness and Room Comfort	0,1338	Location and Comfort	0,1318	Cleanliness and Room Comfort	0,1334
5	Safety and Security	0,1305	Room Facilities	0,1035	Expenditure	0,1151
6	Hotel Staff and Services	0,1015	Expenditure	0,0881	Location and Comfort	0,1055
7	Location and Comfort	0,0793	Hotel Staff and Services	0,0698	Hotel Staff and Services	0,0856
8	Brand and Public Image	0,0479	Brand and Public Image	0,0614	Brand and Public Image	0,0546
9	Car Park Facilities	0,0233	Informing	0,0357	Informing	0,0277
10	Informing	0,0198	Network Services	0,0204	Car Park Facilities	0,0198
11	Network Services	0,0154	Car Park Facilities	0,0163	Network Services	0,0179

Table-6. The weights of the factors and sub-factors which affect the selection of hotels.

Factors for Hotel Selection	Weights	Sub-Factors	Local Weights
Location and Comfort	0,1055	The proximity of the hotel to the holiday region, the sea	0,3782
		The hotel being located in the city center	0,1688
		The hotel room including a telephone	0,0714
		The hotel providing flight booking service	0,0642
		The hotel providing taxi service	0,1067
		The hotel having 24-hour available housekeeping	0,2108
Safety and Security	0,1576	The hotel having fire exits	0,2135
		The hotel having fire extinguishing system	0,2311
		The hotel having safe boxes	0,1955
		The hotel providing first-aid service	0,3599
Network Services	0,0179	The hotel having Wi-Fi internet connection	0,5541
		The hotel being suitable for e-banking procedures	0,1642
		The hotel being available for e-booking procedures	0,2817
Satisfaction	0,1479	The region in which the hotel is located not having polluted air	0,2113
		The rooms overlooking scenery	0,1066
		The food quality of the hotel	0,3211
		The landscaping and green areas of the hotel	0,1164
		The availability of recreate facilities	0,2446
Hotel Staff and Provided Services	0,0856	The efficient service of the staff	0,3039
		The courtesy of the staff	0,3299
		The cleanliness and tidiness of the staff	0,3661
Informing	0,0277	The availability of daily newspapers and magazines at the hotel	0,2013
		The availability of satellite systems which provide news channels in various languages	0,3458
		The hotel providing information on recreation, natural beauties and cultural heritage sites	0,4529
Cleanliness and Room Comfort	0,1334	Room cleanliness	0,4063
		The bedsheets being frequently changed	0,2709
		The orderliness and appropriateness of beds, pillows and sheets	0,1695
		Laundry and shoeshine services	0,1534
Expenditure	0,1151	Room prices	0,3199
		Food prices at the hotel	0,1646
		The price/benefit value of the accommodation service provided at the hotel	0,5155
Room Facilities	0,1347	The availability and well-functioning of a room temperature control system	0,6625
		The availability of an appropriately sized and new technology television	0,3375
Car Park Facilities	0,0198	The availability of vehicles for the transportation of customers	0,3757
		The availability of sufficient car park areas for guests	0,6243
Brand And Public Image	0,0546	The hotel being an International Chain Hotel	0,2053
		The hotel being a national hotel	0,0655
		Advertisements and promotions	0,1955
		Friend and Family Recommendations	0,2629
		Customer reviews online	0,2708

As can be seen on Table 5, without regarding gender differences, the priority order of the factors affecting hotel selection are Safety and Security, Satisfaction, Room Facilities, Cleanliness and Room Comfort, Expenditure, Location and Comfort, Hotel Staff and Services, Brand and Public Image, Informing, Car Park Facilities and Network Services.

The findings from the analysis of the sub-factors affecting hotel selection are presented on Table 6. According to this, Location and Comfort are most impacted by the proximity of the hotel to holiday region and the sea.

The hotel providing first-aid service is the feature which impacts Safety and Security the most. Within the scope of one of the lowest ranking factors in the collective evaluation, Network Services, the most important feature for people is The hotel having Wi-Fi internet connection. The quality of the food served at the hotel is observed to be the feature which impacts the customer Satisfaction level the most.  As well as the cleanliness and tidiness of hotel staff being the feature with most weight in Hotel Staff, it can be said that customers’ expectations from the staff are very similarly valued. In hotels for vacations, the most valued feature in the scope of Informing is presenting information on recreation, natural beauties and cultural values. The customers’ perceptions of Cleanliness and Comfort are most affected by the cleanliness of hotel rooms and the bedsheets being frequently changed. While expenditure is perceived as the second most important by men, for women it is sixth most important, and fifth in the collective ranking. Related to the factor, the price/benefit values of the accommodation service provided at the hotel seem to carry more importance for the customers compared to other features. In the context of the Room Facilities factor, they value the the room temperature control system more than the other feature. The availability of sufficient car park areas for guests are prioritized more compared to the other in the Car Park Facilities factor. The priority level of Brand and Public Image factor do not differ between men and women (8). Features that are perceived to be important within the Brand and Public Image factor are friend and family recommendations and online customer reviews.

6. CONCLUSION

In this study, it can be observed that the most important factor in selecting a hotel for consumers is Safety and Security. Sohrabi et al. (2012) have similarly found that Safety and Security was the most important factors affecting the choice of customers in their study of the hotels in Tehran. On the other hand, in Chu and Choi (2000) study on the six main factors affecting selection of hotels in Hong Kong, the customers have ranked Security as the least important factor. The importance attached to the Safety and Security factor have been observed to vary according to gender in this study. Compared to men, women have put more emphasis on Safety and Security factor.

In this study, the second most important factor has been ranked as Satisfaction by the customers, including the region not having polluted air, the rooms overlooking scenery, the food quality of the hotel, availability of green areas and recreate facilities. This finding also correlates with Sohrabi et al. (2012) research findings. However, in Chu and Choi (2000) study, customers have ranked the factor relating to food and recreate services as the fifth important.

According to consumers in this study, Cleanliness, Room Comfort and Room Facilities are the other most important factors. Chu and Choi (2000) have also reached similar findings in their study. In Sohrabi et al. (2012)’s study, however, these features were ranked as less important by customers.

The staffs of service businesses are important elements for the quality of service and customer satisfaction. Nevertheless, neither men nor women customers in our study have ranked the hotel staff and their services as a priority. This result correlates with the study of Sohrabi et al. (2012). However, in Chu and Choi (2000) study, customers have ranked Quality of Service, which includes features about staff, as the most important factor. 
Compared to others, the Informing, Network Services and Car Park Facilities factors were stated to be perceived as less important by both men and women customers in this study. The increased use of cell-phones and internet services being included in the service packages has decreased the need for Wi-Fi in hotels. Information investigation is becoming more widespread each day through smart and internet connected phones. In this context, it is understandable that customers prioritize informing and network services features as less important in their selection of a hotel. The Car Park Facility factor, on the other hand, corresponds to Sohrabi et al. (2012) study.

Overall, the findings of investigations on people’s and society’s behaviors can vary in each society, each person, and time. As a matter of fact, behavioral patterns, consumption state, preferences and needs of people/societies can change with the passing time and technological developments (Bahar & Kozak, 2013). In this regard, the varying results of studies focusing on factors which affect customers’ hotel selection in the past years can be observed. For instance, studies conducted by McCleary, Weaver, and Hutchinson (1993) and Taninecz (1990) show that for those traveling for business, important features influencing their choices were cleanliness and location. According to Clow et al. (1994), Lewis (1985) and Marshall (1993) security, personal interaction and room prices are important elements of selecting a hotel for those traveling for vacation. Knutson (1988) emphasizes that for those traveling for both business and recreation, the cleanliness, comfort, well-kept rooms, proper location, fast and polite service, a safe environment, genial staff are important when they are selecting a hotel for the first time or for redemption. According to Cadotte and Turgeon (1988) analyses, what is highly important for guests is the helpfulness of the staff, the cleanliness and order of the facility, the quality of service and the staff’s knowledge of service. Three features have emerged from Barsky and Labagh (1992) study which influences the hotel selection of those traveling for business and travel: Staff attitude, location and rooms (Yavas & Babakus, 2005). In their study, Lamey et al. (2007) have reached the finding that the “brand” could have an important influence on the consumer decisions.

As is in this study, similar studies conducted from now on could both overlap with previous studies on the factors which affect the selection of hotels by consumers, and could also change according to time, place and society.

In the face of increasing competition with each day, for businesses to maintain an advantageous position against their competitors, knowing the factors which affect customer choices becomes more important for generating demand for the goods and services of the business. Therefore, many studies that attempt to determine the factors which play a role in the consumers’ decisions. This study is important due to its contribution with a detailed literature review and that it is supported by an analysis method (AHP) that is often used in decision making processes. This study can be a guide to further studies determining the factors relevant for consumer choices in different fields.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, A. (1988). Answering the eternal question: what does the customer want. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 12-14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001088048802900209.

Bahar, O., & Kozak, M. (2013). Tourism economy. Ankara: Detay Publishing.

Bargeman, B., & van der Poel, H. (2006). The role of routines in the vacation decision-making process of Dutch vacationers. Tourism Management, 27(4), 707-720. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.04.002.

Barsky, J. D., & Labagh, R. (1992). A strategy for customer satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33(5), 32-40.

Baruca, P. Z., & Civre, Z. (2012). How do guests choose a hotel. Academica Turistica, 5(1), 75-84.

Basak, I., & Saaty, T. (1993). Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5), 101-109.

Battistoni, E., Colladon, A. F., & Mercorelli, G. (2013). Prominent determinats of consumer-based brand equity. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 5(Special Issue on Innovations in Fashion Industry, 25), 1-8.

Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2004). Strategic decision making applying the analytic hierarchy prosess. USA: Springer-Verlag London Limited.

Božić, S., Vujičić, M. D., Kennell, J., Besermenji, S., & Solarević, M. (2018). Sun, sea and shrines: Application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assess the attractiveness of six cultural heritage sites in Phuket: Thailand. Geographica Pannonica, 22(2), 121-138. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5937/22-16983.

Cadotte, E. R., & Turgeon, N. (1988). Key factors in guest satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 28(4), 44-51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001088048802800415.

Cheng, E. W., & Li, H. (2002). Construction partnering process and associated critical success factors: Quantitative investigation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(4), 194-202. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2002)18:4(194.

Chu, R. K., & Choi, T. (2000). An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparison of business and leisure travellers. Tourism Management, 21(4), 363-377. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(99)00070-9.

Clow, K. E., Garretson, J. A., & Kurtz, D. L. (1994). An exploratory study into the purchase decision process used by leisure travelers in hotel selection. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 4, 53-72.

Darko, A., Chan, A. P., Ameyaw, E. E., Owusu, E. K., Parn, E., & Edwards, D. J. (2019). Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International Journal of Construction Management, 19(5), 436-452. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098.

Doğan, N. O., & Gencan, S. (2013). The most appropriate hotel selection from the point of view of travel agency managers: An analytical hierarchy process application. Erciyes University FEAS. Journal, 69-88.

Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108(1), 165-169. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(97)00244-0.

Kecek, G., & Gürdal, H. (2016). Determination of preference ranking of fast food companies with analytic hierarchy process: An application in dumlupinar university. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(5), 28-34.

Knutson, B. J. (1988). Frequent travelers: Making them happy and bringing them back. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29(1), 82-87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001088048802900121.

Ku, E. C., & Fan, Y. W. (2009). The decision making in selecting online travel agencies: An application of analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(5-6), 482-493. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548400903163020.

Kuo, C.-M. (2009). The managerial implications of an analysis of tourist profiles and international hotel employee service attitude. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 302-309. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.10.003.

Lamey, L., Deleersnyder, B., Dekimpe, M. G., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. (2007). How business cycles contribute to private-label success: Evidence from the United States and Europe. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 1-15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.1.

Lee, S. H. (2014). A comparison of two approaches to measuring brand equity in the hotel industry. Doktora Tezi. Arizona: ArizonaState University.

Lewis, R. C. (1985). Predicting hotel choice: The factors underlying perception. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 82-96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001088048502500415.

Majumder, M. (2015). Multi criteria decision making. Impact of urbanizition on water shortage in face of climatic aberrations (pp. 35-47): Içinde Springer.

Mammadli, A. (2016). Consumer perceptions of the fast food industry in Sweden a quantitative research study. Master Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.  

Marshall, A. (1993). Safety tops guest's priority list; sell security as No. 1 amenity. Hotel & Motel Management, 208(11), 21-21.

McCleary, K. W., Weaver, P. A., & Hutchinson, J. C. (1993). Hotel selection factors as they relate to business travel situations. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 42-48. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759303200206.

Omürbek, N., Makas, Y., & Omürbek, V. (2015). Corporate project management software selection with AHP and TOPSIS methods. Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 21(1), 59-83.

Ossadnik, W., Schinke, S., & Kaspar, R. H. (2016). Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: a comparative analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(2), 421-457.

Rivers, M. J., Toh, R. S., & Alaoui, M. (1991). Frequent-stayer programs: The demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics of hotel steady sleepers. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 41-45. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759103000209.

Sahin, M., & Yurdugül, H. (2018). A content analysis study on dhe use of analytic hierarshy prosess in educational studies. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 376-392.

Schmidt, K., Aumann, I., Hollander, I., Damm, K., & Schulenburg, M. G. (2015). Applying the analytic hierarchy process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15(112), 2-27. Available at: https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7.

Shapira, A., & Goldenberg, M. (2005). AHP-based equipment selection model for construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(12), 1263-1273. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:12(1263.

Siew, L. W., Wai, C. J., & Hoe, L. W. (2017). Analysis on the preference of fast food restaurants with analytic hierarchy process model. International Journal of Psychology and Cognitive Science, 3(6), 72-76.

Sohrabi, B., Vanani, I. R., Tahmasebipur, K., & Fazli, S. (2012). An exploratory analysis of hotel selection factors: A comprehensive survey of Tehran hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 96-106. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.06.002.

Taninecz, G. (1990). Business-traveller survey. Hotel and Motel Management, 57(1), 29-32.

Wong, J. K., & Li, H. (2008). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Building and Environment, 43(1), 108-125. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.019.

Wuest, B. E., Tas, R. F., & Emenheiser, D. A. (1996). What do mature travelers perceive as important hotel/motel customer services? Hospitality Research Journal, 20(2), 77-93. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809602000206.

Yavas, U., & Babakus, E. (2005). Dimensions of hotel choice criteria: Congruence between business and leisure travelers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(3), 359-367. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.09.003.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Journal of Tourism Management Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.