Choosing a destination means balancing practical services with the experience a place offers. This illustrative Fuzzy TOPSIS example ranks six named attractions in Mahasarakham using six traveler-focused criteria.
Data note: Destination names and criteria follow the supplied scenario. The fuzzy weights and 1–5 ratings below are illustrative judgments created for this demonstration; they are not field measurements or verified service audits.
Decision context
The decision is which attraction to recommend to a visitor planning a trip in the Mahasarakham area. A tourism office, travel planner, or visitor-information team could adapt the same framework when comparing destinations, provided it replaces the illustrative judgments with current local evidence and stakeholder assessments.
Criteria and alternatives
All six criteria are treated as positive, so higher ratings indicate a more favorable assessment.
- Accessibility: how straightforward it is for visitors to reach the destination.
- Safety Services: the perceived availability of visitor-support and safety services.
- Dining Options & Restaurants: the range of meal choices nearby.
- Cafes & Coffee Shops: access to cafés for breaks and refreshments.
- Shuttle & Local Transportation: the convenience of moving to and from the site.
- Proximity to Police & Medical Stations: access to help if an incident or health need arises.
The alternatives are Phra That Na Dun, Wat Puttha Wanaram, Phra Yuen Mongkhon Buddha Image, Kaeng Loeng Chan, Ban Chiang Hian Museum, and Chi Long Forest Park.
Illustrative fuzzy criterion weights
Each criterion uses a triangular fuzzy weight (L, M, U), with L < M < U. The middle values sum to 1.00.
| Criterion | L | M | U |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.26 |
| Safety Services | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.26 |
| Dining Options & Restaurants | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.16 |
| Cafes & Coffee Shops | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.10 |
| Shuttle & Local Transportation | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.18 |
| Proximity to Police & Medical Stations | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.24 |
Input data and rating scale
Ratings use the software’s five-point linguistic scale: 1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Medium, 4 = High, and 5 = Very high. To keep the table compact, the preview below shows the first three criteria; all six criteria were entered into the software.
| Destination | Accessibility | Safety services | Dining options |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phra That Na Dun | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Wat Puttha Wanaram | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Phra Yuen Mongkhon Buddha Image | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Kaeng Loeng Chan | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Ban Chiang Hian Museum | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Chi Long Forest Park | 3 | 3 | 2 |
Running the Fuzzy TOPSIS model
The six alternatives, six criteria, triangular weights, and illustrative scale codes were entered in the OnlineOutput Fuzzy TOPSIS software. The model aggregates the fuzzy ratings, compares each destination with the positive and negative ideal solutions, and reports a closeness coefficient and rank.
Results and interpretation
Top-ranked alternative in this illustrative run: Wat Puttha Wanaram (Ci = 1.000). The coefficient reflects the entered ratings and weights only; it is not an independently verified assessment of the destination.
| Rank | Destination | Closeness coefficient (Ci) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wat Puttha Wanaram | 1.000 |
| 2 | Kaeng Loeng Chan | 0.584 |
| 3 | Phra Yuen Mongkhon Buddha Image | 0.555 |
| 4 | Phra That Na Dun | 0.197 |
| 5 | Ban Chiang Hian Museum | 0.124 |
| 6 | Chi Long Forest Park | 0.000 |
In this run, Wat Puttha Wanaram matches the model’s positive ideal across the entered ratings, while Chi Long Forest Park is the negative ideal. Kaeng Loeng Chan and Phra Yuen Mongkhon Buddha Image form a closer middle tier, with coefficients of 0.584 and 0.555. These are outputs of the illustrative matrix—not claims about measured facilities, safety, or current transport conditions.
Open the software output: view this Fuzzy TOPSIS result online · download the Excel file · download the Word report.
Practical takeaway
This example shows how a destination shortlist can be compared consistently when several service factors matter at once. For a real recommendation, collect current ratings from local tourism staff or visitors, verify transport and emergency-service information, and test whether the ranking changes under alternative weights. The method supports a structured discussion; decision-makers should review the evidence behind each score before acting on the order.
Frequently asked questions
What does a Fuzzy TOPSIS closeness coefficient mean?
It summarizes how close an alternative is to the fuzzy positive ideal and how far it is from the fuzzy negative ideal. A higher coefficient indicates a stronger position within the model’s stated inputs.
Why use fuzzy ratings for destination selection?
Fuzzy ratings represent qualitative judgments such as “medium” or “high” without pretending that every service factor is known with exact precision.
Are these destination scores based on verified local data?
No. The ratings and weights in this worked example are illustrative. Replace them with current, sourced assessments before using the result to guide visitors or allocate resources.
Can changing the weights change the winner?
Yes. TOPSIS rankings can change when criterion weights or alternative ratings change, so decision-makers should compare plausible scenarios and document their assumptions.
Explore the method and software
Use the Fuzzy TOPSIS software to enter your own alternatives, criteria, weights, and ratings. Read the Fuzzy TOPSIS method guide for the method’s concepts and steps.