Identifying the Jurisprudential and Legal Problems of Non-Muslim Tourists in Iran and Prioritizing them Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making (AHP)
محورهای موضوعی : Geography and tourism planning, geography and urban planning, urban planning, architecture, geography and rural planning, political geography
ali Khosravi Moghadam
1
(Islamic Azad University, garmsar Branch, Iran)
Jahanbakh Sadeghi
2
(Islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamshar, Iran)
Abdollah Zandifar
3
(Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran)
Aliakbar Shokri
4
(Islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamshar, Iran)
کلید واژه:
چکیده مقاله :
Today, tourism does not belong to a particular group, and everyone can explore places and enjoy leisure, knowledge and experience depending on their financial strength and interests. As a result, tourism has become one of the largest economic sectors in the world. However, the problem most Muslim countries face to the development of the tourism industry is the Islamic law that governs these countries.In this research, four main factors: 1- Trade with Muslims and presence in the business market. 2. Enjoy freedom in holding national and religious ceremonies. 3. Freedom to perform sentences and actions based on religion and religion. 4. Immunity and safety in terms of mortality, financial and occupation. As legal and legal challenges, the presence of non-Muslim tourists in Iran has been identified. After analyzing and prioritizing these factors using the AHP method, we obtained the following results. The most important challenge we face is the freedom to carry out the acts and actions on the basis of religion and religion, and the least important issue is the trade with the Muslims and the presence in the business market. 1- Freedom to perform ordinances and acts on the basis of religion. 2. Freedom to hold national and religious ceremonies. 3. Immunity and security in terms of mortality, financial and occupation. 4. Trade with Muslims and presence in the business market.
[1] Richard G. Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Annals of Tourism Research 2011;38(4):1225-
1265.
[2] World Travel & Tourist Council. Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2011.1st ed. London: WTTC Press; 2011.
[3] Saaty T. Decision aiding decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principla eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational
Research 2003;145: 85–91.
[4] Lee H., Kwak W. Han I. Developing a business performace evaluation system: an analytical hierarchical model. Engineering Economist
1995;40(4):343-357.
[5] World Tourism Organization. 1995. UNWTO Technical Manual: Collection of Tourism Expenditure Statiscitcs, p. 10.
[6] Kim H. The concept and strategy of creative tourism. Policy of Korean Tourism 2013;Summer:8-20.
[7] Pearce DG, Butler RW. Tourism research: Critiques and challenges. London: Routledge; 1993.
[8] Korea Tourism Organization. 2014. Categorizing Creative Tourism Industry and Analysis of Economic Effect.
[9] UNESCO. 2006. Towards Sustainable Strategies for Creative Tourism Discussion. New Mexico.
[10] Raymond, C. Creative Tourism New Zealand: The practical challenges of developing creative tourism. In: G. Richards & J. Wilson,
Tourism,creativity and development, London: Routledge. 2007, p. 145–157.
[11] Korea Tourism Organization. 2012. The Strategy for Promoting Creative Tourism in Korea.
[12] Lai WH, Vinh NQ. An application of AHP approach to investigate tourism promotional effectiveness. Tourism and Hospitality
Management 2013;19(1):1-22.
[13] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[14] Marshall, A., (1920). Principles of Economics, eighth ed. MacMillan, London.
[15] Lerner, M., Haber, S., (2010). Performance factors of small tourism ventures: The interface of tourism, entrepreneurship and the environment.
Journal of Business Venturing 16(1), 77–100.
[16] Johannisson, B., (1996). The dynamics of entrepreneurial networks. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 253-267.
[17] Koellinger, P., (2008). Why are some entrepreneurs more innovative than others? Small Bus Econ 31, 21–37.
