Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021, 23–40
AN INTEGRATED SWOT – EXTENDED
PIPRECIA MODEL FOR IDENTIFYING
KEY DETERMINANTS OF TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF SERBIA
Gabrijela Popović, Dragiša Stanujkić, Predrag Mimović, Goran Milovanović,
Darjan Karabašević, Pavle Brzaković, Aleksandar Brzaković
Lešje Monastery near Paraćin, Serbia.
D R A G IŠ A S T A N U J K IĆ

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
24
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.9271
UDC: 338.486:004.652(497.11)
COBISS:1.01
Gabrijela Popović
1
, Dragiša Stanujkić
2
, Predrag Mimović
3
, Goran Milovanović
4
, Darjan Karabašević
1
,
Pavle Brzaković
1
, Aleksandar Brzaković
1
An integrated SWOT – extended PIPRECIA model for identifying key determinants
of tourism development: The case of Serbia
ABSTRACT: This paper proposes a new integrated model based on SWOT and extended PIvot Pairwise
RElative Criteria Importance Assessment (PIPRECIA) that offers a systematic approach to strategic plan-
ning in tourism. The applicability of the proposed integrated model is demonstrated through a case study
defining the main determinants of tourism development in Serbia. The result emphasizes the strategy
Improving the organization, management, and enhancement of tourism development as the highest prior-
ity for implementation. The model facilitates decision-making in tourism, and its key advantages are its
suitability for application in group decision-making and its simplicity.
KEY WORDS: extended PIPRECIA method, SWOT, Serbia, strategy, tourism
Integrirani model za določanje ključnih determinant turističnega razvoja, ki temelji
na analizi SWOT in razširjeni metodi PIPRECIA: primer Srbije
POVZETEK: V članku avtorji predlagajo nov integrirani model, ki temelji na analizi SWOT in razširjeni
metodi PIPRECIA (PIvot Pairwise RElative Criteria Importance Assessment) ter omogoča sistematičen pristop
k strateškemu načrtovanju v turizmu. Uporabnost predlaganega modela je predstavljena s študijo primera,
v kateri avtorji določijo glavne determinante turističnega razvoja v Srbiji. Izsledki kažejo, da je med različnimi
strategijami najpomembnejša tista, ki se osredotoča na izboljšanje organizacije, upravljanja in krepitve
turističnega razvoja. Model omogoča lažje odločanje v turizmu, njegova ključna prednost pa je ta, da je
primeren za skupinsko odločanje in preprost za uporabo.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: razširjena metoda PIPRECIA, analiza SWOT, Srbija, strategija, turizem
This paper was submitted for publication on November 10
th
, 2020.
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 10. novembra 2020.
1
University Business Academy in Novi Sad, Faculty of Applied Management, Economics and Finance
in Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
gabrijela.popovic@mef.edu.rs (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2652-4860), darjan.karabasevic@mef.edu.rs
(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5308-2503), pavle.brzakovic@mef.edu.rs (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-
5184-9627), aleksandar.brzakovic@mef.edu.rs
2
University of Belgrade, Technical Faculty in Bor, Bor, Serbia
dstanujkic@tfbor.bg.ac.rs (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6846-3074)
3
University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Economics, Kragujevac, Serbia
mimovicp@kg.ac.rs (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0323-8033)
4
University of Niš, Faculty of Economics, Niš, Serbia
goran.milovanovic@eknfak.ni.ac.rs (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0091-2774)

1 Introduction
Serbia is a landlocked Balkan country. Despite not having sea access, it has significant potential for devel-
oping and enhancing various kinds of tourism. Today, the development potential of rural tourism in Serbia
has attracted the most attention among researchers (Todorović and Bjeljac 2009; Dimitrovski, Todorović
and Valjarević 2012; Petrović et al. 2018). Apart from rural tourism, other types of tourism suitable for devel-
opment have also been studied (Košić et al. 2011; Vasiljević et al. 2011; Vujičić et al. 2011; Dragićević et al.
2012; Dragičević et al. 2013; Blešić et al. 2014; Vujko and Plavša 2014; Božić and Tomić 2016; Pavluković,
Stankov and Arsenović 2020). Mulec and Wise (2013) and Armenski, Dwyer and Pavluković (2018) have
also examined the competitiveness of the Vojvodina region and Serbia as a whole as tourism destinations.
Improving tourism in Serbia requires determining its positive and negative aspects, which could drive
or hinder further development. In addition to other data on tourism and predictions for the future, the
T ourism Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016–2025 (2016) also contains a SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. It clearly outlines the internal and external factors impor-
tant for further tourism development, as well as strategies to take advantage of strengths and opportunities,
avoid threats, and overcome weaknesses. Despite its benefits, the qualitative nature of SWOT analysis is
a shortcoming. This can be overcome by combining SWOT analysis with appropriate multiple-criteria deci-
sion-making (MCDM) methods.
This article proposes applying the SWOT – extended PIvot Pairwise RElative Criteria Importance
Assessment framework, or PIPRECIA (Stanujkic et al. 2017a). PIPRECIA is a newly developed MCDM
method that is convenient for application in a group decision environment. The paper proposes the SWOT –
extended PIPRECIA integrated model as a convenient tool for strategic planning in tourism. The applic-
ability of the model is presented through a case study based on tourism development data from the Tourism
Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016–2025 (2016). This model determines the key SWOT
influential factors, and it prioritizes strategies to improve tourism in Serbia. The paper proposes a new
model based on SWOT and the relatively recently introduced MCDM method, whose possibilities in strate-
gic planning have not been tested yet.
2 Literature review
SWOT analysis is widely used in tourism to appraise internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (oppor-
tunities and threats) factors important for assessing the market position of certain destinations, and it is
the first phase in strategic planning and creating a strategy. The applicability of this technique has been
shown in various studies (Abdi and Azadegan-Mehr 2011; Sariisik, Turkay and Akova 2011; Ghazinoory,
Reihanian et al. 2012; Cetin 2015; Gürel and Tat 2017; Cetin et al. 2018). Although SWOT analysis is the
starting point in strategic planning, it is sometimes criticized for leading to the creation of unsuitable strate-
gies (Hill and Westbrook 1997; Kurttila et al. 2000; Helms and Nixon 2010; Vlados 2019). Such criticism
mainly addresses its qualitative nature, inability to express factors quantitatively, and inability to deter-
mine which factor has a decisive impact (Kajanus et al. 2012). These shortcomings can be resolved by applying
MCDM methods.
MCDM methods have become increasingly popular in recent decades, having been applied in many
different research areas (Zavadskas and Turskis 2011; Gavade 2014; Zavadskas, Turskis and Kildienė 2014;
Stojčić et al. 2019). They are especially convenient for application in situations where a greater number of
criteria are included, against which the decision-maker (DM) should perform the evaluation process and
make the final decision (Stanujkic et al. 2017b; Stanujkic et al. 2017c; Popovic, Stanujkic and Karabasevic
2019). These techniques are useful in facilitating decisions and increasing the reliability of decisions. In
addition to resolving various business problems, MCDM methods are also used to facilitate decisions in
tourism with regard to policy (Liu, Tzeng and Lee 2012; Michailidou, Vlachokostas and Moussiopoulos
2016), competitiveness (Wu 2011; Zhang et al. 2011; Huang and Peng 2012; Gómez-Vega and Picazo-Tadeo
2019), sustainable tourism and ecotourism (Michalena, Hills and Amat 2009; Aliani et al. 2017; Arsić, Nikolić
and Živković 2017), location and destination selection (Chou, Hsu and Chen 2008; Cheng, Su and Tan 2013;
Morteza et al. 2016; Aksoy and Ozbuk 2017; Puška, Stojanović and Maksimović 2019), service quality
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
25

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
(Rozman et al. 2009; Tseng 2011; Zoraghi et al. 2013; Wu and Wang 2014), and website quality (Hu 2009;
Akincilar and Dagdeviren 2014; Stanujkic, Zavadskas and Tamošaitienė 2015; Stanujkic et al. 2017b).
Combining one of these methods with SWOT analysis creates a hybrid model, preserving the bene-
fits of SWOT analysis and eliminating the shortcomings explained above. The most popular and most
frequently used hybrid model is the A ’WOT model, based on combining SWOT analysis and the Analytic
Hierarchy Process or AHP method (Saaty 1980). This model is often applied in strategic planning in tourism
(Kajanus, Kangas and Kurttila 2004; Mimović, Kocić and Milanović 2012; Akbulak and Cengiz 2014;
Nikolić et al. 2015; Demir, Esbah and Akgün 2016). In addition to the A ’WOT model, other combinations
of the MCDM methods and SWOT analysis have also been proposed as a decision-making aid in tourism
(Arsić, Nikolić and Živković 2017; Ajmera 2017; Abadi et al. 2018; Khan 2018; Popović, Milovanović and
Stanujkić 2018; Jiskani et al. 2020).
The extended PIPRECIA method is an improved version of the Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio
Analysis or SW ARA method (Keršuliene et al. 2010). It retains the benefits of the SW ARA method and
ameliorates its shortcomings. The SW ARA method is not suitable for group decision-making environments,
which may be its crucial disadvantage. This unsuitability arises from the fact that every DM should sort
criteria according to their significance, which complicates obtaining the results from all DMs. The possi-
bility that each DM could sort criteria in a different order makes evaluation more complex. Furthermore,
the SW ARA method does not anticipate consistency checking, and so the reliability of the results obtained
is somewhat questionable.
Group decision-making requires a method that facilitates the process and is easy to apply. Extended
PIPRECIA almost entirely meets these requirements. Namely, extended PIPRECIA does not require pre-
sorting of criteria. This method therefore automatically becomes more suitable for group decision-making.
Then, the evaluation procedure is more straightforward than in the AHP method (Saaty 1980). The AHP
method requires a more detailed explanation than extended PIPRECIA for DMs involved if they are unfa-
miliar with it. The AHP and extended PIPRECIA methods are similar in requiring consistency checking.
For this purpose, consistency checking in extended PIPRECIA is conducted by using Pearson’s or
Spearman’s correlation and by applying the bidirectional approach; that is, top-down and bottom-up eval-
uation of criteria. This bidirectional approach in consistency testing could be complicated for DMs because
they have to change their way of thinking while evaluating criteria from both sides. It requires an analyt-
ic approach and measuring the importance that one particular criterion has in relation to the previous and
next criterion (depending on the side the evaluation starts from). This manner of estimating criteria sig-
nificance, however, contributes to the reliability of the results and the ranking order.
Extended PIPRECIA was used to facilitate decision-making in several areas. Plain PIPRECIA, which
is an integral part of extended PIPRECIA, is very convenient for criteria weight determination (e.g.,
Karabasevic et al. 2019). Extended PIPRECIA was proposed for evaluating the quality of websites (Stanujkic,
Karabasevic and Sava 2018) and for assessing consumer satisfaction with restaurant service (Stanujkic et al.
2019). Stević et al. (2018) also introduced a fuzzy extension of the PIPRECIA method that is also used in
the decision process (Đalić et al. 2020a; Đalić et al. 2020b; Memiş et al. 2020; Vesković 2020). Extended
PIPRECIA is applied for selecting an adequate mining method (Popović, Đorđević and Milanović 2019).
In tourism, extended PIPRECIA is used to prioritize projects for developing accommodation facilities (Popović
and Mihajlović 2018) and for ranking sustainable indicators for cultural heritage sites (Popovic et al. 2019).
This indicates that there is enough room to further examine and test the possibilities of extended
PIPRECIA. Moreover, no examples of a combination of SWOT analysis and extended PIPRECIA have been
found in tourism.
3 Methodology
Developing the integrated model is performed in two phases. The first phase involves preliminary eval-
uation of the SWOT factors using the PIPRECIA method, determining the five most important ones from
each group, and defining the appropriate strategies. The main reason for selecting five is to avoid an exces-
sive example that would exacerbate the understanding of the proposed approach. The second phase develops
and applies the extended model based on the SWOT technique and extended PIPRECIA. Figure 1 shows
the guiding concept of building the integrated SWOT – extended PIPRECIA model. The crucial benefits
and main shortcomings of both techniques are examined below.
26

3.1 SWOT analysis
SWOT analysis gained popularity because it makes it possible to simultaneously scan internal strengths
and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats for proper diagnosis of a current state to develop
an appropriate strategy.
Although SWOT analysis could be considered an inevitable technique for screening a business situ-
ation and determining convenient strategies, some consider it to have certain flaws (Kurttila et al. 2000;
Yüksel and Dagdeviren 2007; Kajanus et al. 2012).
In the present case, a SWOT analysis was used in the first phase to evaluate opportunities for tourism
development in Serbia. The SWOT analysis is very extensive and contains many SWOT factors. To avoid
complexity, the evaluation is divided into two phases. In the first phase, the five most influential factors
from each group are determined based on the complete list of SWOT factors. A questionnaire was dis-
tributed to six private hotel managers and eight tourist board managers for selected municipalities. Complete
data for further processing were obtained from five DMs (three tourist board managers and two hotel man-
agers), which showed how the model can be used in a group decision environment. The significance of
all SWOT factors was determined by applying the PIPRECIA method. In this phase, DMs defined the strate-
gies that best meet the advantages and disadvantages of tourism development in Serbia. The five most
influential factors from each group and proposed strategies were the entry data for phase two.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
27
The initial SWOT analysis
The basic model
Strategy development
Applying the PIPRECIA method for
the purpose of the preliminary
prioritization of the SWOT factors
The selection of
the most influential
factors
Applying the extended
PIPRECIA method
to the prioritization of
the factors and strategies
The final evaluation model
The new model
development
Phase One
Phase Two
Figure 1: The proposed methodology.

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
3.2 Extended PIPRECIA
Extended PIPRECIA (Stanujkic et al. 2017a), which includes the PIPRECIA and inverse PIPRECIA meth-
ods, was used in the second phase of evaluating opportunities for tourism development in Serbia. The five
DMs assessed the given factors and strategies individually by using extended PIPRECIA. The overall sig-
nificance of the factors and strategies were then determined and, by multiplying the results obtained, the
importance of degrees of strategies were determined. The computational procedure, based on Stanujkic et al.
(2017a), is presented below.
Step 1. Select the criteria for evaluation. In this case, the criteria are SWOT factors and strategies.
Step 2. Determine the relative significance s
j
starting from the second criterion in the following manner:
(1)
where s
j
denotes the significance of criterion j, C
j
denotes the importance of criterion j, and C
j-1 
denotes
the importance of the previous criterion.
This means that s
j
has values greater than 1 when C
j
dominates a previous criterion C
j-1
; that is, when it
is more important than the previous criterion, whereby a higher value of s
j
means a higher level of domi-
nance and s
i
= (1,1.8]. Similarly, s
j
has a value less than 1 when the criterion C
j
is dominated by C
j-1
and
then s
i
= (1,0.2]. Finally, s
j
has a value of 1 when both criteria are of the same importance.
Step 3. Calculate the adjusted significance k
j
as follows:
(2)
where k
j
denotes the adjusted significance of criterion j.
Step 4. Define the relative adjusted significance q
j 
by using Eq. (3):
(3)
where q
j
denotes the relative adjusted significance of criterion j.
Step 5. Determine the relative weights w of the estimated criteria j in the following manner:
(4)
where w
j
denotes the relative weight of criterion j.
Step 6. Compute the inverse relative significance s'
j
starting from the penultimate criterion as follows:
(5)
28

Step 7. Define the inverse adjusted significance k'
j
in the following manner:
(6)
Step 8. Determine the inverse relative adjusted significance q'
j
by using the following equation:
(7)
Step 9. Detect the inverse relative weights of the evaluated criteria as follows:
(8)
where w'
j
denotes the inverse weight of criterion j.
Step 10. Confirm the reliability of the results obtained by using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient:
(9)
where denotes the correlation coefficient, d
j
denotes the distance between the ranks of w
j
and w'
j
, n is the
number of criteria, and ρ∈ = (–1,1].
Step 11. The total weight of the criteria is computed by applying the following equation:
(10)
where w''
j
denotes the complete weight of criterion j.
Step 12. When the decision process is performed in a group environment, then the final weights of the
criteria are obtained in the following manner:
(11)
(12)
where w
nr
j
denotes the weight of criterion j obtained from respondent r, R is the number of the respondents,
w*
j
is the group weight of criterion j before adjustment to fulfill the condition                  , and w
j
is the final
group weight of criterion j.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
29

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
4 Results
This section presents the results of the evaluation procedure. In using the proposed framework, the most
influential SWOT factors are determined and strategies that will lead to a better position for Serbia on the
global tourism market are emphasized.
4.1 Preliminary evaluation: phase one
This preliminary evaluation is performed by using the plain PIPRECIA method, which is part of extend-
ed PIPRECIA. The computational procedure is performed by using Eqs. (1)–(4) and Eqs. (11)–(12). The
results obtained, as well as the proposed strategies, are presented in Table 1.
30
Table 1: SWOT matrix for developing tourism in Serbia (Tourism Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016–2025 2016).
Internal factors
Strengths (S)
S
1
– Various resources and the tourist attraction structure in Serbia as the
basis for developing a diversified tourist product portfolio.
S
2
– A modern legal framework for planning tourism destinations.
S
3
– A continuous trend of increasing overnight stays by foreign tourists in
Serbia, primarily in Belgrade.
S
4
– Internationally positioned and professionally organized events that
raise tourists’ awareness of Serbia as a tourism destination.
S
5
– Several airfields that could become usable for low-budget air
companies by making a small investment.
Weaknesses (W)
W
1
– Disrespect for environmental protection measures in protected
natural areas, neglecting structures and monuments under state
protection, numerous examples of squalor, environment pollution,
and space degradation, and insufficient coordination of tourism
development and environment protection.
W
2
– A low budget for promoting tourism in Serbia.
W
3
– Enterprises operating in tourism and hospitality are insufficiently
informed about EU funds and do not make use of them.
W
4
– The inadequate domestic internet platform and information and
communications technology (ICT) applications for promoting tourist
attractions, virtual guides, and presentations.
W
5
– Serbia’s competition further lagging behind and losing a potential
market.
Opportunities (O)
O
1
– Serbia’s foreign policy: abolishing visas and visa facilitation for some
countries; facilitating visa issuance at the border (for T urkey and China).
O
2
– Changing habits and tourist motivations on the global market and
seeking new experiences, attractions, and products, and a preserved
environment.
O
3
– Using resources for social programs for the staff surplus in public
administration for work reintegration in tourism.
O
4
– Dynamic growth and development of air transport and reaching new
destinations.
O
5
– Strengthening regional cooperation and creating regional tourism
products for better positioning of tourism and attracting tourists
from distant overseas markets.
Threats (T)
T
1
– Political tensions in the Balkans.
T
2
– Losing the opportunity to use government reforms and abandoning
the longstanding policy of exclusively supporting public institutions.
T
3
– Abandoning the sale or licensing of every unprofitable property
whose owner is Serbia or public enterprises in tourism, which could
be used for supporting current or new small and medium-sized
enterprises.
T
4
– Lack of management and coordination reforms in developing tourism
in Serbia.
T
5
– Disconnected and uncoordinated activity in implementing the
Strategy and Action Plan for the Implementation of the Tourism
Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016–2025.
SO strategy
SO
1
– Improving tourist and traffic infrastructure in Serbia.
SO
2
– Improving tourist products and services in Serbia.
ST strategy
ST
1
– Improving the organization, management, and enhancement of
tourism development.
External factors
Strategies
WO strategy
WO
1
– Improving human resources and the labor market.
WT strategy
WT
1
– Networking with other sectors.
WT
2
– Improving the national tourism marketing system.

After defining the most influential factors and forming strategies, the final evaluation procedure with
extended PIPRECIA is performed in phase two.
4.2 Final evaluation: phase two
Table 2 shows the priorities for each SWOT group computed by applying Eqs. (1)–(12). The reliability of
the responses is checked with Spearman’s coefficient and, based on the results, the DMs’ responses are fully
justified and consistent in all iterations.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
31
Table 2: Importance degrees of SWOT groups.
w''
1
j
w''
2
j
w''
3
j
w''
4
j
w''
5
j
w
j
S 0.2173 0.2437 0.2689 0.2035 0.3106 0.2459
W 0.3545 0.2437 0.2689 0.1912 0.2535 0.2572
O 0.2508 0.2563 0.2195 0.2937 0.2070 0.2436
T 0.1775 0.2563 0.2427 0.3116 0.2289 0.2394
ρ 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00
The overall results obtained by using Eqs. (11)–(12), however, show that the Weaknesses Group is assigned
the highest priority.
The importance degrees for the factors from the Strengths Group are determined by using Eqs. (1)–(12),
and the results are presented in Table 3. The equations are used to determine the further results.
The importance degrees show that the most significant factor from this group is S
5
– Several airfields
that could become usable for low-budget air companies by making a small investment (Table 3).
Table 3: Importance degrees of the Strengths Group.
w''
1
j
w''
2
j
w''
3
j
w''
4
j
w''
5
j
w
j
S
1
0.1193 0.2241 0.2253 0.2881 0.1455 0.1907
S
2
0.2268 0.1793 0.1840 0.1659 0.1455 0.1784
S
3
0.1847 0.1793 0.2034 0.1659 0.1981 0.1858
S
4
0.1351 0.1982 0.2034 0.2191 0.2426 0.1960
S
5
0.3341 0.2191 0.1840 0.1610 0.2683 0.2254
ρ 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00
Table 4: Importance degrees of the Weaknesses Group.
w''
1
j
w''
2
j
w''
3
j
w''
4
j
w''
5
j
w
j
W
1
0.1811 0.2699 0.2122 0.2818 0.2570 0.2372
W
2
0.1543 0.2116 0.1919 0.1571 0.2098 0.1832
W
3
0.2053 0.2019 0.1919 0.1813 0.1898 0.1939
W
4
0.2597 0.1774 0.1919 0.2129 0.1717 0.2004
W
5
0.1995 0.1392 0.2122 0.1669 0.1717 0.1760
ρ 0.70 0.95 0.90 1.00 1.00
The results obtained for the Weaknesses Group are presented in Table 4. The highest priority in this group
is assigned to factor W
1
, which is connected to disrespect for environmental protection measures in pro-
tected nature areas and neglecting state-protected structures and monuments.

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
Table 5 shows the results of evaluating factors from the Opportunities Group. In this case, the most influ-
ential factor is O
4
– Dynamic growth and development of air transport and reaching new destinations.
32
Table 6 shows the local importance degrees for the Threats Group. It shows that the factor with the high-
est weight is T
4
– Lack of management and coordination reforms in developing tourism in Serbia.
The factor priority within the groups and the overall factor priorities are presented in Table 7.
Table 5: Importance degrees of the Opportunities Group.
w''
1
j
w''
2
j
w''
3
j
w''
4
j
w''
5
j
w
j
O
1
0.1559 0.2554 0.2164 0.1874 0.1759 0.1953
O
2
0.1337 0.2004 0.2164 0.2294 0.1945 0.1916
O
3
0.2013 0.1813 0.1767 0.1621 0.1759 0.1790
O
4
0.2970 0.1906 0.1953 0.2211 0.2155 0.2209
O
5
0.2122 0.1724 0.1953 0.2000 0.2382 0.2025
ρ 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.94
Table 6: Importance degrees of the Threats Group.
w''
1
j
w''
2
j
w''
3
j
w''
4
j
w''
5
j
w
j
T
1
0.2155 0.2588 0.1659 0.1778 0.2035 0.2018
T
2
0.1518 0.1898 0.2032 0.2349 0.2249 0.1986
T
3
0.1994 0.1898 0.2032 0.1918 0.2035 0.1975
T
4
0.2538 0.1898 0.2032 0.2215 0.1841 0.2090
T
5
0.1795 0.1717 0.2246 0.1739 0.1841 0.1858
ρ 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.94
Table 7: Overall priority scores of SWOT factors.
SWOT group Group priority SWOT factors Factor priority within group Overall factor priority
S 0.2459 S
1
0.1907 0.0469
S
2
0.1784 0.0439
S
3
0.1858 0.0457
S
4
0.1960 0.0482
S
5
0.2254 0.0554
W 0.2572 W
1
0.2372 0.0610
W
2
0.1832 0.0471
W
3
0.1939 0.0499
W
4
0.2004 0.0515
W
5
0.1760 0.0453
O 0.2436 O
1
0.1953 0.0476
O
2
0.1916 0.0467
O
3
0.1790 0.0436
O
4
0.2209 0.0538
O
5
0.2025 0.0493
T 0.2394 T
1
0.2018 0.0483
T
2
0.1986 0.0476
T
3
0.1975 0.0473
T
4
0.2090 0.0501
T
5
0.1858 0.0445

Each of the six strategies considered are evaluated relative to each SWOT factor estimated as the most impor-
tant in phase one. By multiplying these results by the overall factor priority, the importance degrees of the
strategies are defined (Tables 8a and 8b).
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
33
Table 8a: Importance degrees of strategies according to SWOT factors.
S
1
S
2
S
3
S
4
S
5
W
1
W
2
W
3
W
4
W
5
SO
1
0.1880 0.1499 0.1491 0.1421 0.1895 0.1187 0.1437 0.1259 0.1470 0.1632
SO
2
0.1874 0.1537 0.1620 0.1599 0.1638 0.1312 0.1600 0.1401 0.1490 0.1739
WO
1
0.1427 0.1590 0.1528 0.1522 0.1509 0.1403 0.1598 0.1489 0.1586 0.1601
WT
1
0.1373 0.1626 0.1635 0.1507 0.1562 0.1598 0.1645 0.1517 0.1620 0.1446
WT
2
0.1630 0.1705 0.1754 0.1956 0.1615 0.1920 0.1805 0.1791 0.1936 0.1743
ST
1
0.1816 0.2042 0.1971 0.1995 0.1782 0.2580 0.1915 0.2544 0.1898 0.1839
Table 8b: Priority scores of strategies according to SWOT factors.
O
1
O
2
O
3
O
4
O
5
T
1
T
2
T
3
T
4
T
5
SO
1
0.1820 0.1744 0.1332 0.2083 0.1462 0.1690 0.1551 0.1528 0.1646 0.1890
SO
2
0.1907 0.1435 0.1679 0.1830 0.1517 0.1635 0.1713 0.1397 0.1519 0.1585
WO
1
0.1725 0.1434 0.1945 0.1469 0.1516 0.1689 0.1738 0.1636 0.1672 0.1584
WT
1
0.1517 0.1728 0.1712 0.1370 0.1616 0.1516 0.1634 0.1548 0.1583 0.1673
WT
2
0.1500 0.1876 0.1524 0.1553 0.1747 0.1748 0.1673 0.1771 0.1702 0.1611
ST
1
0.1531 0.1782 0.1809 0.1695 0.2141 0.1722 0.1691 0.2120 0.1877 0.1657
Table 9 shows the overall priority of the strategies considered. Figure 2 shows the final ranking order of the
strategies evaluated.
Table 9: Overall priority of the strategies.
Strategy Overall priority Rank
SO
1
Improving tourist and traffic infrastructure in Serbia 0.1553 4
SO
2
Improving tourist products and services in Serbia 0.1556 3
WO
1
Improvement human resources and the labor market 0.1537 5
WT
1
Networking with other sectors 0.1528 6
WT
2
Improving the national tourism marketing system 0.1685 2
ST
1
Improving the organization, management, and enhancement of tourism development 0.1879 1
Figure 2 shows that the highest overall priority is assigned to strategy ST
1
– Improving the organization,
management, and enhancement of tourism development. This result is fully justified, especially when tak-
ing into account the most influential factor from the Threats Group, T
4
– Lack of management and coordination
reforms in developing tourism in Serbia. There is a need to seriously improve tourism management, mod-
ernize tourism organizations, and renovate tourism infrastructure. Based on the results, the strategy that
should be implemented last is WT
1
– Networking with other sectors. This does not mean that this strategy
is the least important, but that the appropriate conditions must be created that will allow the coordinated
action of all sectors.

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
5 Discussion
The reason for proposing a model based on the SWOT and PIPRECIA methods is that, although SWOT
analysis is a proven strategic tool, it has certain flaws. SWOT analysis has a qualitative nature and cannot
reveal the importance of factors or their impact on the final decision (Yüksel and Dagdeviren 2007;
Kajanus et al. 2012; Vlados 2019). This is resolved by combining the SWOT technique with extended
PIPRECIA. This new integrated model clearly shows the significance of the SWOT factors as well as which
of them is the most influential.
Compared to the A ’WOT model, which is often used for prioritizing strategies (Kajanus, Kangas and
Kurttila 2004; Akbulak and Cengiz 2014; Kişi 2019; Bottero, D’ Alpaos and Marello 2020), the proposed
integrated model has certain advantages. The proposed approach uses a decision-making procedure adjust-
ed for a group decision environment and, although extended PIPRECIA is somewhat complicated, it is
easy for respondents to understand.
The proposed model has certain benefits relative to the SW ARA method, which is also used in com-
bination with SWOT analysis (Popović, Milovanović and Stanujkić 2018). Although the SW ARA method,
which represents the core of extended PIPRECIA, has a computational procedure that is much easier, it
is not suitable for a group decision environment. This is mainly because the SW ARA method requires pre-
sorting of the criteria considered, and so all DMs can give their ranking orders, which complicates obtaining
the results. Extended PIPRECIA does not involve pre-sorting the criteria in the evaluation procedure, which
facilitates gathering and calculating the results from a greater number of DMs. Furthermore, extended
PIPRECIA predicts verifying the reliability of the results, which is not the case with the SW ARA method.
The proposed model was applied to a case study examining the advantages and disadvantages of tourism
in Serbia. The SWOT analysis used in this work is taken from the Tourism Development Strategy of the
Republic of Serbia 2016–2025 (2016). Because this analysis contains many factors, the evaluation was con-
ducted in two phases. In phase one, the five most important factors from each SWOT group were determined
by using the PIPRECIA method and group decision-making. In phase two, the final priority scores of the
34
4
th
3
rd
5
th
6
th
2
nd
1
st
0
00 . 6
00 . 8
0.12
0.14
0.16
00 . 2
00 . 4
01 .
01 . 8
02 .
SO
1
SO
2
WO
1
WT
1
WT
2
ST
1
Figure 2: Final ranking order of strategies.

factors and the final ranking of the strategies relative to the given factors were calculated. The evaluation
process in both phases was entrusted to tourism experts, who are familiar with the tourism situation in
Serbia. The strategy assigned priority under current conditions is strategy ST
1
–Improving the organiza-
tion, management, and enhancement of tourism development. This is justified because, although Serbia has
great tourism potential, it should improve organization and management in tourism and improve its posi-
tion on the world tourism market.
Comparing the results with those obtained by other researchers shows a certain disparity among coun-
tries regarding the priority of strategies for tourism development. For example, Ajmera (2017) inferred
that the SO strategy is the best choice for medical tourism development in India. Büyüközkan, Mukul and
Kongar (2020) also emphasize the SO strategy for health tourism development in Istanbul, T urkey. Abadi et al.
(2018) defined the WO strategy as the best for medical tourism in Iran. For ecotourism in Djerdap National
Park in Serbia, the most important strategy is ST, as in our case (Arsić, Nikolić and Živković 2017). The
fact that these studies focus on different types of tourism does not influence the conclusion that the method-
ology used does not affect the result but depends on the tourism situation in a given country. As stated,
there are many issues to resolve in Serbian tourism, which leads to the result presented here.
In this particular case, decision-making is performed by five DMs. By involving a greater number of
DMs from different tourism structures, the results are more reliable. It would be desirable to perform a new
SWOT analysis taking into account the current situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. A disadvantage
of the proposed model is the use of precise numbers. Decision-making is conducted in an environment char-
acterized by uncertainty and vagueness, and so it is important to include this incertitude in the decision
process. By introducing fuzzy sets (Atanassov 1986), gray systems (Deng 1982), or neutrosophic numbers
(Smarandache 2005), the reliability of the analysis and the decisions will increase because the vagueness
and uncertainty of the environment will be better included.
6 Conclusion
Decision-making in tourism and other research areas requires a methodical approach to achieve appro-
priate decisions. Mathematical tools such as MCDM methods are often used to increase the level of certainty
of the decisions. As stated previously, this article proposes applying an integrated model based on SWOT
analysis and extended PIPRECIA as a decision-making aid for strategic planning in tourism. The possi-
bilities of the integrated model are tested using a case study to identify the key determinants for tourism
development in Serbia. The results are appropriate and in line with current positions on tourism in Serbia.
By introducing the new integrated SWOT – extended PIPRECIA model, the theoretical and practi-
cal dimensions of MCDM are enhanced and the possibilities of its application are clearly outlined. The
crucial advantages of the model lie in its suitability for application in a group-decision environment, its
relatively simple and understandable procedure, and the systematic approach for DMs in identifying and
implementing strategies for tourism development. Applying the integrated model to tourism in Serbia offers
a completely different perspective from one based only on SWOT analysis. An obsolete and generalized
SWOT analysis, the small number of DMs involved in the evaluation, and the use of precise numbers are
the main limitations of this article.
As the literature review shows, the proposed model has not been widely explored and discussed yet,
and so the directions for future research lie in examining this model in various research areas. Future research
should also address integrating the model with rough, fuzzy, intuitionistic, or gray numbers. This would
acknowledge the uncertainty that is always part of the decision process at a higher level.
7 References
Abadi, F. A., Sahebi, I. G., Arab, A., Alavi, A., Karachi, H. 2018: Application of best-worst method in eval-
uation of medical tourism development strategy. Decision Science Letters 7-1. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.5267/j.dsl.2017.4.002
Ajmera, P . 2017: Ranking the strategies for Indian medical tourism sector through the integration of SWOT
analysis and TOPSIS method. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 30-8. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-05-2016-0073
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
35

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
Akbulak, C., Cengiz, T. 2014: Determining ecotourism strategies using A ’WOT hybrid method: Case study
of Troia Historical National Park, Çanakkale, Turkey. International Journal of Sustainable Development
and World Ecology 21-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.903383
Akincilar, A., Dagdeviren, M. 2014: A hybrid multi-criteria decision making model to evaluate hotel web-
sites. International Journal of Hospitality Management 36. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.10.002
Aksoy, S., Ozbuk, M. Y . 2017: Multiple criteria decision making in hotel location: does it relate to post-
purchase consumer evaluations? Tourism Management Perspectives 22. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/
j.tmp.2017.02.001
Aliani, H., Kafaky, S. B., Saffari, A., Monavari, S. M. 2017: Land evaluation for ecotourism development –
An integrated approach based on FUZZY , WLC and ANP methods. International Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology 14-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1291-5
Armenski, T., Dwyer, L., Pavluković, V . 2018: Destination competitiveness: Public and private sector tourism
management in Serbia. Journal of Travel Research 57-3. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1177/0047287517692445
Arsić, S., Nikolić, D., Živković, Ž. 2017: Hybrid SWOT-ANP-FANP model for prioritization strategies of sus-
tainable development of ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia. Forest Policy and Economics 80.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.02.003
Atanassov, K. T. 1986: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0165-0114(86)80034-3
Blešić, I., Pivac, T., Đorđević, J., Stamenković, I., Janićević, S. 2014: Cultural events as part of cultural tourism
development. Case study: Sombor and Apatin (Serbia). Acta geographica Slovenica 54-2. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54406
Bottero, M., D’ Alpaos, C., Marello, A. 2020: An application of the a’WOT analysis for the management of
cultural heritage assets: The case of the historical farmhouses in the Aglié Castle (Turin). Sustainability
12-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031071
Božić, S., Tomić, N. 2016: Developing the cultural route evaluation model (CREM) and its application on
the Trail of Roman Emperors, Serbia. Tourism Management Perspectives 17. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tmp.2015.11.002
Büyüközkan, G., Mukul, E., Kongar, E. 2021: Health tourism strategy selection via SWOT analysis and inte-
grated hesitant fuzzy linguistic AHP-MABAC approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 74. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100929
Cetin, M. 2015: Evaluation of the sustainable tourism potential of a protected area for landscape planning:
A case study of the ancient city of Pompeipolis in Kastamonu. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 22-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1081651
Cetin, M., Zeren, I., Sevik, H., Cakir, C., Akpinar, H. 2018: A study on the determination of the natural
park’ s sustainable tourism potential. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 190. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/
10.1007/s10661-018-6534-5
Cheng, Q., Su, B., Tan, J. 2013: Developing an evaluation index system for low-carbon tourist attractions
in China – a case study examining the Xixi wetland. Tourism Management 36. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.019
Chou, T. Y ., Hsu, C. L., Chen, M. C. 2008: A fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for international tourist
hotels location selection. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27-2. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.029
Đalić, I., Ateljević, J., Stević, Ž., Terzić, S. 2020a: An integrated SWOT – fuzzy PIPRECIA model for analysis
of competitiveness in order to improve logistics performances. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical
Engineering 18-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME200325029D
Đalić, I., Stević, Ž., Karamasa, C., Puška, A. 2020b: A novel integrated fuzzy PIPRECIA – interval rough
saw model: green supplier selection. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering
3-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2003114d
Demir, S., Esbah, H., Akgün, A. A. 2016: Quantitative SWOT analysis for prioritizing ecotourism – plan-
ning decisions in protected areas: Igneada case. International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology 23-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1136709
Deng, J. L. 1982: Control problems of grey systems. Systems and Control Letters 1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0167-6911(82)80025-X
36

Dimitrovski, D. D., Todorović, A. T., Valjarević, A. D. 2012: Rural tourism and regional development: case
study of development of rural tourism in the region of Gruža, Serbia. Procedia Environmental Sciences
14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.03.028
Dragićević, V ., Besermenji, S., Pivac, T., Ivkov-Džigurski, A., Košić, K. 2013: Evaluation of tourist attrac-
tiveness and museum management in Sombor and Apatin (Serbia). Acta geographica Slovenica 53-2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53405
Dragićević, V ., Jovičić, D., Blešić, I., Stankov, U., Bošković, D. 2012: Business tourism destination com-
petitiveness: A case of Vojvodina Province (Serbia). Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 25-2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2012.11517510
Gavade, R. K. 2014: Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An overview of different selection problems and meth-
ods. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies 5-4.
Ghazinoory, S., Abdi, M., Azadegan-Mehr, M. 2011: SWOT methodology: A state-of-the-art review for
the past, a framework for the future. Journal of Business Economics and Management 12-1. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.555358
Gómez-Vega, M., Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. 2019: Ranking world tourist destinations with a composite indicator
of competitiveness: To weigh or not to weigh? Tourism Management 72. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/
j.tourman.2018.11.006
Gürel, E., Tat, M. 2017: SWOT analysis: A theoretical review. Journal of International Social Research 10-51.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1832
Helms, M. M., Nixon, J. 2010: Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now? A review of academic research
from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management 3-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/
17554251011064837
Hill, T., Westbrook, R. 1997: SWOT analysis: it’s time for a product recall. Long Range Planning 30-1. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00095-7
Hu, Y . C. 2009: Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making in the determination of critical criteria for assessing
service quality of travel websites. Expert Systems with Applications 36-3. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/
j.eswa.2008.07.046
Huang, J. H., Peng, K. H. 2012: Fuzzy Rasch model in TOPSIS: A new approach for generating fuzzy num-
bers to assess the competitiveness of the tourism industries in Asian countries. Tourism Management
33-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.05.006
Jiskani, I. M., Shah, S. A. A., Qingxiang, C., Zhou, W ., Lu, X. 2020: A multi-criteria based SWOT analysis
of sustainable planning for mining and mineral industry in Pakistan. Arabian Journal of Geosciences
13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06090-3
Kajanus, M., Kangas, J., Kurttila, M. 2004: The use of value focused thinking and the A ’WOT hybrid method
in tourism management. T ourism Management 25-4. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00120-1
Kajanus, M., Leskinen, P ., Kurttila, M., Kangas, J. 2012: Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analy-
sis – Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management. Forest Policy and Economics 20. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005
Karabasevic, D., Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Maksimovic, M., Sava, C. 2019: An approach for hotel type
selection based on the single-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. International Review 2019-1,2.
Keršuliene, V ., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. 2010: Selection of rational dispute resolution method by apply-
ing new stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SW ARA). Journal of Business Economics and
Management 11-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12
Khan, M. I. 2018: Evaluating the strategies of compressed natural gas industry using an integrated SWOT
and MCDM approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 172. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.231
Kişi, N. 2019: A strategic approach to sustainable tourism development using the A ’WOT hybrid method:
A case study of Zonguldak, Turkey. Sustainability 11-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040964
Košić, K., Pivac, T., Romelić, J., Lazić, L., Stojanović, V . 2011: Characteristics of thermal–mineral waters
in Backa region (Vojvodina) and their exploitation in spa tourism. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 15-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.004
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M. 2000: Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in
SWOT analysis – A hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and
Economics 1-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
37

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
Liu, C. H., Tzeng, G. H., Lee, M. H. 2012: Improving tourism policy implementation – the use of hybrid
MCDM models. Tourism Management 33-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.05.002
Memiş, S., Demir, E., Karamaşa, Ç., Korucuk, S. 2020: Prioritization of road transportation risks: An appli-
cation in Giresun province. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications 3-2.
Michailidou, A. V ., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, Ν. 2016: Interactions between climate change and
the tourism sector: multiple-criteria decision analysis to assess mitigation and adaptation options in
tourism areas. Tourism Management 55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.010
Michalena, E., Hills, J., Amat, J. P . 2009: Developing sustainable tourism, using a multicriteria analysis on
renewable energy in Mediterranean Islands. Energy for Sustainable Development 13-2. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/
10.1016/j.esd.2009.06.001
Mimović, P ., Kocić, M., Milanović, M. 2012: A ’WOT model in selecting the optimal tourism development
strategy in Vrnjacka Banja. Teme 36-2.
Morteza, Z., Reza, F . M., Seddiq, M. M., Sharareh, P ., Jamal, G. 2016: Selection of the optimal tourism site
using the ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS in the framework of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A case of
Qeshm Island. Ocean and Coastal Management 130. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.06.012
Mulec, I., Wise, N. 2013: Indicating the competitiveness of Serbia’s Vojvodina Region as an emerging tourism
destination. Tourism Management Perspectives 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.07.001
Nikolić, Đ., Spasić, J., Živković, Ž., Đorđević, P ., Mihajlović, I., Kangas, J. 2015: SWOT-AHP model for
prioritization of strategies of the resort Stara Planina. Serbian Journal of Management 10-2.
Pavluković, V ., Stankov, U., Arsenović, D. 2020: Social impacts of music festivals: A comparative study of Sziget
(Hungary) and Exit (Serbia). Acta geographica Slovenica 60-1. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.3986/AGS.6514
Petrović, M. D., Vujko, A., Gajić, T., Vuković, D. B., Radovanović, M., Jovanović, J. M., Vuković, N. 2018:
Tourism as an approach to sustainable rural development in post-socialist countries: A comparative
study of Serbia and Slovenia. Sustainability 10-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010054
Popović, G., Đorđević, B., Milanović, D. 2019: Multiple criteria approach in the mining method selection.
Industrija 47-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/industrija47-24128
Popović, G., Mihajlović, D. 2018: An MCDM approach to tourism projects evaluation: The Upper
Danube Basin case. Modern Management Tools and Economy of Tourism Sector in Present Era, 3rd
International Thematic Monograph – Thematic Proceedings. Ohrid. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31410/
tmt.2018.129
Popović, G., Milovanović, G., Stanujkić, D. 2018: Prioritization of strategies for tourism development by
applying a SWOT-SW ARA analysis: The case of Sokobanja Spa. T eme 42-3. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.22190/
TEME1803999P
Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D. 2019: A framework for the evaluation of hotel property devel-
opment projects. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 23-2. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.3846/
ijspm.2019.7435
Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Maksimovic, M., Sava, C. 2019: Multiple criteria approach in
the ranking of the sustainable indicators for cultural heritage sites. Quaestus 14.
Puška, A., Stojanović, I., Maksimović, A. 2019: Evaluation of sustainable rural tourism potential in Brcko
district of Bosnia and Herzegovina using multi-criteria analysis. Operational Research in Engineering
Sciences: Theory and Applications 2-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta190261p
Reihanian, A., Mahmood, N. Z. B., Kahrom, E., Hin, T. W . 2012: Sustainable tourism development strat-
egy by SWOT analysis: Boujagh National Park, Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives 4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.08.005
Rozman, Č., Potočnik, M., Pažek, K., Borec, A., Majkovič, D., Bohanec, M. 2009: A multi-criteria assess-
ment of tourist farm service quality. Tourism Management 30-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tourman.2008.11.008
Saaty, T. L. 1980: The analytic hierarchy process. New Y ork.
Sariisik, M., Turkay, O., Akova, O. 2011: How to manage yacht tourism in Turkey: A SWOT analysis and
related strategies. Procedia  – Social and Behavioral Sciences 24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2011.09.041
Smarandache, F . 2005: Neutrosophic set – a generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. International Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics 24-3.
38

Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Sava, C. 2018: An application of the PIPRECIA and WS PLP methods for
evaluating website quality in hotel industry. Quaestus 12.
Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Smarandache, F ., Cavallaro, F . 2019: An approach to deter-
mining customer satisfaction in traditional Serbian restaurants. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability
Issues 6-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.3(5)
Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Karabasevic, D., Smarandache, F., Turskis, Z. 2017a: The use of the pivot
pairwise relative criteria importance assessment method for determining the weights of criteria. Romanian
Journal of Economic Forecasting 20-4.
Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Karabasevic, D., Urosevic, S., Maksimovic, M. 2017b: An approach for eval-
uating website quality in hotel industry based on triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Informatica 28-4.
Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Liu, S., Karabasevic, D., Popovic, G. 2017c: Improved OCRA method based
on the use of interval grey numbers. Journal of Grey System 29-4.
Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Tamošaitienė, J. 2015: An approach to measuring website quality in the
rural tourism industry based on Atanassov intuitionistic fuzzy sets. E+M Ekonomie a Management
18-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2015-4-013
Stević, Ž., Stjepanović, Ž., Božičković, Z., Das, D. K., Stanujkić, D. 2018: Assessment of conditions for imple-
menting information technology in a warehouse system: A novel fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Symmetry
10-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10110586
Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., Mardani, A. 2019: Application of MCDM methods
in sustainability engineering: A literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry 11-3. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.3390/sym11030350
Tourism Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016–2025. Ministry of Trade, Tourism and
Telecommunications of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, 2016.
Todorović, M., Bjeljac, Ž. 2009: Rural tourism in Serbia as a concept of development in undeveloped regions.
Acta geographica Slovenica 49-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS49208
Tseng, M. L. 2011: Using hybrid MCDM to evaluate the service quality expectation in linguistic preference.
Applied Soft Computing 11-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.08.011
Vasiljević, D. A., Marković, S. B., Hose, T. A., Smalley, I., O’Hara-Dhand, K., Basarin, B., Lukić, T., Vujičić,
M. D. 2011: Loess towards (geo) tourism – proposed application on loess in Vojvodina region (north
Serbia). Acta geographica Slovenica 51-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS51305
Vesković, S., Milinković, S., Abramović, B., Ljubaj, I. 2020: Determining criteria significance in selecting
reach stackers by applying the fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences:
Theory and Applications 3-1.
Vlados, C. 2019: On a correlative and evolutionary SWOT analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management
12-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-02-2019-0026
Vujičić, M. D., V asiljević, D. A., Marković, S. B., Hose, T . A., Lukić, T ., Hadžić, O., Janićević, S. 2011: Preliminary
geosite assessment model (GAM) and its application on Fruška Gora Mountain, potential geotourism
destination of Serbia. Acta geographica Slovenica 51-2. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.3986/AGS51303
Vujko, A., Plavša, J. 2014: Evaluation of Fruška Gora National Park (Serbia) for sport and recreational tourism.
Acta geographica Slovenica 54-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54206
Wu, C., Wang, R. 2014: Evaluating Chinese tourist’s service quality criteria under uncertainty. International
Review of Management and Business Research 3-2.
Wu, W . W . 2011: Beyond Travel and Tourism competitiveness ranking using DEA, GST, ANN and Borda
count. Expert Systems with Applications 38-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.096
Yüksel, İ., Dagˇdeviren, M. 2007: Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis – a case
study for a textile firm. Information Sciences 177-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.001
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. 2011: Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An
overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 17-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/
20294913.2011.593291
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Kildienė, S. 2014: State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM
methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20-1. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.3846/
20294913.2014.892037
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
39

G. Popović, D. Stanujkić, P . Mimović, G. Milovanović, D. Karabašević, P . Brzaković, A. Brzaković, An integrated SWOT …
Zhang, H., Gu, C. L., Gu, L. W ., Zhang, Y . 2011: The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by
TOPSIS and information entropy – A case in the Y angtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management
32-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.007
Zoraghi, N., Amiri, M., Talebi, G., Zowghi, M. 2013: A fuzzy MCDM model with objective and subjective
weights for evaluating service quality in hotel industries. Journal of Industrial Engineering International
9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-712X-9-38
40