Next Article in Journal
Modeling the Process of Crop Yield Management in Hydroagro-Landscape Saline Soils
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Impact of Demographic Growth on the Educational Infrastructure for Sustainable Regional Development: Forecasting Demand for Preschool and Primary School Enrollment in Kazakhstan
Previous Article in Special Issue
Leadership Behaviors and Leader Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Cultural Intelligence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/su17094213
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimizing Tour Guide Selection: A Best–Worst Scaled Assessment of Critical Performance Criteria for Enhanced Tour Quality

by
Omer Bafail
1,* and
Abdulkader Hanbazazah
2
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 80204, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 23890, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 4213; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094213
Submission received: 27 March 2025 / Revised: 21 April 2025 / Accepted: 5 May 2025 / Published: 7 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management and Organizational Behavior in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study addresses the critical need for an evaluation framework for tour guides within the rapidly expanding tourism sector of Saudi Arabia. Employing the best–worst method, a robust multi-criteria decision-making technique, this study identifies and prioritizes key criteria for tour guide performance. Experts ranked local cultural and historical background as the most significant attribute, demonstrating its importance in delivering authentic and enriching visitor experiences. Results revealed the relative weights of other criteria, highlighting the significance of several factors such as language proficiency, time management, and environmental and ethical awareness. Notably, technology adaption criterion received the lowest weighting, indicating a potential area for future focus within the Saudi tourism sector. The study’s findings provide a foundational framework for developing a comprehensive tour guide evaluation system. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on tour guide evaluation and offers practical implications for training and development initiatives within the Saudi Arabian tourism industry.

1. Introduction

The role of tour guides is pivotal in shaping visitors’ experiences and fostering positive destination perceptions within the global tourism industry. These professionals function as cultural intermediaries, constructing narratives that illuminate historical sites and local traditions, while simultaneously ensuring tourist safety and satisfaction [1,2,3].
According to World Travel and Tourism Council analysis, global workforce participation in the travel sector reached 9.1% during 2021, with expansion metrics outpacing broader economic indicators by registering 3.8% advancement [4]. This robust performance has positioned tourism as a fundamental catalyst for fiscal development, revenue generation, and employment opportunities across diverse economies worldwide.
In the context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a burgeoning tourism destination propelled by its Vision 2030 initiative, the need for a robust framework to classify and develop tour guides is particularly acute.
Saudi Arabia has witnessed an unprecedented surge in tourism, establishing itself as a significant player in the global travel market. Recent data indicates a significant increase in international visitor arrivals compared to pre-pandemic levels, with nearly 28 million visitors in 2023, surpassing global tourism recovery rates [5]. This growth has yielded substantial economic benefits, with foreign tourist spending reaching USD 37.6 billion in 2023 [5].
Despite extensive research on tour guide evaluation criteria in various global contexts, the Saudi Arabian tourism sector is currently characterized by a lacuna in standardized evaluation methodologies for tour guides. Previous studies have employed diverse methodological approaches to evaluate tour guide performance, including traditional surveys, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). However, these methodologies often suffer from inconsistency in pairwise comparisons when requiring a large number of comparison judgments, resulting in potential cognitive burden on decision-makers.
The novelty of this research lies in both the methodological approach and contextual application. While previous studies have identified various criteria for tour guide evaluation, they have not systematically prioritized these criteria within the unique cultural, religious, and historical context. This study fills the gap within the context of Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the application of the best–worst method (BWM) to tour guide criteria prioritization represents a methodological advancement over previous approaches. This study directly addresses the gap identified in the literature, which emphasized the need for context-specific evaluation frameworks that account for the distinctive characteristics of emerging tourism destinations.
The burgeoning tourism sector within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, despite its notable expansion, is currently characterized by a lacuna in standardized evaluation methodologies for tour guides. Existing practices, predicated primarily upon the fulfillment of prerequisite qualifications, lack the nuanced assessment inherent in a comprehensive evaluation framework. The implementation of a structured classification system, therefore, represents a salient opportunity to optimize service quality, augment tourist satisfaction, and foster the sustainable development of the sector. A well-constructed framework would facilitate the efficient allocation of human capital by aligning tour guides with assignments commensurate with their specific skill sets and knowledge domains. The efficacy of tour guides is contingent upon a confluence of attributes, encompassing a profound understanding of local history, culture, and attractions, coupled with adept communication and narrative construction skills. Furthermore, adaptability to heterogeneous groups, robust organizational and temporal management proficiencies, cultural acumen, linguistic fluency, problem-solving capabilities, and a commitment to perpetual professional development are indispensable [6,7,8]. These attributes serve as the foundational elements for a classification paradigm that accurately evaluates and ranks tour guides. This study endeavors to address the exigent need for a structured evaluation system for tour guides within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through the application of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies. Consequently, this study prioritizes the ranking of criteria according to their relative importance, as perceived by subject matter experts in the Saudi Arabian tourism domain. The identification of pertinent criteria will be achieved through a systematic review of existing scholarly literature. Subsequently, the best–worst method (BWM) will be employed to ascertain the relative weights of these criteria. The BWM is selected for its capacity to yield more consistent and reliable results in comparison to traditional pairwise comparison techniques [9]. This study seeks to answer the following research question: firstly, what are the most critical criteria for the evaluation of tour guides within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Secondly, what is the relative importance of the criteria for evaluating tour guides in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, according to the opinion of tourism experts?
Answering these questions will open up numerous other research opportunities, including studying each criterion individually to identify the best practices and methods for evaluating these criteria. It will also pave the way for developing an integrated system and classifying guides into different categories based on the guide’s score on each of the specified criteria.
The balance of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a comprehensive literature review, examining existing research on tour guide classification, the application of BWM in tourism management, and the current state of tourism in Saudi Arabia. Section 3 describes a detailed explanation of the BWM, including data collection procedures and analysis techniques. Section 4 presents the results obtained from applying the BWM. Section 5 provides interpretation of the findings, their implications for the Saudi tourism industry. Section 6 summarizes the key findings, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research and practical applications.

2. Relevant Literature

2.1. Tour Guide Evaluation Research and Criteria Selection

Tour guide evaluation has evolved significantly over the past several decades, with researchers employing various methodological approaches and focusing on different sets of criteria. Early studies in the 1980s and 1990s, such as those by Cohen [10] and Holloway [11], established foundational conceptualizations of tour guide roles but offered limited empirical evaluation frameworks. These studies primarily emphasize knowledge and communication skills as core competencies.
The research paradigm shifted in the early 2000s, with studies by Black and Weiler [12] and Wong [13] introducing more comprehensive evaluation criteria including interpersonal skills, professional ethics, and cultural sensitivity. Zhang and Chow [14] further expanded this framework by incorporating customer service orientation and problem-solving abilities. More recent studies by Huang et al. [15] and Rabotic [16] have emphasized the increasing importance of technological literacy, sustainability awareness, and emotional intelligence in tour guide evaluation.
The criteria selection process of this study involved a systematic review of this evolutionary literature, with particular attention to studies published between 2000 and 2023. This identified recurring evaluation dimensions across multiple cultural contexts, while remaining attentive to criteria that might have special relevance to Saudi Arabia’s unique cultural and religious heritage. This approach ensures both scholarly rigor through grounding in established literature and contextual relevance through adaptation to local conditions.
The specific criteria selected for this study represent both traditional evaluation dimensions (knowledge, communication skills, professionalism) that have demonstrated consistent importance across studies [15,17,18] and emerging criteria (technological literacy, cultural sensitivity, sustainability awareness) that reflect contemporary tourist expectations [19,20,21]. This balanced approach differentiates this study from previous work that often prioritized either traditional competencies or emerging skills without systematic integration of both dimensions.

2.2. Role and Impact of Tour Guides in Tourism Experience

Tour guides play a pivotal role in shaping tourist experiences, acting as cultural ambassadors and knowledge disseminators [10]. Their function extends beyond mere navigation, encompassing the interpretation of historical, cultural, and natural sites, thereby enriching the visitor’s understanding and appreciation [22]. In an increasingly competitive tourism market, the quality of tour guide services directly influences tourist satisfaction, destination image, and repeat visitation [23,24,25]. As intermediaries between tourists and destinations, tour guides are instrumental in fostering positive perceptions and enhancing the overall tourism experience [26]. The importance of tour guides is amplified in cultural tourism, where accurate and engaging interpretation is crucial for conveying the significance of heritage sites [27]. Furthermore, tour guides contribute to sustainable tourism practices by promoting responsible behavior and fostering environmental awareness among tourists [28]. Their ability to effectively communicate and engage with diverse audiences is essential for creating memorable and educational experiences [29]. The professional competence of tour guides is a significant factor in determining the quality of tourism services, impacting both individual satisfaction and the broader economic benefits of tourism [25,26,30]. In the digital era, tour guides must also adapt to changing tourist expectations, incorporating technology and interactive elements into their tours [26,31,32,33,34]. The ability to provide personalized and authentic experiences is increasingly valued by tourists, highlighting the critical role of tour guides in delivering high-quality service [35]. The training and development of tour guides is crucial for maintaining professional standards and ensuring the sustainability of the tourism industry [8,24,36,37,38]. The role of tour guides in managing tourist behavior and minimizing negative impacts on destinations is also significant. Their expertise contributes to the preservation of cultural heritage and the protection of natural environments [39]. In essence, tour guides are integral to the success of tourism, influencing visitor satisfaction, destination image, and sustainable development [40].

2.3. Evaluation Criteria for Tour Guide Performance: Comparative Analysis of Previous Studies

Numerous studies have identified key criteria for evaluating tour guide performance. Communication skills are consistently highlighted as essential, including clarity, fluency, and the ability to engage with diverse audiences [41]. Knowledge of the destination, encompassing historical, cultural, and environmental aspects, is another critical factor [36,42]. Professionalism, including punctuality, preparedness, and ethical conduct, is also widely recognized as important [8,43]. Interpersonal skills, such as empathy, friendliness, and the ability to handle challenging situations, are crucial for creating positive tourist experiences. Language proficiency is particularly significant for international tourists, enabling effective communication and cultural exchange [44]. Organizational skills, including time management and the ability to manage group dynamics, are essential for ensuring smooth tour operations [45]. Adaptability and flexibility are also valued, as tour guides must be able to respond to unexpected situations and cater to individual needs. The ability to provide accurate and engaging interpretation is vital for conveying the significance of tourist attractions. Enthusiasm and passion for the destination can enhance the tourist experience and create a more memorable tour. Safety awareness and the ability to handle emergencies are crucial for ensuring tourist well-being [46]. The use of technology and digital tools to enhance tour experiences is becoming increasingly important [47]. Problem-solving skills and the ability to handle complaints effectively are crucial for maintaining customer satisfaction [48]. The ability to create a positive and inclusive atmosphere for all tour participants is also important. The guide’s appearance and presentation can also influence tourist perceptions. The ability to provide information that is both accurate and relevant to the tourist’s interests is essential. The guide’s ability to create a sense of place and connect tourists to the destination is a valuable attribute.
While previous studies have often focused on specific subsets of criteria, this study summarizes the full spectrum of traditional and emerging evaluation dimensions. Furthermore, it adapts these criteria to the unique religious, cultural, and developmental context of tourism in Saudi Arabia, addressing a significant gap in the literature. Unlike previous descriptive studies, this work provides clear guidance on the relative importance of criteria, enabling the efficient allocation of resources for tour guide training and development.

2.4. Application of MCDM Methodologies in Tourism and Tour Guide Evaluation

MCDM methodologies have been increasingly used in tourism research to evaluate and rank various aspects of tourism services, including tour guide performance. AHP has been applied to assess tour guide effectiveness based on multiple criteria [49,50,51,52]. TOPSIS has been used to rank tour guides based on their performance in different dimensions [53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. Fuzzy MCDM methods have been employed to address the uncertainty and vagueness associated with evaluating tour guide performance [60,61,62]. However, these traditional MCDM approaches suffer from several limitations; for example, AHP requires a complete set of pairwise comparisons n ( n − 1 ) 2 [63], where n is number of criteria, which becomes cognitively demanding as the number of criteria increases [64]. On the other hand, the BWM, a relatively recent MCDM technique, has gained popularity due to its simplicity and efficiency in determining criteria weights [9]. BWM has been applied in various fields, including supply chain management, logistics, and sustainability assessment. While the application of BWM in tour guide evaluation is still limited, its ability to provide reliable and consistent results makes it a promising approach for identifying tour guides criteria weights and ranking the importance of tour guide criteria. BWM requires fewer pairwise comparisons compared to AHP, reducing the cognitive burden on decision-makers [65,66]. The consistency ratio provided by BWM ensures the reliability of the results, making it a robust method for criteria weighting [9]. The flexibility of BWM allows for the incorporation of both quantitative and qualitative criteria, making it suitable for evaluating the multifaceted aspects of tour guide performance.
Several comparative studies have empirically demonstrated BWM’s advantages over other MCDM methods. Several previous studies found that the BWM consistently produced more reliable weights with fewer comparisons compared to other MCDM methods such as AHP [65,66,67,68,69,70]. This advantage makes BWM particularly suitable for the tourism industry, where evaluation often involves multiple qualitative criteria and relies on expert judgments that may be subject to cognitive limitations and inconsistencies. Furthermore, fewer comparisons can help reduce the tediousness or randomness of the evaluation process.
Note that, since its introduction, BWM has been successfully applied across numerous disciplines, demonstrating its versatility and effectiveness. For instance, in supply chain management [71,72,73,74], sustainable development [75,76,77,78], agriculture [79,80,81,82,83,84], healthcare [85,86,87], transportation [88], and education [89,90,91,92]. These diverse applications demonstrate BWM’s flexibility and robustness across different decision contexts, supporting its adoption for tour guide evaluation in the Saudi Arabian tourism sector.

3. Methodology

This study employs the BWM, a robust MCDM technique, to ascertain the relative importance of criteria pertinent to the evaluation of tour guides within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The selection of BWM is predicated on its capacity to provide consistent and reliable weightings of criteria through structured pairwise comparisons, thereby addressing the inherent complexities associated with subjective evaluations. This study adopts a quantitative methodological approach, grounded in the mathematical principles underpinning the BWM framework. A deductive reasoning strategy is utilized, commencing with the foundational theorems of BWM and progressing toward its practical application in the specific context of tour guide evaluation. This method facilitates the systematic and rigorous determination of criteria weights, enabling the identification of key attributes that contribute to effective tour guide performance. The adoption of BWM is particularly pertinent in scenarios where a clear and transparent prioritization of criteria is essential, as it offers a streamlined and efficient alternative to traditional pairwise comparison methods, mitigating potential inconsistencies and enhancing the accuracy of the decision-making process.
The BWM, introduced by Rezaei [9] in 2015, is an MCDM technique that simplifies the process of criteria weighting through structured pairwise comparisons. The BWM’s key advantage lies in its efficiency and consistency in deriving criteria weight. The methodology of the BWM follows:
Step #1: determine a set of decision criteria. In this step, the criteria { C 1 ,   C 2 , … C n } used to reach at a decision.
Step #2: determine the most desirable and important criterion and the worst and least desirable criterion. In this step, the decision-maker identifies general criteria; there is no comparison at this stage.
Step #3: rank the best criterion preferences numerically using numbers between 1 and 9 as shown in Table 1. The resulting best-to-others vector would be: A B = a B 1 , a B 2 , … , a B n , where a B j indicates the preference of the best criterion B over criterion j.
Step #4: determine all the criteria preference order over the worst criterion using numbers between 1 and 9. The resulting others-to-worst vector would be: A W = ( a 1 W , a 2 W , … , a n W )   T where a j w indicates the preference of the criterion j over the worst criterion W.
Step #5: find the optimal weights ( w 1 * , w 2 * , … , w n * ,) where for each pair of W B W j and W j W w , W B W j = a B j and W j W w = a j W . To satisfy these conditions for all j, find a solution by minimizing j using the maximum absolute differences | W B W j − a B j | and | W j W w − a j w | . Considering the non-negativity and sum condition for the weights yields the following equation:
min ⁡ m a x j   | W B W j − a B j | , | W j W w − a j w |     s.t ∑ j W j = 1 Where   W j ≥ 0 , f o r   a l l   j

4. Analysis and Results

The study framework was constructed based on a comprehensive literature review, which yielded seven critical criteria for evaluating tour guide performance and classification. These criteria, derived from extensive academic discourse and industry, are the best practices which are presented in Table 2.
The integration of these criteria into the study’s methodology reflects the multifaceted nature of tour leadership and aligns with contemporary approaches in tourism research. For instance, the inclusion of local cultural and historical knowledge as a criterion resonates with findings from ecotourism strategy studies, which emphasize the importance of local heritage in sustainable tourism development. Similarly, the focus on technology adaptation acknowledges the growing role of digital tools in enhancing visitor experiences and operational efficiency, as highlighted in recent tourism technology assessments. It is important to note that our study does not merely identify these criteria, but also proposes specific measurement approaches for each. These measurements are designed explicitly for the purpose of ranking alternatives rather than evaluating the criteria themselves. This distinction is crucial as it allows for a more nuanced comparison between different tour leaders based on quantifiable metrics. Our proposed measurement framework represents a methodological contribution that can be adapted by tourism practitioners to suit various operational contexts. For each criterion listed in Table 2, below is the definition, proposed measurement, and importance of each criterion.

4.1. Local Cultural and Historical Background

This criterion tests the ability to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of regional history, traditions, and landmarks. Measurement involves examinations, scenario-based questions, and tour simulations. Importance lies in delivering authentic, informative experiences. Scoring is between 1 and 3, and it is a maximization factor, with higher scores reflecting greater knowledge.

4.2. Language Proficiency Skills

This criterion tests the ability to communicate effectively in required tour languages. Measurement includes proficiency tests, conversation practice, and tour segments. Importance ensures clear communication and inclusiveness. Scoring is between 1 and 3, and it is a maximization factor, with higher scores indicating better language skills.

4.3. Time Management and Punctuality Assessment

This criterion tests the ability to adhere to schedules and meet deadlines. Measurement includes management tests or simulations of tourist routes and tracking any deviations. Respecting visitor time and ensuring smooth tours is crucial. It is suggested that times be measured either by continuous numbers, with the shortest time being taken as the best, or by classifications such as completing the test correctly in five minutes or less, less than ten minutes and more than five minutes, or more than ten minutes. Lower times indicate better management and are therefore it is a minimization factor.

4.4. Environmental and Ethical Awareness

This criterion tests the understanding of sustainable tourism and ethical considerations. Measurement includes tests and scenario-based questions. Importance promotes responsible tourism is between 1 and 3, and it is a maximization factor, with higher scores reflecting greater awareness.

4.5. Emergency Response Time

This criterion tests the speed and effectiveness of emergency responses. Measurement includes simulated emergency scenarios and tracking response times. Ensuring visitor safety during emergencies is crucial. It is suggested that response times be measured either by continuous numbers, with the shortest time being taken as the best, or by classifications such as completing the test correctly and successfully responding in five minutes or less, less than ten minutes but greater than five minutes, or more than ten minutes. Lower response times indicate better emergency preparedness.

4.6. Practical Experience

This criterion tests prior experience in the tourism industry. Measurement involves resume reviews and reference checks. Importance demonstrates familiarity with industry practices. Years of experience are between 0 and 30 years, with a higher number reflecting greater practical experience.

4.7. Customer Service Skills

This criterion tests the ability to interact with and satisfy visitors. Measurement involves role-playing and tour simulations. Importance enhances visitor satisfaction. Scoring between 1 and 3, and it is a maximization factor, with higher scores indicating better skills.

4.8. Technology Adaption Score

This criterion tests the ability to use tour-related technology. Measurement involves demonstrations and troubleshooting. Importance improves tour efficiency. Scoring between 1 and 3, and it is a maximization factor, with higher scores reflecting better proficiency.

4.9. Safety and First Aid Training Score

This criterion tests knowledge of safety protocols and first aid abilities. Measurement includes certification verification and practical scenarios. Importance ensures visitor safety. Scoring between 1 and 3, and it is a maximization factor, with higher scores indicating better preparedness.
To ensure a robust evaluation framework, this study employed a panel of experts whose profiles are detailed in Table 3. The selection of these experts was guided by rigorous criteria, including academic background, industry experience, and familiarity with Saudi Arabia’s tourism sector. This approach aligns with the best practices in multi-criteria decision-making research, where expert opinions play a crucial role in validating and weighting assessment criteria. The utilization of twelve specialized tourism professionals in this study panel might initially raise questions when evaluated through conventional quantitative methodological frameworks. However, examining methodological precedents reveals this approach’s validity within expert-centric decision frameworks. A recent study by Dua and Guzman [93] documents that expert cohorts comprising 12–16 participants represent a normative practice within specialized knowledge domains where domain-specific expertise supersedes statistical sampling considerations [94,95,96,97,98,99]. Thus, the critical determinant of methodological soundness in such contexts emerges not from numerical participant thresholds, but from strategic participant selection emphasizing experiential depth and conceptual breadth within the investigated domain. This study deliberately constructed a participant matrix incorporating multifaceted stakeholder perspectives across Saudi Arabia’s tourism infrastructure, thereby securing comprehensive expertise coverage essential for meaningful analytical outcomes.
The tourism sector in Saudi Arabia is characterized by its relative nascency, resulting in a scarcity of tour leaders with extensive historical experience in the field. Consequently, it is noteworthy that the years of professional experience among tour leaders tend to be comparatively modest due to the sector’s recent development. This contextual limitation should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. It is, however, important to emphasize that all expert participants involved in this study possess official licensure for practicing as tour leaders.
Table 4 presents the average results of the evaluation. The most important criterion is the cultural and historical score (C1). While Table 5 illustrates the pairwise comparison between other criteria to the worst one which was environmental and ethical awareness (C4). Table 6 and Figure 1 illustrate the overall weight of each criterion.

5. Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to determine the weights of key performance criteria for evaluating tour guides in Saudi Arabia and to rank the relative importance of these criteria using the BWM. While the BWM provided a methodological framework for these priorities, the focus was on generating practical insights into the relative importance of different evaluation criteria, rather than focusing on the methodological effectiveness of the BWM itself.
The imperative for a structured and empirically grounded evaluation framework for tour guides within the burgeoning tourism sector of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia constitutes the central focus of this study. As previously delineated, the efficacy of tour guides significantly impacts the visitor experience and, consequently, the overall perception of the destination. In light of the Kingdom’s ambitious Vision 2030, which seeks to diversify its economy and establish itself as a premier global tourism hub, the necessity for a systematic assessment of tour guide competencies becomes paramount.
The application of BWM yielded a nuanced understanding of the relative importance of the identified criteria, as perceived by subject matter experts. The evaluation of tour leader criteria in Saudi Arabia’s emerging tourism sector revealed an interesting weighting pattern.
Notably, the criterion of local cultural and historical background (C1) emerged as the preeminent factor in tour guide evaluation. The comparative analysis conducted through BWM revealed that experts perceived C1 as significantly more important than all other criteria. Specifically, the evaluation scores indicated that C1 was “strongly more important” than language proficiency skills (C2), environmental and ethical awareness (C4), customer service skills (C7), emergency response time (C5), and safety and first aid training score (C9). Furthermore, experts rated C1 as “somewhat between moderate and strong important” compared to time management and punctuality assessment (C3). Finally, C1 was deemed “somewhat between strong and very strong important” in relation to practical experience (C6). These assessments underscore the pivotal role of in-depth local knowledge in the effective delivery of tour guide services, highlighting the importance of cultural and historical understanding in shaping authentic and enriching visitor experiences.
The quantitative analysis conducted through BWM further translated these qualitative assessments into precise weight scores, providing a clear hierarchical ranking of the evaluation criteria. The results demonstrated that local cultural and historical background (C1) held the highest weight score, accounting for 31.2% of the overall evaluation. This substantial weighting underscores the experts’ consensus regarding the paramount importance of local knowledge. Conversely, language proficiency skills (C2), environmental and ethical awareness (C4), emergency response time (C5), customer service skills (C7), and safety and first aid training score (C9) each accounted for 9.2%, indicating their significant, albeit lesser, importance. This pattern reflects stakeholder priorities within Saudi Arabia’s tourism landscape, where cultural heritage preservation and authentic representation have taken precedence, aligning with the Kingdom’s Vision 2030 emphasis on showcasing its rich cultural identity. The relatively balanced weighting across most criteria, including environmental considerations, suggests an evolving understanding of the multidimensional nature of tour leadership in Saudi Arabia. The moderate weighting of those criteria can be understood through several contextual factors unique to Saudi Arabia’s tourism development trajectory. First, the tourism industry in Saudi Arabia remains in its formative stages, with environmental regulatory frameworks still evolving compared to more established global tourism markets. Second, immediate industry priorities have centered on building fundamental tourism capabilities and infrastructure, leaving environmental considerations as important but secondary concerns. Third, the operational demands of rapid sector expansion have created competing priorities for stakeholders, with environmental awareness growing in importance but still balanced against immediate service delivery needs. Finally, Saudi Arabia’s broader economic transition from oil dependency toward sustainable tourism necessitates gradual shifts in industry practices and stakeholder priorities, explaining the balanced rather than dominant position of those criteria at this development stage.
Time management and punctuality assessment (C3) received a weight score of 11.6%, reflecting its moderate importance in the overall evaluation. Practical experience (C6) was assigned a weight of 7.7%, suggesting that while valuable, it was not considered as critical as other criteria.
Notably, technology adaption score (C8) received the lowest weight score of 3.2%, indicating that while still relevant, it was perceived as the least critical factor among the identified criteria. These quantitative findings provide a robust foundation for the development of a structured evaluation system, enabling stakeholders to prioritize the most critical attributes in tour guide selection and training.
While technology adaption score (C8) ranked as the least important criterion in the findings of this study, this position warrants further contextualization within Saudi Arabia’s unique tourism development trajectory. The Kingdom’s tourism sector is currently prioritizing foundational service quality elements while simultaneously developing its digital infrastructure. This evolutionary stage differs from more established tourism destinations where technological integration has already progressed through multiple development cycles. While international tourism destinations increasingly emphasize technological proficiency among guides, Saudi Arabia’s emphasis on cultural interpretation and interpersonal skills suggests a contextually appropriate focus on authentic human connections in a destination where cultural narratives remain central to the visitor experience. However, as Vision 2030 tourism initiatives mature and digital native tourists comprise a larger market segment, technology adaptation will likely ascend in importance, suggesting the need for periodic reassessment of these criteria weights as the sector evolves.
The inclusion of safety and first aid training score (C9) as a significant criterion, with a weight score of 9.2%, highlights the growing recognition of safety considerations in the tourism sector. This underscores the need for tour guides to be adequately trained in emergency response and first aid, ensuring the well-being of tourists.
The findings of this study provide a valuable framework for the development of a comprehensive tour guide evaluation system in Saudi Arabia. The identification and prioritization of critical criteria, particularly the emphasis on local cultural and historical background, underscore the importance of cultural competence in the delivery of effective tour guide services. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on tour guide evaluation and provides a foundation for future studies aimed at classifying tour guides and developing training programs. The application of BWM in this context demonstrates its efficacy as a robust MCDM tool for assessing complex decision-making problems. The utilization of expert opinions, combined with the quantitative rigor of BWM, ensures the validity and reliability of the findings. The implications of this study extend beyond the immediate context of tour guide evaluation. The development of a structured evaluation system can contribute to the professionalization of the tour guide sector, enhancing service quality and promoting sustainable tourism practices. By prioritizing critical criteria, stakeholders can ensure that tour guides possess the necessary competencies to deliver enriching and authentic visitor experiences. Furthermore, the findings of this study can inform the development of training programs aimed at enhancing tour guide skills and knowledge. The integration of these criteria into training curricula can ensure that tour guides are equipped to meet the evolving demands of the tourism industry. This study will be expanded later to incorporate a more advanced methodological approach to classify and categorize tour guides. The criteria established herein, along with their associated weights, will be employed in this subsequent classification assessment.

6. Conclusions

This study addresses the critical need for a structured and empirically sound framework to evaluate tour guides within the rapidly expanding tourism sector in Saudi Arabia. Recognizing the significant impact of tour guides on visitor experiences and destination perceptions, the best–worst method (BWM) was employed to identify and prioritize key criteria for effective tour guide performance. This robust multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique facilitated a systematic and rigorous assessment of expert opinions, translating qualitative judgments into quantifiable weightings. This study makes a significant contribution to the professionalization of the tour guide sector by providing a foundational framework for future research on classification, system development, and training program design.
The findings of this investigation clearly establish local cultural and historical background as the most important criterion for evaluating tour guides. Through the application of BWM, subject matter experts consistently rated this attribute as significantly more critical than other factors, including language proficiency, time management, and customer service skills. This underscores the crucial role of cultural competence and in-depth local knowledge in delivering authentic and enriching visitor experiences. The quantitative analysis yielded precise weightings, with local cultural and historical background accounting for a substantial portion of the overall evaluation, thus providing a clear hierarchical ranking of the identified criteria. While other attributes, such as emergency response time and practical experience, were acknowledged as relevant, technology adaption score was identified as the least critical factor.
Despite the valuable insights gained, some limitations should be considered. The study’s reliance on expert opinions may introduce biases and limit the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the application of BWM, while robust, involves inherent subjectivity, and variations in expert judgments may influence the results.
In light of these limitations, several avenues for future research emerge. First, future studies should explore tourist perspectives on evaluation criteria and compare them with those of experts to provide a more holistic understanding of tour guide effectiveness and enhance the framework’s applicability across diverse contexts. Second, researchers could use mixed-methods approaches, combining quantitative techniques like BWM with qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups, to gain a deeper understanding of the complex factors influencing tour guide performance. Third, future studies should investigate the impact of training programs and professional development initiatives on tour guide competencies, focusing on integrating the identified criteria into training curricula. Moreover, future studies should examine how tourist cultural backgrounds influence the relative importance of tour guide evaluation criteria. Such cross-cultural analysis would enable the development of more targeted training programs and evaluation systems that account for the diverse expectations of Saudi Arabia’s expanding international tourism markets. This cultural sensitivity dimension would further enhance service quality in the Kingdom’s increasingly diversified tourism sector. Finally, researchers may explore technology-driven solutions, such as mobile applications and online platforms, to facilitate tour guide evaluation and classification, thereby improving efficiency and accessibility. The very low importance assigned to technology adaption score warrants further investigation into the reasons for this rating and whether this is reflected in the broader tourism sector. Such future studies will not only refine the evaluation framework, but also contribute to the sustainable development of Saudi Arabia’s tourism sector.
Beyond theoretical contributions, the findings offer substantial practical implications for tour guide development in Saudi Arabia. This paper recommends that tourism authorities establish a tiered certification program that directly aligns with the prioritized criteria identified in this study. Specifically, the Saudi Tourism Authority should develop modular training curricula where core modules focus on the highest-weighted criteria (cultural knowledge, communication skills, and professional ethics), while supplementary modules address secondary criteria. Recruitment processes should incorporate assessment protocols that evaluate candidates against these weighted criteria, with particular emphasis on cultural knowledge assessment through standardized testing and simulation exercises. For professional development, this study recommends implementing a mentorship program pairing novice guides with those demonstrating excellence in top-ranked criteria, complemented by a digital portfolio system documenting continuous improvement across all evaluation dimensions. Tourism operators should restructure performance evaluation metrics to reflect these weighted criteria, potentially implementing differential compensation structures that reward exceptional performance in high-priority areas. These practical applications would transform the theoretical framework developed in this study into tangible improvements in tour guide quality throughout the Kingdom, directly supporting Vision 2030 tourism objectives while establishing a model that could be adapted for other emerging tourism destinations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.B. and A.H.; methodology, O.B. and A.H.; validation, O.B. and A.H.; formal analysis, O.B. and A.H.; investigation, A.H.; data curation, A.H.; writing—original draft preparation, O.B. and A.H.; writing—review and editing, O.B. and A.H.; visualization, O.B. and A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contributions of all experts who generously dedicated their time and expertise to evaluating the criteria. Their insightful feedback and meticulous evaluations were essential to the rigor and validity of this study, without which this study would not have been possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Castro, J.C.; Quisimalin, M.; de Pablos, C.; Gancino, V.; Jerez, J. Tourism marketing: Measuring tourist satisfaction. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2017, 10, 280–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cruz, D.M.N.D. The quest for adventure: A Tourist’s perspective on choosing attractions in Zambales, Philippines. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2023, 17, 831–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. McDonnell, I. The Role of the Tour Guide in Transferring Cultural Understanding. Sch. Leis. Sport Tour. 2001, 3, 1836–9979. Available online: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/2100/893/1/lstwp3.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  4. Alqahtani, A.Y.; Makki, A.A. A DEMATEL-ISM Integrated Modeling Approach of Influencing Factors Shaping Destination Image in the Tourism Industry. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Quality of Life Program. Tourism Dashboard; Ministry of Tourism: New Delhi, India, 2025. Available online: https://mt.gov.sa/tic/dashboard/inbound-tourism (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  6. Tsaur, S.-H.; Teng, H.-Y. Exploring tour guiding styles: The perspective of tour leader roles. Tour. Manag. 2016, 59, 438–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lu, D.; Zhao, H. An Analysis on the Strategy of the Improvement of Languages Art of Tour Guides; Atlantis Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Oroceo, M. Evaluation of Tour Guides’ Performance to the Satisfaction of Local Tourists in Intramuros, Manila. 2023. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/94074600/evaluation_of_tour_guides_performance_to_the_satisfaction_of_local_tourists_in_intramuros_manila (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  9. Rezaei, J. Best-worst Multi-criteria Decision-making Method. Omega 2015, 53, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cohen, E. The tourist guide: The origins, structure and dynamics of a role. Ann. Tour. Res. 1985, 12, 5–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Holloway, J. The guided tour a sociological approach. Ann. Tour. Res. 1981, 8, 377–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Black, R.; Weiler, B. Quality assurance and regulatory mechanisms in the tour guiding industry: A systematic review. J. Tour. Stud. 2005, 16, 24–37. Available online: https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.200509017 (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  13. Wong, J.-Y.; Wang, C.-H. Emotional labor of the tour leaders: An exploratory study. Tour. Manag. 2008, 30, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, H.Q.; Chow, I. Application of importance-performance model in tour guides’ performance: Evidence from mainland Chinese outbound visitors in Hong Kong. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Huang, S.; Hsu, C.H.C.; Chan, A. Tour Guide Performance and Tourist Satisfaction: A Study of the Package Tours in Shanghai. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2009, 34, 3–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rabotić, B. Tourist guides in contemporary tourism. In International Conference on Tourism and Environment; Philip Noel-Baker University: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2010; pp. 353–364. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chang, K.-C. Examining the Effect of Tour Guide Performance, Tourist Trust, Tourist Satisfaction, and Flow Experience on Tourists’ Shopping Behavior. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2012, 19, 219–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sandaruwani, J.; Gnanapala, W.A.C. The role of tourist guides and their impacts on sustainable tourism development: A critique on Sri Lanka. Tour. Leis. Glob. Change 2016, 3, 62–73. Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20173155188 (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  19. Weiler, B.; Walker, K. Enhancing the visitor experience: Reconceptualising the tour guide’s communicative role. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2014, 21, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zatori, A.; Smith, M.K.; Puczko, L. Experience-involvement, memorability and authenticity: The service provider’s effect on tourist experience. Tour. Manag. 2018, 67, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cheng, S.-W.; Xu, F.-F.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.-T. Tourists’ Attitudes Toward Tea Tourism: A Case Study in Xinyang, China. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2010, 27, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ap, J.; Wong, K.K. Case study on tour guiding: Professionalism, issues and problems. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 551–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Richards, G. Actors in Cultural Tourism Practices; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rini, N.A.; Firdaus, L.A. Evaluation of Tour Guide Communication in Providing Guiding to Foreigners as Tourists. Int. J. Travel. Hosp. Events 2022, 1, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Stacchini, A.; Guizzardi, A.; Costa, M. The Value of Sustainable Tourism Destinations in the Eyes of Visitors. Highlights Sustain. 2022, 1, 202–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Naumov, K. Tourists Perceptions and Satisfaction Regarding Tour Guiding in the Republic of North Macedonia. Eur. J. Multidiscip. Stud. 2020, 5, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Anom, I.P.; Mahagangga, I.G.O.; Suryawan, I.B.; Koesbardiati, T.; Wulandari, I.G.A.A. Case Study of Balinese Tourism: Myth as Cultural Capital. Utopía Y Prax. Latinoam. 2020, 25, 122–133. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/8069667.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  28. Fennell, D.A. Tourism ethics needs more than a surface approach. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2008, 33, 223–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. El Kafy, J.A. Challenges Facing Tour Guide Profession and their Impacts on the Egyptian Guides performance. J. Assoc. Arab. Univ. Tour. Hosp. 2021, 19, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nejmeddin, A.I. The Importance of Tour Guides in Increasing the Number of Tourists at a Tourist Destination. Polytech. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2021, 1, 18–23. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348338623_The_Importance_of_Tour_Guides_in_Increasing_the_Number_of_Tourists_at_a_Tourist_Destination (accessed on 26 March 2025). [CrossRef]
  31. Patria, T.A.; Ulinnuha, H.; Hidayah, N.; Latif, A.N.K.; Susanto, E.; Claudia, C. Effect of Key Opinion Leaders and Instagram Posts on Wonderful Indonesia Brand Awareness. EDP Sci. 2023, 426, 2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rodrigues, V.; Eusébio, C.; Breda, Z. Enhancing sustainable development through tourism digitalisation: A systematic literature review. Inf. Technol. Tour. 2022, 25, 13–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sotohy, H. New Trends in Tour Guiding, The Guide faces Technology ‘Applied study to selected sites in Egypt’. J. Assoc. Arab. Univ. Tour. Hosp. 2021, 19, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, Y.; Deng, B. Exploring the nexus of smart technologies and sustainable ecotourism: A systematic review. Heliyon 2024, 10, e31996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Uriely, N. The tourist experience: Conceptual Developments. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chanwanakul, S. Effectiveness of Tour Guides’ Communication Skills at Historical Attractions. Int. J. Entrep. 2021, 25, 1–10. Available online: https://www.abacademies.org/articles/effectiveness-of-tour-guides-communication-skills-at-historical-attractions.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  37. Orabi, R.; Fadel, D. The Role of Tour Guide Performance in Creating Responsible Tourist Behavior: An Empirical Study: Archaeological Sites in Alexandria. Int. J. Herit. Tour. Hosp. 2020, 14, 325–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Şengel, Ü.; Çevrimkaya, M.; Zengin, B. The effect of professional expectations of tour guiding students on their professional motivation. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 2021, 29, 100293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McKercher, B.; Cros, H.D. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  40. Al-Okaily, N.S. A Model for Tour Guide Performance. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2022, 23, 1077–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hanan, A.; Sugianto, S. The communication strategies on tourist guide professionalism in lombok west nusa tenggara. J. Lang. Lang. Teach. 2021, 9, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Syakier, W.A.; Hanafiah, M.H. Tour Guide Performances, Tourist Satisfaction And Behavioural Intentions: A Study On Tours In Kuala Lumpur City Centre. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2021, 23, 597–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lestari, H.D.; Irawati, N.; Santoso, H.T. Analisis kualitas pelayanan tour guide di destinasi wisata benteng marlborough bengkulu. Kepariwisataan J. Ilm. 2022, 16, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Litvin, S.W.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Pan, B. Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nickerson, N.P. Foundations of Tourism; Prentice-Hall Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  46. Muthiah, J.; Muntasib, E.K.S.H.; Meilani, R. Tourism hazard potentials in Mount Merapi: How to deal with the risk. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 149, p. 12020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Neuhofer, B.; Buhalis, D.; Ladkin, A. Smart technologies for personalized experiences: A case study in the hospitality domain. Electron. Mark. 2015, 25, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gültekin, S.; Icigen, E. A Research on Professional Tour Guides Emotional Intelligence and Problem-Solving Skills. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2018, 20, 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Decision Making in Complex Environments. In Quantitative Assessment in Arms Control: Mathematical Modeling and Simulation in the Analysis of Arms Control Problems; Avenhaus, R., Huber, R.K., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1984; pp. 285–308. [Google Scholar]
  50. Thakkar, J.J. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 33–62. [Google Scholar]
  51. Arslan, D.; Sevim, E. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques in Medical Tourism Studies: A Systematic Review TT-Medikal Turizm Çalışmalarında Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri: Bir Sistematik Derleme. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Derg. 2022, 13, 1305–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tian, J.; Deng, W.; Yuan, J. Evaluation of sports tourism competitiveness of urban agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Heliyon 2023, 9, e22780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Forouzandeh, S.; Rostami, M.; Berahmand, K. A Hybrid Method for Recommendation Systems based on Tourism with an Evolutionary Algorithm and Topsis Model. Fuzzy Inf. Eng. 2022, 14, 26–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pazhuhan, M.; Shiri, N. Regional tourism axes identification using GIS and TOPSIS model (Case study: Hormozgan Province, Iran). J. Tour. Anal. Rev. Análisis Turístico 2020, 27, 119–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M.; Singh, R.K. Performance Evaluation of Agro-tourism Clusters using AHP–TOPSIS. J. Oper. Strat. Plan. 2020, 3, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yamagishi, K.; Ocampo, L. Utilizing TOPSIS-Sort for sorting tourist sites for perceived COVID-19 exposure. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 25, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lan, L.T.H.; Hien, D.T.T.; Thong, N.T.; Smarandache, F.; Giang, N.L. An ANP-TOPSIS model for tourist destination choice problems under Temporal Neutrosophic environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 2023, 136, 110146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Setiawansyah, S. Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Rekomendasi Tempat Wisata Menggunakan Metode TOPSIS. J. Ilm. Inform. dan Ilmu Komput. 2022, 1, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Phuangpornpitak, W.; Boonchom, W.; Suphan, K.; Chiengkul, W.; Tantipanichkul, T. Application of TOPSIS-LP and New Routing Models for the Multi-Criteria Tourist Route Problem: The Case Study of Nong Khai, Thailand. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2024, 14, 14929–14938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liao, H.; Yang, S.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Škare, M. An overview of fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods in hospitality and tourism industries: Bibliometrics, methodologies, applications and future directions. Econ. Res. Istraz. 2022, 36, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xu, M.; Bai, C.; Shi, L.; Puška, A.; Štilić, A.; Stević, Ž. Assessment of Mountain Tourism Sustainability Using Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nuriyev, A.M. Fuzzy MCDM models for selection of the tourism development site: The case of Azerbaijan. F1000Research 2022, 11, 310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Shokraneh, F.; Adams, C.E. A simple formula for enumerating comparisons in trials and network meta-analysis. F1000Research 2019, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Saaty, T.L.; Ergu, D. When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2015, 14, 1171–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abdulaal, R.M.S.; Bafail, O.A. BWM—RAPS Approach for Evaluating and Ranking Banking Sector Companies Based on Their Financial Indicators in the Saudi Stock Market. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Abdulaal, R.M.S.; Bafail, O.A. A Comparative Study between GLP and GBWM. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 2021, 5555933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hamza, M.; Bafail, O.; Alidrisi, H. HVAC Systems Evaluation and Selection for Sustainable Office Buildings: An Integrated MCDM Approach. Buildings 2023, 13, 1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Alsanousi, A.T.; Alqahtani, A.Y.; Makki, A.A.; Baghdadi, M.A. A Hybrid MCDM Approach Using the BWM and the TOPSIS for a Financial Performance-Based Evaluation of Saudi Stocks. Information 2024, 15, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Barasin, A.M.; Alqahtani, A.Y.; Makki, A.A. Performance Evaluation of Retail Warehouses: A Combined MCDM Approach Using G-BWM and RATMI. Logistics 2024, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pamučar, D.; Ecer, F.; Cirovic, G.; Arlasheedi, M.A. Application of Improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in Real-World Problems. Mathematics 2020, 8, 1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rezaei, J.; Nispeling, T.; Sarkis, J.; Tavasszy, L. A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Krstić, M.; Tadić, S.; Miglietta, P.P.; Porrini, D. Biodiversity Protection Practices in Supply Chain Management: A Novel Hybrid Grey Best–Worst Method/Axial Distance-Based Aggregated Measurement Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Khan, S.; Kaushik, M.K.; Kumar, R.; Khan, W. Investigating the barriers of blockchain technology integrated food supply chain: A BWM approach. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022, 30, 713–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Khan, M.I.; Khan, S.; Haleem, A. Analysing barriers towards management of Halal supply chain: A BWM approach. J. Islam. Mark. 2019, 13, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Badri Ahmadi, H.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Rezaei, J. Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 126, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kaswan, M.S.; Rathi, R. Investigation of life cycle assessment barriers for sustainable development in manufacturing using grey relational analysis and best worst method. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2021, 14, 672–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ortega, J.; Moslem, S.; Tóth, J.; Péter, T.; Palaguachi, J.; Paguay, M. Using Best Worst Method for Sustainable Park and Ride Facility Location. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Salimi, N.; Rezaei, J. Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method. Eval. Program Plan. 2018, 66, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Barbosa, M.W.; Pumpin, M.d.L.Á.R.; Vargas, G. Prioritization of Water Footprint Management Practices and Their Effect on Agri-Food Firms’ Reputation and Legitimacy: A Best–Worst Method Approach. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Streimikis, J.; Bathaei, A.; Štreimikienė, D. Sustainability assessment of the agriculture sector using best worst method: Case study of Baltic states. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 32, 5611–5626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yousefi-Babadi, A.; Bozorgi-Amiri, A.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. Sustainable facility relocation in agriculture systems using the GIS and best–worst method. Kybernetes 2021, 51, 2343–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Atta, C.; Micheels, E.T. Identifying risk in production agriculture: An application of best-worst scaling. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2020, 23, 283–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Everest, T.; Sungur, A.; Özcan, H. Applying the best–worst method for land evaluation: A case study for paddy cultivation in northwest Turkey. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 19, 3233–3246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Akyüz, G.; Yalpir, Ş.; Ertunç, E. Determining the Suitability of Lands for Agricultural Use with the Best-Worst Method. Afyon Kocatepe Univ. J. Sci. Eng. 2023, 23, 1045–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Samani, Z.N.; Alesheikh, A.A.; Karimi, M.; Samany, N.N.; Bayat, S.; Lotfata, A.; Garau, C. Advancing Urban Healthcare Equity Analysis: Integrating Public Participation GIS with Fuzzy Best–Worst Decision-Making. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Moslem, S.; Campisi, T.; Szmelter-Jarosz, A.; Duleba, S.; Nahiduzzaman, K.M.; Tesoriere, G. Best–Worst Method for Modelling Mobility Choice after COVID-19: Evidence from Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Boz, E.; Çizmecioğlu, S.; Çalık, A. A Novel MDCM Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare System in the Era of Logistics 4.0. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Moslem, S.; Gul, M.; Farooq, D.; Celik, E.; Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Blaschke, T. An Integrated Approach of Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Triangular Fuzzy Sets for Evaluating Driver Behavior Factors Related to Road Safety. Mathematics 2020, 8, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Petrudi, S.H.H.; Ghomi, H.; Mazaheriasad, M. An Integrated Fuzzy Delphi and Best Worst Method (BWM) for performance measurement in higher education. Decis. Anal. J. 2022, 4, 100121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pour, M.J.; Mesrabadi, J.; Hosseinzadeh, M. A comprehensive framework to rank cloud-based e-learning providers using best-worst method (BWM). Online Inf. Rev. 2019, 44, 114–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pour, M.J.; Hosseinzadeh, M.; Rafiei, K. Identifying and prioritizing applications of Internet of Things (IOT) in educational learning using Interval Best-Worst Method (BWM). In Proceedings of the 2020 4th International Conference on Smart City, Internet of Things and Applications (SCIOT), Mashhad, Iran, 16–17 September 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Noorani, S.F.; Serkani, M.; Karimi, Z. Identifying and prioritizing the applications of game theory in the educational and learning environments using the BWM. Technol. Educ. J. 2023, 17, 371–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Dua, R.; Guzman, A.F. A perspective on emerging energy policy and economic research agenda for enabling aviation climate action. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2024, 117, 103725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hulme, P.E.; Beggs, J.R.; Binny, R.N.; Bray, J.P.; Cogger, N.; Dhami, M.K.; French, N.P.; Grant, A.; Hewitt, C.L.; Jones, E.E.; et al. “Emerging advances in biosecurity to underpin human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health. Iscience 2023, 26, 107462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Robison, R.; Skjølsvold, T.M.; Hargreaves, T.; Renström, S.; Wolsink, M.; Judson, E.; Pechancová, V.; Demirbağ-Kaplan, M.; March, H.; Lehne, J.; et al. Shifts in the smart research agenda? 100 priority questions to accelerate sustainable energy futures. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 419, 137946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gleser, M.; Elbert, R. Combined rail-road transport in Europe–A practice-oriented research agenda. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2024, 53, 101101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Reefke, H.; Sundaram, D. Key themes and research opportunities in sustainable supply chain management–identification and evaluation. Omega 2017, 66, 195–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dua, R.; Almutairi, S.; Bansal, P. Emerging energy economics and policy research priorities for enabling the electric vehicle sector. Energy Rep. 2024, 12, 1836–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Jørgensen, T.B.; Nielsen, T.S. Supply Chain 4.0 performance measurement: A systematic literature review, framework development, and empirical evidence. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2022, 164, 102725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 04213 g001
Figure 1. Overall criteria weights.
Figure 1. Overall criteria weights.
Sustainability 17 04213 g001
Table 1. Evaluation score for BWM technique.
Table 1. Evaluation score for BWM technique.
Verbal JudgmentNumeric Value
Absolutely more important9
Somewhat between very strong and absolute8
Very strongly more important7
Somewhat between strong and very strong6
Strongly more important5
Somewhat between moderate and strong4
Moderately more important3
Somewhat between equal and moderate2
Equally important1
Table 2. Criteria for evaluation tour guides.
Table 2. Criteria for evaluation tour guides.
CodeCriteria
C1Local Cultural and Historical BackgroundMaximization
C2Language Proficiency SkillsMaximization
C3Time Management and Punctuality AssessmentMinimization
C4Environmental and Ethical AwarenessMaximization
C5Emergency Response TimeMinimization
C6Practical ExperienceMaximization
C7Customer Service SkillsMaximization
C8Technology Adaption ScoreMaximization
C9Safety and First Aid Training ScoreMaximization
Table 3. Profiles of the experts recruited in the study.
Table 3. Profiles of the experts recruited in the study.
ExpertQualificationFieldYears of Experience in Tourism
E1B.Sc.Human Resources4
E2Higher DiplomaHospitality>1
E3M.Sc.Hospitality10
E4B.Sc.Hospitality>2
E5B.Sc.Education<2
E6Higher DiplomaHospitality30
E7Higher DiplomaHospitality>1
E8Higher DiplomaCustomer Service1
E9M.Sc.Human Resources1
E10B.Sc.Healthcare>1
E11B.Sc.Industry>2
E12Ph.D.Education3
Table 4. Best-to-others vectors obtained by the expert evaluations.
Table 4. Best-to-others vectors obtained by the expert evaluations.
Best-to-Others
Main CriteriaC1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9
C1154556555
Table 5. Others-to-worst vectors as derived from expert evaluations.
Table 5. Others-to-worst vectors as derived from expert evaluations.
Others-to-Worst
Main CriteriaC8
C15
C26
C35
C46
C55
C67
C75
C81
C95
Table 6. Overview of criteria weights.
Table 6. Overview of criteria weights.
CriteriaWeight
C1—Local Cultural and Historical Background0.312
C2—Language Proficiency Skills0.092
C3—Time Management and Punctuality Assessment0.116
C4—Environmental and Ethical Awareness0.092
C5—Emergency Response Time0.092
C6—Practical Experience0.077
C7—Customer Service Skills0.092
C8—Technology Adaption Score0.032
C9—Safety and First Aid Training Score0.092
Ksi = 0.15.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bafail, O.; Hanbazazah, A. Optimizing Tour Guide Selection: A Best–Worst Scaled Assessment of Critical Performance Criteria for Enhanced Tour Quality. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094213

AMA Style

Bafail O, Hanbazazah A. Optimizing Tour Guide Selection: A Best–Worst Scaled Assessment of Critical Performance Criteria for Enhanced Tour Quality. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):4213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094213

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bafail, Omer, and Abdulkader Hanbazazah. 2025. "Optimizing Tour Guide Selection: A Best–Worst Scaled Assessment of Critical Performance Criteria for Enhanced Tour Quality" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 4213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094213

APA Style

Bafail, O., & Hanbazazah, A. (2025). Optimizing Tour Guide Selection: A Best–Worst Scaled Assessment of Critical Performance Criteria for Enhanced Tour Quality. Sustainability, 17(9), 4213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094213

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop