Table 2.
Scenario analysis of fuzzy HFLTS
| Real scenario | Scenario (1) | Scenario (2) | Scenario (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation output | Evaluation output | Evaluation output | Evaluation output | |
| Tourism inspiration | (0.205, 0.322, 0.134) | (0.019, 0.991, 0.868) | (0.855, 0.147, 0.297) | (0.888, 0.758, 0.463) |
| Tourists’ engagement | (0.385, 0.285, 0.326) | (0.713, 0.145, 0.223) | (0.821, 0.051, 0.362) | (0.878, 0.668, 0.152) |
| Tourists’ well-being | (0.213, 0.505, 0.564) | (0.565, 0.719, 0.647) | (0.289, 0.025, 0.017) | (0.399, 0.786, 0.124) |
| Tourists’ revisit intentions | (0.592, 0.116, 0.034) | (0.154, 0.646, 0.933) | (0.511, 0.579, 0.367) | (0.701, 0.416, 0.144) |
| C˜ | (0.123, 0.676, 0.722) | (0.193, 0.749, 0.109) | (0.126, 0.562, 0.806) | (0.475, 0.498, 0.046) |
| Uij | (0.995, 0.334, 0.638) | (0.543, 0.701, 0.176) | (0.379, 0.786, 0.845) | (0.111, 0.186, 0.567) |
| CI | (0.574, 0.358, 0.567) | (0.036, 0.786, 0.365) | (0.754, 0.146, 0.551) | (0.867, 0.596, 0.999) |
| CR | (0.461, 0.884, 0.483) | (0.491, 0.713, 0.509) | (0.176, 0.721, 0.532) | (0.586, 0.436, 0.888) |
| µ | (0.146, 0.192, 0.469) | (0.332, 0.537, 0.778) | (0.532, 0.653, 0.375) | (0.315, 0.666, 0.394) |