Risk assessment and prioritisation between individual and group tourists at the desert destination (case study: Marnjab Desert)

The development of the tourism industry, in addition to paying attention to the infrastructure of this industry, requires comprehensive planning of persuasive factors, as well as reducing the environmental and natural risks of tourism destinations. According to research, tourists are affected by four types of risks, including health, cultural, political and economic, but among the natural hazards that endanger the health of tourists is of particular importance.Among the tourist destinations, ecotourism has a significant success, which causes many hazards in these areas. Maranjab desert for the relative temperament of temperature, tourist attractions, diversity of animal species and vegetation, and the existence of typical and prominent forms of desert is one of the most visited areas of desert ecotourism. Therefore, many problems and dangers are threatening. In this research, an attempt has been made to identify and analyze the main natural and environmental hazards of the Maranjab desert with a descriptive-analytical method based on library and field studies.

The general approach of mixed-method with the priority of quantitative method is based on qualitative studies. For this purpose, after identifying the risks, a questionnaire for prioritization was collected through interviews with experts and then evaluated and analyzed through the FMEA technique. The method of FMEA is one of the tools for continuous improvement of product and service quality. The purpose of the FMEA is to identify the risks and risks of the product and process that may be latent or obvious. Once identified, the next step is to make decisions that can be addressed. This method is used in medicine, manufacturing and services industries. In recent years, the use of this model for risk assessment in the humanities and tourism has also become popular. This method is based on three key components of probability of occurrence, severity of occurrence and probability of discovery. After returning the questionnaires and evaluating the quality of response, a random sample of 100 questionnaires was selected and analyzed based on the method of analysis of failure factors and its effects. According to the purpose of the study, half of the audience had an individual trip and half of them traveled to the area with the group. Audiences were asked to assign a score between 1 and 10 for each component of the method. Accordingly, each factor will have a score in each case, which is obtained from the average score of the audience and has been between 1 and 10. After identifying and evaluating the risk perceived by the audience, in an interview with professors and