Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach

Transport Policy

Volumn 37, Issue , 2015, Pages 177-186

  Macharis, Cathy ^a   Bernardini, Annalia ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Mobility; Multi criteria decision analysis; Stakeholders; Transport

Indexed keywords

DECISION ANALYSIS; MOBILITY; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; PROJECT ASSESSMENT; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; STAKEHOLDER; TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE;

EID: 84911929863     PISSN: 0967070X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Aldian A., Taylor M. A consistent method to determine flexible criteria weights for multicriteria transport project evaluation in developing countries. J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 2005, 6:3948-3963.
2. Bana E., Costa C.A. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi-actor context: case study. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2001, 10:111-125.
3. Banville C., Landry M., Martel J.-M., Boulaire C. A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Syst. Res. 1998, 15:15-32.
4. Behzadian M., Kazemzadeh R.B., Albadvi A., Aghdasi M. PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 200:198-215.
5. Békefi Z., Kiss L., Tánczos L. Multicriteria analysis of the financial feasibility of transport infrastructure projects in Hungary. Infor 2003, 41(1):105-126.
6. Bernardini A., Macharis C., 2011. The impact of the aviation sector on climate change - a multicriteria analysis of possible policy measures. Sostenibilità, qualità e sicurezza nei sistemi di trasporto e logistica.
7. Berrittella M., Certa A., Enea M., Zito P. An analytic hierarchy process for the evaluation of transport policies to reduce climate change impacts. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 2007, 12:1-25. (Electronic Paper Collection). http://ssrn.com/abstract=962379.
8. Bielli M., Carotenuto P., Gastaldi M. Multicriteria evaluation model of public transport networks. Advanced Methods in Transportation Analysis 1996, 135-156. Springer-Verlag, New York. L. Bianco, P. Toth (Eds.).
9. Bose U., Davey A., Olson D. Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS. Omega: Int. J. Manag. Sci. 1997, 25(6):691-706.
10. Brans J.P., Vincke Ph., Mareschal B. 'How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method'. European Journal of Operational Research 1986, 24(2):228-238.
11. Brans J.P. 'L'ingénierie de la décision. Elaboration d'instruments d'aide à la décision. Méthode PROMETHEE'. Laide a la Decision: Nature, Instrument s et Perspectives Davenir. 1982, 183-214. Presses de Universite Laval, Canada, (Quebec). R. Nadeau, M. Landry (Eds.).
12. Brey J.J., Contreras I., Carazo A.F., Brey R., Hernández-Díaz A.G., Castro A. Evaluation of automobiles with alternative fuels utilizing multicriteria techniques. J. Power Sources 2007, 169:213-219.
13. Bristow A.L., Nellthorp J. Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transp. Policy 2000, 7(1):51-60.
14. Browne D., Ryan L. Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2011, 31:226-233.
15. Bruhn Barfod M. An MCDA approach for the selection of bike projects based on structuring and appraising activities. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 218:810-818.
16. Cantarella, G.E., Vitetta. A., 1994, A multicriteria analysis for urban network design and parking location. In: TRISTAN II, Conference Proceedings Capri, pp. 839-852.
17. Celik M., Cebi S., Kahraman C., Deha Er, I. Application of axiomatic design and TOPSIS methodologies under fuzzy environment for proposing competitive strategies on Turkish container ports in maritime transportation network. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36(3 Part 1):4541-4557.
18. Chen Y.-W., Wang C.-H., Lin S.-J. A multi-objective geographic information system for route selection of nuclear waste transport. Int. J. Manag. Sci. 2008, 36:363-372.
19. Cooper H.M. Integrating research: a guide for literature reviews 1989, Sage Publications, Newbury Park/London/New Delhi, (Applied Social Research Methods Series 2).
20. Curciarello S. The story of multi-criteria integrated transport in Western Australia working towards more sustainable transport systems 2002, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Sustainability Policy Unit, Government of Western Australia, Perth, 〈http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN008155.pdf〉.
21. De Brucker K., Macharis C., Verbeke A. Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: a stakeholder management approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 224(1):122-131.
22. De Brucker K., Macharis C., Verbeke A. Multi-criteria analysis in transport project evaluation: an institutional approach. Eur. Transp. Trasp. Eur. 2011, 47:3-24.
23. de Silva H., Tatam C. An empirical procedure for enhancing the impact of road investments. Transp. Policy 1996, 3(4):210-211.
24. Despontin M., Moscarola J., Spronk C. A user oriented listing of multiple criteria decision methods. Belgisch tijdschrift voor statistiek, informatica en operationeel onderzoek 1983, 23(4):1-110.
25. DETR, 1998. A new deal for transport: better for everyone, Integrated Transport White Paper.
26. Filippo S., Ribeiro P.C.M., Ribeiro S.K. A fuzzy mulit-criteria model applied to the management of the environmental restoration of paved highways. Transp. Res. D 2007, 12:423-436.
27. Freeman R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach 1984, Pitman, Boston.
28. Freudensprung,P.,Nijkamp,P.,Simons,R.J., 1995. Bottlenecks in Trans-Alpine freight transport: a multicriteria analysis on future Brenner corridor alternatives, VU University Amsterdam,Serie Research Memoranda,0008.
29. Gagatsi,E.,Giannopoulos,G.,Aifandopoulou,G., 2014. Supporting policy making in maritime transport by means of multi-actors multi-criteria analysis: a methodology developed for the greek maritime transport system,Transport Research Arena, Paris, April 14-17.
30. Gercek H., Karpak B., Kilncaslan T. A multiple criteria approach for the evaluation of the rail transit networks in Istanbul. Transportation 2004, 31:203-228.
31. Geudens, T., Macharis, C., De Brucker, K., Van Malderen, F., 2009. Multi-actor Multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a technique for the evaluation of traffic safety measures, in Macharis and Turcksin. Proceedings of the BIVEC-GIBET Transport Research Day Part I, pp. 943-957.
32. Guitouni A., Martel J.M. Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1998, 109:501-521.
33. Hayashy Y., Morisugi H. International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal. Transp. Policy 2000, 7(1):73-88.
34. Hickman R., Saxena S., Banister D., Ashirue O. Examining transport futures with scenario analysis and MCA. Transp. Res. A 2012, 46:560-575.
35. Hochmair Hartwig, H., 2008. Grouping of Optimized Pedestrian Routes for Multi-Modal Route Planning: A Comparison of Two Cities, in Lecture Notes in Geography and Cartography, The European Information Society, 339-358.
36. Hugonnard J.C., Roy B. Le plan d'extension du metro en banlieue parisienne: un cas type d'application de I'analyse multicritere. Méthode de décision multicritère 1983, Hommes et Techniques, Paris. E. Jacquet-Lagreze, J. Siskos (Eds.).
37. Iniestra J.G., Gutiérrez J.G. Multicriteria decisions on interdependent infrastructure transportation projects using an evolutionary-based framework. Appl. Soft Compu. 2009, 9:512-526.
38. Jović Jadranka J., Popović Maja M. Modal split modeling using multicriteria analysis and discrete fuzzy sets. Yugoslav J. Oper. Res. 2001, 11(2):221-233.
39. Janic M. Multicriteria evaluation of high-speed rail, transrapid maglev and air passenger transport in Europe. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2003, 26(6):491-512.
40. Jakimavicius M., Burinskiene M. A GIS and multi-criteria-based analysis and ranking of transportation zones of Vilnius city. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. Baltic J. Sustain. 2009, 15(1):39-48.
41. Keshkamat S.S., Looijen J.M., Zuidgeest M.H.P. The formulation and evaluation of transport route planning alternatives: a spatial decision support system for the Via Baltica project, Poland. J. Transp. Geogr. 2009, 17:54-64.
42. Klungboonkrong P., Taylor M.A.P. Multicriteria environmental sensitivity evaluation of the urban road network: analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy compositional approach. Pap. Australas. Transp. Res. Forum 1997, 21:805-821.
43. Kourtit K., Macharis C., Nijkamp P. A multi-actor multi-criteria analysis of the performance of global cities. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 49:24-36.
44. Labbouz S., Roy B., Diab Y., Christen M. Implementing a public transport line: multi-criteria decision-making methods that facilitate concertation. Oper. Res. Int. J. 2008, 8:5-31.
45. Lee D.B. Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA. Transp. Policy 2000, 7(1):41-50.
46. Lehuédé F., Masson R., Parragh S.N., Péton O., Tricoire F. A multi-criteria large neighbourhood search for the transportation of disabled people. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2014, 65:983-1000.
47. Leviäkangas P., Lähesmaa J. Profitability evaluation of intelligent transport system investments. J. Transp. Eng. 2002, 128(3):276-286.
48. Leyva-López J.C., Fernández-González E.R. A new method for group decision support based on ELECTRE III methodology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2003, 148:14-27.
49. Ludin A.N.M., Latip S.N.H.M. Using multi-criteria analysis to identify suitable light rail transit route. J. Alam Bina 2007, 1:131-142.
50. Macharis C., Crompvoets J. A stakeholder-based assessment framework applied to evaluate development scenarios for the spatial data infrastructure for Flanders. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2014, 46:45-56.
51. Macharis C., Milan L., Verlinde S. A stakeholder-based multicriteria evaluation framework for city distribution. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 11:75-84.
52. Macharis, C., Nijkamp, P., 2013a. Multi-actor and multi-criteria analysis in evaluating mega-projects. In:Priemus, H., Van Wee, B.(Eds.),International Handbook on Mega-Projects, pp. 242-266.
53. Macharis, C., Nijkamp, P., 2013b. Stakeholder bias in multi-actor multi-criteria transportation evaluation: issues and solutions. In:Vanoutrive, T., Verhetsel, A. (Eds.),Smart Transport Networks - Market Structure, Sustainability and Decision Making, pp. 248-268.
54. Macharis C., Lebeau K., Turcksin L. Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 54:610-620.
55. Macharis C., Van Hoeck E., Verlinde S., Debauche W., Witlox F. Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis: A case study on night time delivery for urban distribution. City Distribution and Urban Freight Transport: Multiple Perspectives 2011, 101-119. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. C. Macharis, S. MELO (Eds.).
56. Macharis C., De Witte A., Turcksin L. The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics. Transp. Policy 2010, 17(5):303-311.
57. Macharis C., De Witte A., Ampe J. The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and practice. J. Adv. Transp. 2009, 43(2):183-202.
58. Macharis C., Verbeke A., De Brucker K. The strategic evaluation of new technologies through multicriteria analysis: the advisors case. Economic Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Innovations and Case Studies. Res. Transp. Econ. 2004, 8:443-462.
59. Macharis C. The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport: The MAMCA methodology. Eur. Transp./ Transp. Europei 2004, 114-120. (25/26).
60. Macharis C., Verbeke A., De Brucker K. The strategic evaluation of new technologies through multi-criteria analysis: the advisors case, in Economic impacts of Intelligent Transport Systems. Innovations and case studies 2004, Elsevier, Amsterdam. E. Bekiaris, Y. Nakanishi (Eds.).
61. Macharis C., Springael J., De Brucker K., Verbeke A. PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 153:307-317.
62. Macharis C., Brans J.-P., Mareschal B. The GDSS PROMETHEE procedure. J. Decis. Syst. 1998, 7:283-307.
63. Marschke, K., Ferreira, L., Bunker, J., 2005. Validating deployment guidelines for road-based intelligent transport systems (ITS) and traffic operation services. In: Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the Australian Institutes of Transport Research, Melbourne, December 8-10.
64. Medda F., Nijkamp P. A combinatorial assessment methodology for complex transport policy analysis. Integr. Assess. 2003, 4(3):214-222.
65. Mousseau V., Roy B., Sommerlatt I. Development of a decision aiding tool for the evolution of public transport ticket pricing in the Paris region. A-MCD-A Aide Multicritère à la Décision-Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding 2001, 213-230. Joint Research Center, European Commision, Luxembourg. M. Paruccini, A. Colorni, B. Roy (Eds.).
66. Mousseau, V., Multiple Criteria Decision Aid Bibliography, LAMSADE, Université Paris-Dauphine, last updated: 01/11/2009, last accessed: August 2013. http://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/mcda/biblio/index.html.
67. Nakamura H. The economic evaluation of transport infrastructure: needs for international comparisons. Transp. policy 2000, 7(1):3-6.
68. Ondrus, J., Pigneur, Y., 2006. A multi-stakeholder multi-criteria assessment framework of mobile payments: an illustration with the Swiss public transportation industry. In: R. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Kauai.
69. Park Y., Kyu Choi J., Zhang A. Evaluating competitiveness of air cargo express services. Transp. Res. E 2009, 45:321-334.
70. Poh K.L., Ang B.W. Transportation fuels and policy for Singapore: an AHP planning approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 1999, 37(4):507-525.
71. Priemus, H., and Van Wee, B 2013. International Handbook on Mega-Projects, (Eds.), . http://ISBN:978.1.78100.2290.2.
72. Quinet E. Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France. Transp. Policy 2000, 7(1):27-34.
73. Roy B., Słowiński R. Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. EURO J. Decis. Processes 2013, 1:69-97.
74. Saaty T.L. Group Decision Making and AHP', in The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies 1989, Springer-Verlag, New York. B. Golden, E. Wasil, P. Harker (Eds.).
75. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process 1988, McGrw Hill, New York.
76. Saito M. Application of the analytic hierarchy method to setting priorities on bridge replacement projects. Transp. Res. Rec. 1987, 1124:26-35.
77. Sayers T.H., Jessop A.T., Hills P.J. Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options-flexible, transparent and user-friendly?. Transp. Policy 2003, 10:95-105.
78. Scannella G., Beuthe M. Valuation of road projects with uncertain outcomes. Transp. Reviews 2003, 23(1):35-50.
79. Sharifi, M.A., Boerboom, L., Shamsudin, K.B., Veeramuthu, L., 2006. Spatial multiple criteria decision analysis in integrated planning for public transport and land use development study in Klang Valley Malaysia. In: Proceedings of the ISPRS Technical Commission II Symposium, Vienna, July 12-14, 85.
80. Seunglim, K., Seongkwan, M.L., 2006. AHP-based decesion-making process for construction of public transportion city model: case study of Jeju, Korea. In: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering, Montréal, Canada, June 14-16.
81. Stott J., Rodgers P., Martínez-Ovando J.C., Walker S.G. Automatic metro map layout using multicriteria optimization. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2011, 17(1):101-114.
82. Tabucanon M.T., Lee H. Multiple criteria evaluation of transportation system improvement projects: the Case of Korea. J. Adv. Transp. 1995, 29(1):127-134.
83. Talvitie A. Evaluation of road projects and programs in developing countries. Transp. Policy 2000, 7(1):61-72.
84. Tsamboulas D.A. A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments. Transp. Policy 2007, 14(1):11-26.
85. Tsamboulas D., Mikroudis G. EFECT-evaluation framework of environmental impacts and costs of transport initiatives. Transp. Res. D 2000, 5:283-303.
86. Tsamboulas D., Yiotis G., Panou K. Use of multicriteria methods for assessment of transport projects. J. Transp. Eng. 1999, 25(5):404-414.
87. Tudela A., Akiki N., Cisternas R. Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis. An application to urban transport investment. Transp. Res. A 2006, 40:414-423.
88. Turcksin L., Bernardini A., Macharis C. A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet, 26th Mini-EURO conference on Intelligent Decision Making in Transportation/Logistics New Trends and Directions, Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 20:945-965.
89. Tuzkaya U.R. Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using an integrated methodology and an application. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 6(2):277-290.
90. Tzeng G.H., Cheng-Wei L., Opricovic S. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 2005, 33:1373-1383.
91. Tzeng G.H., Tsaur S.H. Application of multicriteria decision making to old vehicle elimination in Taiwan. Energy Environ. 1993, 4(2):268-283.
92. Vaidya O.S., Kumar S. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 169:1-29.
93. Vanoutrive T., Verhetsel A. Smart Transport Networks - Market Structure, Sustainability and Decision Making 2013, ISBN 978.1.78254.832.4.
94. Vargas L.G. An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48:2-8.
95. Vermote L., Macharis C., Boeykens F., Schoolmeester C., Putman K. Traffic-restriction in Ramallah (Palestine): participatory sustainability assessment of pedestrian scenarios using a simplified transport model. Land Use Policy 2014, 41:453-464.
96. Vermote L., Macharis C., Putman K. A road network for freight transport in flanders: multi-actor multi-criteria assessment of alternative ring ways. Sustainability 2013, 5(10):4222-4246.
97. Vincke P. Multicriteria Decision-Aid 1992, Wiley and Sons, New York.
98. Vincke P., Brans J.P. A preference ranking organization method. The PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manag. Sci. 1985, 31:641-656.
99. Walker W.E. Policy analysis: a systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the public sector. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2000, 9:11-27.
100. Wey W.-M., Wu K.-Y. Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource allocation in transportation. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 46:985-1000.
101. Wiethoff M., Brookhuis K., de Waard D., Marchau V., Walta L., Wenzel G., de Brucker K., Macharis C. A methodology for improving road safety by novel infrastructural and invehicle technology combinations. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2012, 4:67-77.
102. Winebrake J.J., Creswick B.P. The future of hydrogen fueling systems for transportation: an application of perspective based scenario analysis using the analytical hierarchy process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2003, 70(2):359-384.
103. Yedla S., Shrestha R. Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Transp. Res. A 2003, 37:717-729.
104. Yoe C. Trade-Off Analysis Planning and Procedures Guidebook 2002, Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria.
105. Zhicai J., Jianping W., McDonald M. Socio-economic impact assessment of intelligent transport systems. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2006, 11(3):340-350.
106. Zografos, K.G., Androutsopoulos, K.N., 2001. Assessing the Impacts from the Introduction of Advanced Transport Telematics Technologies in Hazardous Materials Fleet Management. In: Proceedings of the 80th Annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., USA.