Analysis of AHP methods and the Pairwise Majority Rule (PMR) for collective preference rankings of sustainable mobility solutions

Transportation Research Procedia

Volumn 10, Issue , 2015, Pages 777-787

  Le Pira, Michela ^a   Inturri, Giuseppe ^a   Ignaccolo, Matteo ^a   Pluchino, Alessandro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

group decision making; multi criteria decision analysis; public participation; transport planning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959325037     PISSN: 23521457     EISSN: 23521465     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.031     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35, 216-224.
2. Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy 15, 73-80.
3. Borda, J.C. de, 1781. Memoire sur les elections au scrutiny. Historoire de l'Academie Royals des Sciences, Paris.
4. Cascetta, E., Pagliara, F., 2013. Public engagement for planning and designing transportation systems. SIDT Scientific Seminar 2012. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 87, 103-116.
5. Columbu, G.L., De Martino, A., Giansanti, A., 2008. Nature and statistics of majority rankings in a dynamical model of preference aggregation. Physica A 387, 1338-1344.
6. Condorcet, Marquis de, 1785. Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix. Imprimerie Royale. Paris, France.
7. Dasgupta, P., Maskin, E., 2004. The Fairest Vote of All. Scientific American 290 (3), 64-69.
8. De Luca, S., 2014. Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach. Transport Policy 33, 110-124.
9. Escobar, M.T., Moreno-Jiménez, J.M., 2007. Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation 16, 287-301.DOI 101007/s10726-006-9050-x.
10. Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana F., 2002. A Consensus Model for Multiperson Decision Making With Different Preference Structures. IEEE Transactions On Systems, Man And Cybernetics - Part A: Systems And Humans, Vol. 32, No. 3.
11. Ignaccolo, M., Caprì, S., Giunta, U., Inturri, G., 2006. Discrete Choice Model for Defining a Parking-Fee Policy on Island of Ortigia, Siracusa. J. Urban Plann. Dev., 132(3), 147-155.
12. Ishizaka, A. Nemery, P. 2013. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Methods and Software. Wiley.
13. Kelly, J., Jones, P., Barta, F., Hossinger, R., Witte, A., Christian, A., 2004. Successful transport decision-making - A project management and stakeholder engagement handbook, Guidemaps consortium.
14. Le Pira, M., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Garofalo, C., Pluchino A., Rapisarda, A., 2013. Agent-based modelling of Stakeholder Interaction in Transport Decisions. Selected Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR), 15th-18th July 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. ISBN: 978-85-285-0232-9.
15. Le Pira, M., Inturri, G., Ignaccolo, M., Pluchino, A., Rapisarda, A., 2015. Simulating opinion dynamics on stakeholders' networks through agent-based modeling for collective transport decisions. Procedia Computer Science 52, 884-889. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.146.
16. Li, T.H.Y., Ng, S.T., Skitmore, M., 2013. Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: A fuzzy approach. Automation in Construction 29, 123-135.
17. Litman, T., 2003. The Online TDM Encyclopedia: mobility management information gateway. Transport Policy 10, 245-249.
18. Litman, T., 2009. Transportation cost and benefit analysis: techniques, estimates and implications [Second Edition]. In: http://www.vtpi.org/tca/In press.
19. Macharis, C., 2005. The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport. European Transport \ Trasporti Europei n. 25-26, 114-126.
20. Macharis, C., De Witte, A., Turcksin, L., 2010. The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics. Transport Policy 17, 303-311.
21. Mahmoud, M., Hine, J., 2013. Using AHP to measure the perception gap between current and potential users of bus services. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 36, No. 1, 4-23.
22. Mau-Crimmins, T., de Steiguer, J.E., Dennis, D., 2005. AHP as a means for improving public participation: a pre-post experiment with university students. Forest Policy and Economics 7, 501-514.
23. Ministero dell'Ambiente (1998). Mobilità sostenibile nelle aree urbane. GU n. 179 del 3-8-1998. In: http://euromobility.org/normativa-new/Mobilit%C3%A0-Sostenibile/Normative-Nazionali-New/24%20dec27mar1998.pdf.
24. MOMACT (Mobility Management dell'Ateneo di CaTania), 2009. Piano Spostamenti Casa-Università: Documento Strategico. Edited by Caprì, S., Greco, A. In: http://www.momact.unict.it/sites/default/files/MOMACT-PSCU2009.pdf.
25. Pacuit, E., 2012. Voting Methods. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). In: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/voting-methods/In press.
26. Piantanakulchai, M., Saengkhao, N., 2003. Evaluation of alternatives in transportation planning using multi-stakeholders multi-objectives AHP modelling. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 4, October, 2003.
27. Quick, K., Narvaez, G.E., Saunoi-Sandgren E., 2014. Changing Minds through Deliberation: Citizens' Accounts of Their Changing Policy Problem Definitions and Preferences. International Research Society for Public Administration, Ottawa, Canada, April 9-11, 2014.
28. Raffaelli, G., Marsili, M., 2005. A Statistical Mechanics Model for the Emergence of Consensus. In: arXiv:cond-mat/0403030 [cond-mat.stat-mech].
29. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill. New York.
30. Saaty, T.L., 1987. The Analytic Hierarchy Process - What it is and how it is used. Mathl Modelling, Vol. 9, No. 3-5, 161-176.
31. Saaty, T.L., Hu, G., 1998. Ranking by Eigenvector Versus Other Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Appl. Math. Lett. Vol. 11, No. 4, 121-125.
32. Sivilevičius, H., Maskeliu¯naite, L., 2010. The criteria for identifying the quality of passengers' transportation by railway and their ranking using AHP method. Transport, 25:4, 368-381.
33. Vermote, L., Macharis, C., Hollevoet, J., Putman, K., 2014. Participatory evaluation of regional light rail scenarios: A Flemish case on sustainable mobility and land-use. Environmental Science & Policy 37, 101-120.
34. Voinov, A., Bousquet, F., 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 1268-1281.
35. von der Gracht, H.A., 2012. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 79, 1525-1536.