IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v95y2024ics0038012124002283.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aggregating judgments in non negotiable group decisions in transport systems

Author

Listed:
  • Amenta, Pietro

Abstract

This paper aims to assess user preferences on four different bus lines connecting Benevento to Rome. For this purpose, pairwise comparison methods were used. Passengers were asked to compare possible alternatives of choice based on three service-related criteria and in a scenario where negotiation is not possible. To understand which bus line was preferred by the users, an aggregation method was used to identify the overall priority vector, thanks to suitable weights assigned to each decision maker and based on congruence with the judgments of all other users.

Suggested Citation

  • Amenta, Pietro, 2024. "Aggregating judgments in non negotiable group decisions in transport systems," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:95:y:2024:i:c:s0038012124002283
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2024.102029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012124002283
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102029?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daimi, Sarra & Rebai, Sonia, 2023. "Sustainability performance assessment of Tunisian public transport companies: AHP and ANP approaches," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Hensher, David A. & Stopher, Peter & Bullock, Philip, 2003. "Service quality--developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 499-517, July.
    3. Zahir, Sajjad, 1999. "Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 373-396, January.
    4. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    5. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    6. Yoshio Takane & Tadashi Shibayama, 1991. "Principal component analysis with external information on both subjects and variables," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 97-120, March.
    7. Gass, S. I. & Rapcsak, T., 2004. "Singular value decomposition in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(3), pages 573-584, May.
    8. de Oña, Juan & de Oña, Rocío & Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2013. "Perceived service quality in bus transit service: A structural equation approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 219-226.
    9. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    10. Zahir, Sajjad, 1999. "Clusters in a group: Decision making in the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 620-634, February.
    11. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    12. Lavit, Christine & Escoufier, Yves & Sabatier, Robert & Traissac, Pierre, 1994. "The ACT (STATIS method)," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 97-119, August.
    13. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    2. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    3. Changsheng Lin & Gang Kou & Yi Peng & Fawaz E. Alsaadi, 2022. "Aggregation of the nearest consistency matrices with the acceptable consensus in AHP-GDM," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 179-195, September.
    4. Petra Grošelj & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh & Lidija Zadnik Stirn, 2011. "Methods based on data envelopment analysis for deriving group priorities in analytic hierarchy process," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 19(3), pages 267-284, September.
    5. Bolloju, N., 2001. "Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 499-508, February.
    6. Pietro Amenta & Alessio Ishizaka & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Vijay Vyas, 2020. "Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 33-62, January.
    7. Sangeeta Pant & Anuj Kumar & Mangey Ram & Yury Klochkov & Hitesh Kumar Sharma, 2022. "Consistency Indices in Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, April.
    8. L. Sun & B. S. Greenberg, 2006. "Multicriteria Group Decision Making: Optimal Priority Synthesis from Pairwise Comparisons," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 317-339, August.
    9. Parra-Lopez, Carlos & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & de-Haro-Gimenez, Tomas, 2008. "A systemic comparative assessment of the multifunctional performance of alternative olive systems in Spain within an AHP-extended framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 820-834, February.
    10. Sarker, Rumana Islam & Kaplan, Sigal & Mailer, Markus & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2019. "Applying affective event theory to explain transit users’ reactions to service disruptions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 593-605.
    11. Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Antonello D’Ambra, 2021. "Restricted Common Component and Specific Weight Analysis: A Constrained Explorative Approach for the Customer Satisfaction Evaluation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 409-427, August.
    12. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    13. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    14. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    15. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    16. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Alberto Turón, 2019. "AHP-Group Decision Making Based on Consistency," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Alfredo Altuzarra & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador, 2010. "Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1755-1773, December.
    18. Lee, Hakyeon & Geum, Youngjung, 2017. "Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-24.
    19. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    20. Szabolcs Duleba & Ahmad Alkharabsheh & Fatma Kutlu Gündoğdu, 2022. "Creating a common priority vector in intuitionistic fuzzy AHP: a comparison of entropy-based and distance-based models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(1), pages 163-187, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:95:y:2024:i:c:s0038012124002283. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.