IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v10y2003i2p95-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options--flexible, transparent and user-friendly?

Author

Listed:
  • Sayers, T. M.
  • Jessop, A. T.
  • Hills, P. J.

Abstract

Although the current UK system of transport project appraisal (NATA) has made progress towards a more inclusive approach, based upon five criteria, it lacks guidance to decision-takers as to how the multi-criteria information about alternative projects should be used to identify the preferred option. This could lead to a lack of clarity, consistency and accountability in a crucial part of the decision-taking process, despite the care taken to assess all the various impacts of the alternatives. This paper proposes a method whereby the assessment information can be combined, using a weighted sum. It describes a novel way of obtaining the relevant weights, such that minimum discrimination between alternatives is ensured and the derivation of the weights rests on a set of explicit constraints. This has the merit of allowing an appropriate degree of both consistency and flexibility with respect to the relative weights of the various criteria. It could open the way to a more flexible, transparent and user-friendly method of ranking transport investment options.

Suggested Citation

  • Sayers, T. M. & Jessop, A. T. & Hills, P. J., 2003. "Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options--flexible, transparent and user-friendly?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 95-105, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:10:y:2003:i:2:p:95-105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(02)00049-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    2. Quinet, E., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 27-34, January.
    3. Nellthorp, J. & Mackie, P. J., 2000. "The UK Roads Review--a hedonic model of decision making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 127-138, April.
    4. Ahti A. Salo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 1992. "Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1053-1061, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Khraibani, R. & de Palma, A. & Picard, N. & Kaysi, I., 2016. "A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 67-81.
    2. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    3. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    4. Gardziejczyk, Wladyslaw & Zabicki, Piotr, 2014. "The influence of the scenario and assessment method on the choice of road alignment variants," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 294-305.
    5. Berrittella, Maria & Certa, Antonella & Enea, Mario & Zito, Pietro, 2007. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process for The Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 10264, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    6. Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A., 2007. "A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 11-26, January.
    7. Awasthi, Anjali & Omrani, Hichem & Gerber, Philippe, 2018. "Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 247-259.
    8. 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.
    9. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    10. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Hine, Julian & Gunay, Banihan & Blair, Neale, 2011. "Using GIS to visualise and evaluate student travel behaviour," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 13-32.
    11. Maria Berrittella & A. Certa & M. Enea & P. Zito, 2007. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process for The Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts," Working Papers 2007.12, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Johanna Camargo Pérez & Martha Carrillo & Jairo Montoya-Torres, 2015. "Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 69-87, March.
    13. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2019. "A review of cost–benefit analysis and multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of sustainable transport in project evaluation," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 327-358, November.
    14. Peyman Babashamsi & Nur Izzi Md Yusoff & Halil Ceylan & Nor Ghani Md Nor & Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi, 2016. "Sustainable Development Factors in Pavement Life-Cycle: Highway/Airport Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    16. Lowry, Michael B., 2010. "Using optimization to program projects in the era of communicative rationality," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 94-101, March.
    17. Ward, E. John & Dimitriou, Harry T. & Dean, Marco, 2016. "Theory and background of multi-criteria analysis: Toward a policy-led approach to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 21-45.
    18. Damart, Sébastien & Roy, Bernard, 2009. "The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 200-212, August.

    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. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    2. Khraibani, R. & de Palma, A. & Picard, N. & Kaysi, I., 2016. "A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 67-81.
    3. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    4. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    5. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    6. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    7. Tofallis, C., 1996. "Improving discernment in DEA using profiling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 361-364, June.
    8. J. Granat & M. Makowski, 1998. "ISAAP - Interactive Specification and Analysis of Aspiration-Based Preferences," Working Papers ir98052, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    9. Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2011. "Do Cost--Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010--21," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 29-48, April.
    10. Hamalainen, Raimo P. & Mantysaari, Juha, 2002. "Dynamic multi-objective heating optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Laird, James J. & Venables, Anthony J., 2017. "Transport investment and economic performance: A framework for project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    13. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    14. Eliasson, Jonas, 2023. "Tillbaka till framtiden: en nygammal planprocess [Back to the future: a renewed infrastructure planning process]," MPRA Paper 118658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Juho Kokkala & Kimmo Berg & Kai Virtanen & Jirka Poropudas, 2019. "Rationalizable strategies in games with incomplete preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 185-204, March.
    16. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    17. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Liesio, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2007. "Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1488-1505, September.
    19. Haines, Linda M., 1998. "A statistical approach to the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgements. (I). Distributions on feasible regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 112-125, October.
    20. Hayashi, Y. & Morisugi, H., 2000. "International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 73-88, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:trapol:v:10:y:2003:i:2:p:95-105. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    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.