IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v42y2015i2p389-406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of reasoning maps in evaluation of transport alternatives: inclusion of uncertainty and “I Don’t Know”: demonstration of a method

Author

Listed:
  • Nopadon Kronprasert
  • Antti Talvitie

Abstract

Selection of a transport alternative is usually a messy process. The traditional approaches consider the relationships as either deterministic or probabilistic, neither of which incorporates the degree of ignorance (i.e., “I don’t know” opinion). Further, different stakeholders seek to justify their preferences with reasoning that suits their agenda. This paper proposes and demonstrates a method that evaluates the validity of the reasoning process and derives the degrees of belief that stated goals are achieved. The paper demonstrates a ‘reasoning map’ method for evaluating transport alternatives, where the analysts accept and employ the notion of “I don’t know” about an issue. The reasoning map depicts the relational chains from the attributes of an action to the stated goals, and recognizes the notion of “I don’t know”. This paper uses the theory of evidence to account for ignorance; it calculates the propagation of uncertainties along the reasoning chains. The context chosen for this demonstration is the selection of a public transit mode, personal rapid transit, over Bus, in a commercial complex in Washington DC. The paper has a limited objective and is not a comprehensive evaluation of alternatives. It merely explains how to compute a numerical value for the strength of reasoning, how to deal with analyst’s notion of “I don’t know,” how to interpret the overall reliability of the reasoning process, how to measure the goal achievement of an alternative, and how to find the critical paths linking the planning options to goals. For use in planning practice, consultation of experts and affected citizens and aggregation of their views is needed to develop the reasoning maps. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Nopadon Kronprasert & Antti Talvitie, 2015. "Use of reasoning maps in evaluation of transport alternatives: inclusion of uncertainty and “I Don’t Know”: demonstration of a method," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 389-406, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:42:y:2015:i:2:p:389-406
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-014-9555-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11116-014-9555-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-014-9555-0?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. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, September.
    2. Teng, Junn-Yuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 1996. "A multiobjective programming approach for selecting non-independent transportation investment alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 291-307, August.
    3. Richard Willson, 2001. "Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-31, February.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Beynon, Malcolm & Curry, Bruce & Morgan, Peter, 2000. "The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50, February.
    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. Karasakal, Esra & Aker, Pınar, 2017. "A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&D project selection problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 79-92.
    2. Figueira, Jose & Roy, Bernard, 2002. "Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos' procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 317-326, June.
    3. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    4. Shiau, Tzay-An, 2013. "Evaluating sustainable transport strategies for the counties of Taiwan based on their degree of urbanization," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 101-108.
    5. Carlos José Miranda Victório & Helder Gomes Costa & Cristina Gomes de Souza, 2016. "Modeling selection criteria of R&D projects for awarding direct subsidies to the private sector," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 275-287.
    6. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2004. "A new airline safety index," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 369-383, May.
    7. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    8. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    9. Punys, P. & Radzevičius, A. & Kvaraciejus, A. & Gasiūnas, V. & Šilinis, L., 2019. "A multi-criteria analysis for siting surface-flow constructed wetlands in tile-drained agricultural catchments: The case of Lithuania," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 1036-1046.
    10. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    11. Daniel R. Georgiadis & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2013. "Using multi criteria decision making in analysis of alternatives for selection of enabling technology," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 287-303, September.
    12. Anshu, Kumari & Gaur, Loveleen & Singh, Gurmeet, 2022. "Impact of customer experience on attitude and repurchase intention in online grocery retailing: A moderation mechanism of value Co-creation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Salah Ghabri & Jean-Michel Josselin & Benoît Le Maux, 2019. "Could or Should We Use MCDA in the French HTA Process?," Post-Print halshs-02319704, HAL.
    14. Yang, J.B. & Wang, Y.M. & Xu, D.L. & Chin, K.S., 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 309-343, May.
    15. Malcolm J. Beynon, 2006. "The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-42, January.
    16. Marco Aurélio Sernagiotto & Valério Rosset & Mariá C. V. Nascimento, 2022. "A novel multi-objective approach for link selection in aeronautical telecommunication networks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(2), pages 1-31, December.
    17. Johannes S. Timmermans & Giampiero E.G. Beroggi, 2004. "An Experimental Assessment of Coleman's Linear System of Action for Supporting Policy Negotiations," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 267-285, November.
    18. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    19. Ren, Jingzheng & Lützen, Marie, 2017. "Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping: Multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1003-1019.
    20. Salah Ghabri & Jean-Michel Josselin & Benoît Maux, 2019. "Could or Should We Use MCDA in the French HTA Process?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(12), pages 1417-1419, December.

    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:kap:transp:v:42:y:2015:i:2:p:389-406. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.