IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/hal-01291343.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices

Author

Listed:
  • R Khraibani

    (UCP - Université de Cergy Pontoise - Université Paris-Seine)

  • A de Palma

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • N Picard

    (UCP - Université de Cergy Pontoise - Université Paris-Seine)

  • I Kaysi

    (AUB - American University of Beirut [Beyrouth])

Abstract

The Transportation Elimination-by-Aspects (TEBA) framework, a new evaluation and decision making framework (and methodology) for large transportation projects, is proposed to elicit, structure and quantify the preferences of stakeholder groups across project alternatives. The decision rule used for group decision making within TEBA is the individual non-compensatory model of choice elimination by aspects (EBA). TEBA is designed to bring out the decision rule employed by decision makers when ranking the options presented, incorporate various criteria types and ease communication of relevant information related to options and criteria for multiple stakeholder groups. It is a platform for democratizing the decision making process. The TEBA framework was tested using a case study investigating alternative land connections between Beirut and Damascus. Key results showed that (1) stakeholders have employed EBA in making decisions, (2) a defined group of decision makers will rank options differently when provided with modified sets of criteria, (3) the public sector and general public groups ranked Impact on Employment among the top criteria, (4) the most important criterion per group from EBA was as expected; (5) the EBA analysis suggested that only 3 to 4 criteria are significant in reaching a decision; (6) aggregation of user assigned weights masked relative importance of criteria in some cases; and (7) analysis of user assigned weights and Minimum Threshold (MT) values suggest higher risk perception with increased criterion importance. Policy implications include recommendation to reach out to stakeholders for input on decisions, including the " people " but refrain from relying on criteria weights assigned by " experts " and reduce the " experts " ' role in decision making. Also, it is recommended to model the decision making in a probabilistic framework rather than a deterministic " one score " approach, seek to identify a consensus ranking, place particular attention on determining the values of the criteria that emerged as " top " at the evaluation stage and continue to emphasize risk measures.

Suggested Citation

  • R Khraibani & A de Palma & N Picard & I Kaysi, 2016. "A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01291343, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:hal-01291343
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.02.005
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://enpc.hal.science/hal-01291343v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://enpc.hal.science/hal-01291343v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.02.005?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. André Palma & Nathalie Picard & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2011. "Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 45-64, January.
    2. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    3. Short, Jack & Kopp, Andreas, 2005. "Transport infrastructure: Investment and planning. Policy and research aspects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 360-367, July.
    4. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    5. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Quinet, E., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 27-34, January.
    8. Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A., 2007. "A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 11-26, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Salling, Kim Bang & Banister, David, 2009. "Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(9-10), pages 800-813, November.
    11. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    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. Jinrui Pan & Jason Shachat & Sijia Wei, 2022. "Cognitive Stress and Learning Economic Order Quantity Inventory Management: An Experimental Investigation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 229-254, September.
    2. te Boveldt, Geert & Van Raemdonck, Koen & Macharis, Cathy, 2018. "A new railway tunnel under Brussels? Assessing political feasibility and desirability with competence-based multi criteria analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 30-39.
    3. Valentina Zozulya & Olga Romanchenko & Andrey Zuykov & Inga Zozulya, 2017. "The Features of Management of Innovation Risks at Pre-investment Stage of the Project in Modern Economic Realities," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 7(2), pages 43-48.
    4. Bari, Chintaman S. & Chandra, Satish & Dhamaniya, Ashish & Arkatkar, Shriniwas & Navandar, Yogeshwar V., 2021. "Service time variability at manual operated tollbooths under mixed traffic environment: Towards level-of-service thresholds," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 11-24.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. José Manuel Viegas, 2012. "The urban mobility system and regional competitiveness," Chapters, in: Roberta Capello & Tomaz Ponce Dentinho (ed.), Networks, Space and Competitiveness, chapter 2, pages 35-55, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Akin, Darcin & Kara, Derya, 2020. "Multicriteria analysis of planned intercity bus terminals in the metropolitan city of Istanbul, Turkey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 465-489.
    13. Salling, Kim Bang & Leleur, Steen, 2011. "Transport appraisal and Monte Carlo simulation by use of the CBA-DK model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 236-245, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Nogués, Soledad & González-González, Esther, 2014. "Multi-criteria impacts assessment for ranking highway projects in Northwest Spain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 80-91.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Guirao, Begoña & Campa, Juan Luis, 2015. "The effects of tourism on HSR: Spanish empirical evidence derived from a multi-criteria corridor selection methodology," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 37-46.
    19. Moshe Ben-Akiva & André Palma & Daniel McFadden & Maya Abou-Zeid & Pierre-André Chiappori & Matthieu Lapparent & Steven Durlauf & Mogens Fosgerau & Daisuke Fukuda & Stephane Hess & Charles Manski & Ar, 2012. "Process and context in choice models," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 439-456, June.
    20. Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A., 2007. "A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 11-26, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Behavioral Choice ; Elimination by Aspects; Consensus Model / Joint Decision Making; Index of Dispersion; Transportation Investment; Collective Decision Making; Cost Benefit Analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • C54 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Quantitative Policy Modeling
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • L91 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Transportation: General
    • R42 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government and Private Investment Analysis; Road Maintenance; Transportation Planning

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:cesptp:hal-01291343. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.