The multi‐actor, multi‐criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice

In this paper the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) method to evaluate transport projects is presented. This evaluation method specifically focuses on the inclusion of qualitative as well as quantitative criteria with their relative importance, defined by the multiple stakeholders, into one comprehensive evaluation process in order to facilitate the decision making process by the different stakeholders. The MAMCA methodology is introduced by an overview of other evaluation methods for transport projects in the past and is illustrated by means of two practical cases. The introduction will lead us to the theoretical conception of the MAMCA method where we draw the attention to the proven usefulness of the MAMCA for the evaluation of transport projects and the inclusion of different kinds of stakeholders, individuals as well as groups, into the evaluation process.

[1]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[2]  John Nellthorp,et al.  Transport project appraisal in the European Union , 2000 .

[3]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making for leaders , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[4]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  A framework for sustainable port planning in inland ports: a multistakeholder approach , 2003 .

[5]  Dimitrios A Tsamboulas,et al.  Use of Multicriteria Methods for Assessment of Transport Projects , 1999 .

[6]  Luis Ferreira,et al.  Towards A Methodology To Evaluate Public Transport Projects , 2002 .

[7]  Alain Verbeke,et al.  Sociaal-economische evaluatie van overheidsinvesteringen in transportinfrastructuur : kritische analyse van het bestaande instrumentarium, ontwikkeling van een eclectisch evaluatie-instrument , 1998 .

[8]  Robert Fullér,et al.  Problem Solving with Multiple Interdependent Criteria , 1997 .

[9]  J. Brans,et al.  Geometrical representations for MCDA , 1988 .

[10]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  The use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for the evaluation of transport projects: a review , 2007 .

[11]  Juan Carlos Leyva López,et al.  A new method for group decision support based on ELECTRE III methodology , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  Robert T. Eckenrode,et al.  Weighting Multiple Criteria , 1965 .

[13]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  Onderzoek naar verhandelbare mobiliteitsrechten: nog te veel vragen en te weinig mogelijkheden , 2004 .

[14]  Laszlo Nandor Kiss,et al.  Multicriteria Analysis Of The Financial Feasibility Of Transport Infrastructure Projects In Hungary , 2003 .

[15]  W. Walker.  Policy analysis: a systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the public sector , 2000 .

[16]  Bertrand Mareschal,et al.  The GDSS PROMETHEE procedure: a PROMETHEE-GAIA based procedure for group decision support , 1998 .

[17]  P. Leskinen,et al.  Incorporation of uncertainty into interval scale continuous utility functions in multi-criteria decision making - interactive and stochastic approaches. In: 18th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, June 19-23, 2006, Chania, Greece. Book of Abstracts , 2006 .

[18]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[19]  Maurice Landry,et al.  A stakeholder approach to MCDA , 1998 .

[20]  B. Roy.  Méthodologie multicritère d'aide à la décision , 1985 .

[21]  A. Verbeke,et al.  Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective , 2003 .

[22]  Klaas De Brucker,et al.  Naar een geïntegreerde methodiek voor de beoordeling van investeringsprojecten op vlak van mobiliteit en grootstedenbeleid. Een poging om de kloof tussen analysefase en beslissingsfase te dichten , 2006 .

[23]  Yoshihiko Hayashi,et al.  International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal , 2000 .

[24]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  THE STRATEGIC EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS: THE ADVISORS CASE. IN: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: INNOVATIONS AND CASE STUDIES , 2004 .

[25]  Peter Hills,et al.  MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION OF TRANSPORT OPTIONS: FLEXIBLE, TRANSPARENT AND USER-FRIENDLY? , 2003 .

[26]  Adel Guitouni,et al.  Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[27]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning , 1990 .

[28]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING FOR BUS OPERATION : A CASE STUDY FOR TAIPEI CITY , 1988 .

[29]  Philippe Vincke,et al.  Multicriteria Decision-Aid , 1992 .

[30]  T. Saaty.  Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2005 .

[31]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[32]  Thomas L. Saaty.  What is the analytic hierarchy process , 1988 .

[33]  Aura Reggiani,et al.  Transport Developments and Innovations in an Evolving World , 2004 .

[34]  R. Freeman.  Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[35]  P. Vincke,et al.  Note-A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making , 1985 .

[36]  Luis Ferreira,et al.  Multi-objective evaluation of intermodal freight terminal location decisions , 2005 .

[37]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[38]  Cheng-Wei Lin,et al.  Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation , 2005 .

[39]  L. Preston,et al.  The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications , 1995 .

[40]  Henri Moll,et al.  Environmental analyses of land transportation systems in The Netherlands , 2002 .

[41]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World , 1982 .

[42]  Johan Springael,et al.  PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..