Dealing with the Complexity of Stakeholder Interaction in Participatory Transport Planning

Including an active participation of citizens and stakeholders from the beginning of transport decision-making processes is widely recognized as a precondition to avoid the failure of projects/policies/plans as a consequence of a lack of consensus. Appropriate methods and tools are needed to support participation processes towards well-thought and shared solutions. In this paper quantitative methods, stakeholder interaction and simulation models are used to guide and reproduce a participatory experiment aimed at consensus building about mobility management strategies. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been used to elicit stakeholder preferences, different voting methods have been used to aggregate the individual preferences, group interaction has been performed via a facilitated dialogue to reach a consensus among stakeholders and an agent-based model (ABM) has been used to simulate the same consensus building process. Besides the social network of stakeholders has been analyzed to gain insights on its influence on the consensus formation.

[1]  Franziska Klügl,et al.  A validation methodology for agent-based simulations , 2008, SAC '08.

[2]  Henrikas Sivilevičius,et al.  The criteria for identifying the quality of passengers’ transportation by railway and their ranking using AHP method , 2010 .

[3]  François Bousquet,et al.  Modelling with stakeholders , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  Mongkut Piantanakulchai,et al.  EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING USING MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS MULTI-OBJECTIVES AHP MODELING , 2003 .

[5]  C. Macharis,et al.  Participatory evaluation of regional light rail scenarios: A Flemish case on sustainable mobility and land-use , 2014 .

[6]  Sascha Ossowski,et al.  Agents in traffic and transportation: Exploring autonomy in logistics, management, simulation, and cooperative driving , 2005 .

[7]  Ennio Cascetta,et al.  Public Engagement for Planning and Designing Transportation Systems , 2013 .

[8]  M. T. Escobar,et al.  Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making , 2007 .

[9]  Julian Hine,et al.  Using AHP to measure the perception gap between current and potential users of bus services , 2013 .

[10]  David Banister,et al.  The sustainable mobility paradigm , 2008 .

[11]  Nadrian C. Seeman.  Nanotechnology and the double helix. , 2004 .

[12]  Michela Le Pira,et al.  Simulating Opinion Dynamics on Stakeholders' Networks through Agent-based Modeling for Collective Transport Decisions , 2015, ANT/SEIT.

[13]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport , 2004 .

[14]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Statistical physics of social dynamics , 2007, 0710.3256.

[15]  Franziska Kl.  A Validation Methodology for Agent-Based Simulations , 2008 .

[16]  K. Arrow.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[17]  C. Prell,et al.  Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Management , 2009, Society & Natural Resources.

[18]  Michela Le Pira,et al.  Finding shared decisions in stakeholder networks: An agent-based approach , 2016, 1604.05600.

[19]  Alessandro Pluchino,et al.  AGENT-BASED MODELLING OF STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION IN TRANSPORT DECISIONS , 2013 .

[20]  V. Latora,et al.  Complex networks: Structure and dynamics , 2006 .

[21]  E. Maskin,et al.  The fairest vote of all. , 2004, Scientific American.

[22]  Michela Le Pira,et al.  Modelling stakeholder participation in transport planning , 2016 .

[23]  T. Saaty,et al.  Ranking by Eigenvector Versus Other Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1998 .

[24]  Nicolas de Condorcet.  Essai Sur L'Application de L'Analyse a la Probabilite Des Decisions Rendues a la Pluralite Des Voix , 2009 .

[25]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Modelling Transport: Ortúzar/Modelling Transport , 2011 .

[26]  Todd Alexander Litman,et al.  Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis Techniques, Estimates and Implications Second Edition (2009) , 2003 .

[27]  Matteo Marsili,et al.  Statistical mechanics model for the emergence of consensus. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[28]  Michela Le Pira,et al.  Analysis of AHP methods and the Pairwise Majority Rule (PMR) for collective preference rankings of sustainable mobility solutions , 2015 .

[29]  J Kelly,et al.  Successful Transport Decision-making: a project management and stakeholder engagement handbook. Volume 1:Concepts and tools; Volume 2: fact sheets , 2004 .

[30]  S. Luca.  Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach , 2014 .

[31]  Pablo Aragonés-Beltrán,et al.  Social Network Analysis in participatory environmental decision making. The case of Spanish wetland La Albufera , 2013 .

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

[33]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software , 2013 .

[34]  John Scott.  What is social network analysis , 2010 .

[35]  Laurence Turcksin,et al.  The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics , 2010 .

[36]  Andrea Giansanti.  Remarks on the Condorcet's paradox , 2007 .

[37]  J. E. de Steiguer,et al.  AHP as a means for improving public participation: a pre-post experiment with university students , 2005 .