Application of analytic hierarchy process to prioritize urban transport options : Comparative analysis of group aggregation methods

The present study presents a comparative analysis of different group aggregation methods adopted in AHP by testing them against social choice axioms with a case study of Delhi transport system. The group aggregation (GA) methods and their correctness were tested while prioritizing the alternative options to achieve energy efficient and less polluting transport system in Delhi. It was observed that among all group aggregation methods, geometric mean method (GMM) - the most widely adopted GA method of AHP - showed poor performance and failed to satisfy the most popular "pareto optimality and non-dictatorship axiom" raising questions on its validity as GA method adopted in AHP. All other group aggregation methods viz. weighted arithmetic mean method with varying weights and equal weights (WAMM, WeAMM) and arithmetic mean of individual priorities (AMM) resulted in concurring results with the individual member priorities. This study demonstrates that WeAMM resulted in better aggregation of individual priorities compared to WAMM. Comparative analysis between individual and group priorities demonstrates that the arithmetic mean (AMM) of priorities by individual members of the group showed minimum deviation from the group consensus making it the most suitable and simple method to aggregate individual preferences to arrive at a group consensus.

[1]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1980 .

[2]  E. Forman,et al.  Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[4]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks , 2013 .

[5]  Bo K. Wong,et al.  Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  C. Kirkwood,et al.  The Effectiveness of Partial Information about Attribute Weights for Ranking Alternatives in Multiattribute Decision Making , 1993 .

[7]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Axiomatic Social Choice Theory: An Overview and Interpretation , 1976 .

[8]  J. Dyer.  Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process , 1990 .

[9]  R. Keeney.  A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility , 1976 .

[10]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Reply to “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” by J. S. Dyer , 1990 .

[11]  T. Saaty.  Homogeneity and clustering in AHP ensures the validity of the scale , 1994 .

[12]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2012 .

[13]  Pekka Korhonen,et al.  Supporting individuals in group decision-making , 1990 .

[14]  Janna Marchien Hummel,et al.  Supporting medical technology development with the analytic hierarchy process , 2001 .

[15]  T. Saaty.  Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process , 1986 .

[16]  Colin O. Benjamin,et al.  Planning Facilities at the University of Missouri-Rolla , 1992 .

[17]  N. Bhushan,et al.  Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[18]  Edward L. Hannan,et al.  An eigenvalue method for evaluating contestants , 1983, Comput. Oper. Res..

[19]  J. Richelson.  A comparative analysis of social choice functions, IV , 1978 .

[20]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[21]  R Ramanathan,et al.  A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[22]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS , 2008 .

[23]  Yeu-Shiang Huang,et al.  A study on aggregation of group decisions , 2009 .

[24]  T. Saaty.  Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1994 .

[25]  D. W. Bunn,et al.  Group Choice , 1980 .

[26]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[27]  T. Saaty.  An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” , 1990 .

[28]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process , 1993 .

[29]  Sajjad Zahir,et al.  Clusters in a group: Decision making in the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..