Sustainable Urban Transport Planning Considering Different Stakeholder Groups by an Interval-AHP Decision Support Model

Sustainable urban transport requires smart and environmentally-friendly technical solutions. It also needs to meet the demands of different user groups, including current and potential future users, in order to avoid opposition of the citizens and to support sustainable development decisions. While these requirements are well-known, conducting full surveys of user needs and preferences are tedious and costly, and the interests of different user groups may be contradictory. We therefore developed a methodology based on the prevalent Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is capable of dealing with the inconsistencies and uncertainties of users’ responses by applying an Interval Analytic Hierarchy Process (IAHP) through comparing the results of passengers to reference stakeholder groups. For a case study in Mersin, a coastal city in southern Turkey with 1.7 Million inhabitants, three groups were surveyed with questionnaires: 40 users of the public transport system, 40 non-users, and 17 experts. Based on interval pairwise comparison matrices, consisting of whole judgments of all groups, the IAHP methodology could attain a consensual preference ranking for a future public transportation system between the three groups. A sensitivity analysis revealed that the factor ranking was very stable.

[1]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  Stakeholder perceptions in fisheries management - Sectors with benthic impacts , 2018, Marine Policy.

[2]  T. Gärling,et al.  Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users : A research review , 2013 .

[3]  Mark Koryagin.  Urban Planning: a Game Theory Application for the Travel Demand Management , 2017 .

[4]  Kirsten L. Kinzer.  How can we help? An exploration of the public’s role in overcoming barriers to urban sustainability plan implementation , 2018 .

[5]  Theodosios Kritikos,et al.  GIS-based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for landslide susceptibility mapping at northern Evia, Greece [GIS-basierte multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalysen zur Kartierung von Massenverlagerungspotenzialen im nördlichen Evia, Griechenland.] , 2011 .

[6]  Szabolcs Duleba,et al.  A dynamic analysis on public bus transport's supply quality by using AHP , 2012 .

[7]  Zahra Sadat Saeideh Zarabadi,et al.  Developing a fuzzy AHP model to evaluate environmental sustainability from the perspective of Secured by Design scheme—A case study , 2013 .

[8]  Erick P. Massami,et al.  Application of Vague Analytical Hierarchy Process to Prioritize the Challenges Facing Public Transportation in Dar Es Salaam City-Tanzania , 2016 .

[9]  Madhav G. Badami,et al.  What influences satisfaction and loyalty in public transport? A review of the literature , 2018 .

[10]  Robert Hrelja,et al.  Integrating transport and land-use planning? How steering cultures in local authorities affect implementation of integrated public transport and land-use planning , 2015 .

[11]  Hamid Reza Pourghasemi,et al.  A comparative assessment of prediction capabilities of modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) and Mamdani fuzzy logic models using Netcad-GIS for forest fire susceptibility mapping , 2016 .

[12]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Network Process – Dependence and Feedback in Decision-Making: Theory and Validation Examples , 2006 .

[13]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  Interval-valued hesitant preference relations and their applications to group decision making , 2013, Knowl. Based Syst..

[14]  Miriam Solomon,et al.  Groupthink versus The Wisdom of Crowds: The Social Epistemology of Deliberation and Dissent , 2006 .

[15]  Ludmil Mikhailov,et al.  Group prioritization in the AHP by fuzzy preference programming method , 2004, Comput. Oper. Res..

[16]  Soo Chen Kwan,et al.  Trip characteristics as the determinants of intention to shift to rail transport among private motor vehicle users in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia , 2018 .

[17]  Claus Rinner,et al.  Introduction to GIS-MCDA , 2015 .

[18]  G Corpuz,et al.  Public transport or private vehicle: factors that impact on mode choice , 2007 .

[19]  Francisco José Madrid-Cuevas,et al.  Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion , 2014, Pattern Recognit..

[20]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Inconsistency and rank preservation , 1984 .

[21]  Z. Juan,et al.  Do the organizational forms affect passenger satisfaction? Evidence from Chinese public transport service , 2016 .

[22]  L. Suganthi,et al.  Multi expert and multi criteria evaluation of sectoral investments for sustainable development: An integrated fuzzy AHP, VIKOR / DEA methodology , 2018, Sustainable Cities and Society.

[23]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[24]  Jacek Żak,et al.  Multiple Criteria Evaluation of Different Redesign Variants of the Public Tram System , 2014 .

[25]  Thomas C. Beierle.  Democracy in practice , 2002 .

[26]  T. Saaty.  The Analytic Network Process , 2001 .

[27]  Sumiani Yusoff,et al.  Mode Choice between Private and Public Transport in Klang Valley, Malaysia , 2014, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[28]  Fang Liu,et al.  Acceptable consistency analysis of interval reciprocal comparison matrices , 2009, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[29]  Yang Yang,et al.  A Fuzzy ANP-Based Approach to Evaluate Region Agricultural Drought Risk , 2011 .

[30]  Younes Boujelbene,et al.  The Performance Analysis of Public Transport Operators in Tunisia Using AHP Method , 2015 .

[31]  Sarbast Moslem,et al.  Examining Pareto optimality in analytic hierarchy process on real Data: An application in public transport service development , 2019, Expert Syst. Appl..

[32]  Xinping Yan,et al.  Risk influencing factors analysis of Arctic maritime transportation systems: a Chinese perspective , 2018 .

[33]  M. Evers,et al.  Participatory flood vulnerability assessment : a multi-criteria approach , 2017 .

[34]  Ludovic-Alexandre Vidal,et al.  Using a Delphi process and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[35]  R. Salomone,et al.  Sustainable Local Development and Environmental Governance: A Strategic Planning Experience , 2016 .

[36]  Omid Ghorbanzadeh,et al.  Comparing Classic and Interval Analytical Hierarchy Process Methodologies for Measuring Area-Level Deprivation to Analyze Health Inequalities , 2018, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[37]  K. Steinnocher,et al.  Can ISO-Defined Urban Sustainability Indicators Be Derived from Remote Sensing: An Expert Weighting Approach , 2018 .

[38]  Paul Goodwin,et al.  Decision Analysis for Management Judgment , 1998 .

[39]  Guillermo A. Mendoza,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms , 2006 .

[40]  Omkarprasad S. Vaidya,et al.  Evaluating the Performance of Public Urban Transportation Systems in India , 2014 .

[41]  P. Dwivedi,et al.  Understanding perceptions of stakeholder groups about Forestry Best Management Practices in Georgia. , 2018, Journal of environmental management.

[42]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  The multi‐actor, multi‐criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice , 2009 .

[43]  Sarbast Moslem,et al.  Application of AHP for evaluating passenger demand for public transport improvements in Mersin, Turkey , 2018, Pollack Periodica.

[44]  A. Patt,et al.  Valuing co-benefits to make low-carbon investments in cities bankable: The case of waste and transportation projects , 2017 .

[45]  Zohre Sadat Pourtaghi,et al.  Forest fire susceptibility mapping in the Minudasht forests, Golestan province, Iran , 2015, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[46]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in transportation systems: a systematic review of the state of the art literature , 2015 .

[47]  Szabolcs Duleba,et al.  An analysis on the connections of factors in a public transport system by AHP-ISM , 2013 .

[48]  Alessandro Sanches-Pereira,et al.  Combining the functional unit concept and the analytic hierarchy process method for performance assessment of public transport options , 2018, Case Studies on Transport Policy.

[49]  Omid Ghorbanzadeh,et al.  GIS-based Interval Pairwise Comparison Matrices as a Novel Approach for Optimizing an Analytical Hierarchy Process and Multiple Criteria Weighting , 2017 .

[50]  Tomoe Entani,et al.  Uncertainty index based interval assignment by Interval AHP , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[51]  Thomas Blaschke,et al.  Multi-criteria risk evaluation by integrating an analytical network process approach into GIS-based sensitivity and uncertainty analyses , 2018 .

[52]  Bakhtiar Feizizadeh,et al.  A Novel Approach of Fuzzy Dempster–Shafer Theory for Spatial Uncertainty Analysis and Accuracy Assessment of Object-Based Image Classification , 2018, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[53]  Jin Si,et al.  Assessment of building-integrated green technologies: A review and case study on applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method , 2016 .

[54]  M. Nassereddinea,et al.  An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran , 2018 .

[55]  Thomas Blaschke,et al.  An interval matrix method used to optimize the decision matrix in AHP technique for land subsidence susceptibility mapping , 2018, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[56]  Paris A. Fokaides,et al.  European smart cities: The role of zero energy buildings , 2015 .