A Combined AHP-PROMETHEE Approach for Selecting the Most Appropriate Policy Scenario to Stimulate a Clean Vehicle Fleet

The aim of this paper is to recommend a multi-instrumentality policy package to the Belgian government in its objective to reduce environmental externalities by encouraging people to make a more sustainable vehicle choice. As there are many policy instruments available (regulatory, economic, transport supply instruments), which may have several important effects referring to economic, environmental, technical and social aspects, selecting the most appropriate policy scenario is a multi-criteria decision making problem. This paper proposes an integrated approach for the decision-making problem that combines the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE). The combination of both approaches enables a careful evaluation of the identified policy scenarios in which their strong and weak points are detected and a ranking is provided which facilitates the final selection for the decision-maker.

[1]  P. Lataire,et al.  Environmental rating of vehicles with different fuels and drive trains: a univocal and applicable methodology , 2006 .

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

[3]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  A PREFERENCE RANKING ORGANIZATION METHOD , 1985 .

[4]  Valentin Bertsch,et al.  Moderated Decision Support and Countermeasure Planning for Off-Site Emergency Management , 2005 .

[5]  R. Hickman,et al.  Transport and climate change: Simulating the options for carbon reduction in London , 2010 .

[6]  Milan Janic,et al.  Multicriteria Evaluation of High-speed Rail, Transrapid Maglev and Air Passenger Transport in Europe , 2003 .

[7]  Metin Dagdeviren,et al.  Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[8]  Michel Beuthe,et al.  Valuation of road projects with uncertain outcomes , 2003 .

[9]  Simon Shepherd,et al.  The Principles of Integration in Urban Transport Strategies , 2006 .

[10]  Bertrand Mareschal,et al.  The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid , 1994, Decis. Support Syst..

[11]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHOD , 1986 .

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

[13]  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 .

[14]  G. Koopman,et al.  POLICIES TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS FROM CARS IN EUROPE: A PARTIAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS , 1995 .

[15]  Alejandro Tudela,et al.  Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments , 2006 .

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

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

[18]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  THE APPLICABILITY OF MULTICRITERIA-ANALYSIS TO THE EVALUATION OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS (ITS). IN: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: INNOVATIONS AND CASE STUDIES , 2004 .

[19]  Lynn J. Loudenback.  Decision making for leaders : Saaty, Thomas L., Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, CA, 251 pp. , 1984 .

[20]  Alexander Teytelboym,et al.  Part I: Externalities and economic policies in road transport , 2010 .

[21]  Markus Schwaninger,et al.  Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  Simon French,et al.  Decision conferencing on countermeasures after a large nuclear accident. Report of an exercise by the BER-3 of the NKS BER programme , 1993 .

[23]  De-Li Yang,et al.  Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing , 2007, Comput. Oper. Res..

[24]  J Climaco,et al.  THE APPLICABILITY OF MULTICRITERIA-ANALYSIS TO THE EVALUATION OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS (ITS) , 2004 .

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

[26]  C. Turcanu,et al.  On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis , 2007 .

[27]  L. Ryan,et al.  Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies , 2011 .

[28]  Popi Konidari,et al.  A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments , 2007 .

[29]  Carlos A. Bana e Costa,et al.  The use of multi‐criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi‐actor context: case study , 2001 .

[30]  M. Sharifi,et al.  Spatial multiple criteria decision analysis in integrated planning for public transport and land use development study in Klang Valley, Malaysia , 2006 .

[31]  José Manuel Viegas,et al.  Transport policy and environmental impacts: The importance of multi-instrumentality in policy integration , 2007 .

[32]  Giuseppe Munda,et al.  Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[34]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis , 2013 .