State-of-the-art review on multi-criteria decision-making in the transport sector

被引:139
作者
Yannis, George [1 ]
Kopsacheili, Angeliki [2 ]
Dragomanovits, Anastasios [1 ]
Petraki, Virginia [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Tech Univ Athens, Dept Transportat Planning & Engn, Zografos 15773, Greece
[2] Attiko Metro SA, Athens 11525, Greece
关键词
Traffic engineering; Multi-criteria analysis; Multiple-attribute decision-making; Multiple-objective decision-making; INTEGRATED MCDM APPROACH; MULTIPLE-CRITERIA; PROJECTS; SYSTEM; FRAMEWORK; MODEL; METHODOLOGY; SELECTION; TOOL;
D O I
10.1016/j.jtte.2020.05.005
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Consistent decision-making requires a structured and systematic evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of different choice possibilities. For transport projects, policies or policy measures, and transport options evaluation, various multi-criteria methods have been developed and effectively applied to complement conventional cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis. The present paper aims to present a state-of-the-art review of pertinent literature regarding multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) in the transport sector, focusing on the basic concepts and procedure for multi-criteria decision-making in the transport sector, along with its role and evaluation parameters. A large selection of over 50 papers and publications between 1982 and 2019 have been reviewed, in order to provide an insight into the uses of MCDM methods in transport applications. Most commonly used MCDM methods techniques are identified and discussed through a wide review of pertinent literature, research and case studies, leading to interesting conclusions that provide a valuable insight into the use of multicriteria analysis techniques in transport sector related decision-making. Based on the wide range of reviewed literature, it is concluded that MCDM methods are being applied mostly to evaluate transport options rather than transport policies or projects and the most commonly used MCDM method in transport sector problems are analytic hierarchy process (AHP). (C) 2020 Periodical Offices of Changan University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner.
引用
收藏
页码:413 / 431
页数:19
相关论文
共 73 条
  • [1] Aldian A., 2005, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, V6, P3948, DOI DOI 10.11175/EASTS.6.3948
  • [2] MCDA and Risk Analysis in Transport Infrastructure Appraisals: the Rail Baltica Case
    Ambrasaite, Inga
    Barfod, Michael B.
    Salling, Kim B.
    [J]. STATE OF THE ART IN THE EUROPEAN QUANTITATIVE ORIENTED TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS RESEARCH, 2011: 14TH EURO WORKING GROUP ON TRANSPORTATION & 26TH MINI EURO CONFERENCE & 1ST EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE ON AIR TRANSPORT, 2011, 20
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2011, POSSIBLE BIAS MULTIA
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2019, SUSTAINABILITY BASEL, DOI DOI 10.3390/SU11123271
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2009, MULT AN MAN
  • [6] Awasthi A., 2013, 201301 CEPSINSTEAD U
  • [7] Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects
    Awasthi, Anjali
    Omrani, Hichem
    Gerber, Philippe
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2018, 116 : 247 - 259
  • [8] Basbas S., 2007, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, V2, P387, DOI [DOI 10.2495/SDP-V2-N4-387-407, 10.2495/SDP-V2-N4-387-407]
  • [9] Multi-objective decision-making for road design
    Brauers, Willem Karel M.
    Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras
    Peldschus, Friedel
    Turskis, Zenonas
    [J]. TRANSPORT, 2008, 23 (03) : 183 - 193
  • [10] Bristow A. L., 2000, TRANSPORT POLICY, V7, P51, DOI [10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00010-X, DOI 10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00010-X]