Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach

被引:186
|
作者
Macharis, Cathy [1 ]
Bernardini, Annalia [1 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Brussel, Dept BUTO Business Technol & Operat, Res Grp MOBI Mobil Logist & Automot Technol, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
关键词
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis; Stakeholders; Transport; Mobility; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; EVALUATION FRAMEWORK; SCENARIO ANALYSIS; ANALYSIS MAMCA; SYSTEM; INFRASTRUCTURE; PROMETHEE; SELECTION; METHODOLOGIES; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
In this paper we give an overview of the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for transport project appraisal. The aim of this review is to provide an outline of the increasing use of MCDA methods in the evaluation of transport projects. We investigate for which kind of transport decisions the MCDA methods are applied. The review consists of identifying the transport related subjects, the interconnected arising decision problems and the kind of representative MCDA method(s) used for transport project evaluations. This review allowed deriving a general frame for the evaluation of transport projects. One of the conclusions resulted in the importance of integrating stakeholders in the decision process not yet very common in the transport projects that were reviewed. The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (IVIAMCA) approach is suggested as a direction for further research. The MAMCA methodology has already proven its usefulness in several transport related decision problems enabling to involve the stakeholders explicitly in the decision process. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:177 / 186
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] EVALUATION OF TRANSPORT PROJECTS USING MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHOD
    Macura, Dragana
    Bojovic, Nebojsa
    Nuhodzic, Resad
    Selmic, Milica
    Boskovic, Branislav
    PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT ENGINEERING (ICTTE), 2012, : 547 - 554
  • [12] Improving policy support in city logistics: The contributions of a multi-actor multi-criteria analysis
    Lebeau, Philippe
    Macharis, Cathy
    Van Mierlo, Joeri
    Janjevic, Milena
    CASE STUDIES ON TRANSPORT POLICY, 2018, 6 (04) : 554 - 563
  • [13] Cooperative multi-actor multi-criteria optimization framework for process integration
    Lechtenberg, Fabian
    Areste-Salo, Lluc
    Espuna, Antonio
    Graells, Moises
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2025, 377
  • [14] A bilateral deliberation mechanism for conflict resolving with multi-actor and multi-criteria
    Luo, Shucheng
    Xu, Zeshui
    Zhu, Bin
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2024, 319 (01) : 234 - 245
  • [15] A multi-actor, multi-criteria approach for technology selection when designing mobile information systems
    Ondrus, J
    Bui, T
    Pigneur, Y
    Mobile Information Systems II, 2005, 191 : 271 - 278
  • [16] A collaborative group decision-support system: the survey based multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) software
    Huang, He
    Burgherr, Peter
    Macharis, Cathy
    JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY, 2024,
  • [17] Multi-criteria analysis of transport infrastructure projects
    Broniewicz, Elzbieta
    Ogrodnik, Karolina
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 83
  • [18] A Road Network for Freight Transport in Flanders: Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Assessment of Alternative Ring Ways
    Vermote, Levi
    Macharis, Cathy
    Putman, Koen
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2013, 5 (10) : 4222 - 4246
  • [19] Assessing Spatial Data Infrastructure Policy Strategies Using the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis
    Geudens, Tessa
    Macharis, Cathy
    Crompvoets, Joep
    Plastria, Frank
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURES RESEARCH, 2009, 4 : 265 - 297
  • [20] The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics
    Macharis, Cathy
    De Witte, Astrid
    Turcksin, Laurence
    TRANSPORT POLICY, 2010, 17 (05) : 303 - 311