Share:


Supporting sustainable transport appraisals using stakeholder involvement and MCDA

    Michael Bruhn Barfod Affiliation

Abstract

Appraisal processes for transport initiatives are often characterised by their complexity involving a wide range of impacts that need to be addressed and many stakeholders that attempt to influence the decisions to be made. The increasing interest for the environment and sustainable development in general has stressed the need for taking a broad perspective into account when addressing transport initiatives. This means that economic, social and environmental dimensions need to be considered simultaneously in the appraisal process. The focus on incorporating such sustainability considerations has set new demands for the appraisal process and has revealed an increasing need for involving stakeholders in the decision support process to capture all aspects of the often complex decision problems. Conventional appraisals within the transport area are often only based on cost-benefit analysis, which captures the impacts that can be assigned with a monetary value. Thus there is a need for a decision support system that is able to assess the effect of other types of impacts as well and include this in the appraisal. This paper seeks to fill this gap in research by proposing a methodology making use of planning workshops and multi-criteria decision analysis in combination to improve the decision support. In order to serve the purpose of promoting a more sustainable transport planning approach a proposal is made for how the methodology can be integrated in the current practice for appraisal of infrastructure projects in Denmark (and countries with similar approaches). The paper concludes that the approach allowing for active stakeholder participation in the appraisal process can serve as a helpful and effective decision support system in the quest for more sustainable solutions to transport problems.

Keyword : sustainable transport appraisal, stakeholder involvement, multi-criteria decision analysis, cost-benefit analysis, decision support systems, appraisal processes

How to Cite
Barfod, M. B. (2018). Supporting sustainable transport appraisals using stakeholder involvement and MCDA. Transport, 33(4), 1052-1066. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2018.6596
Published in Issue
Dec 5, 2018
Abstract Views
0
PDF Downloads
0
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Abelson, J.; Forset, P.-G.; Eyles, J.; Casebeer, A.; Martin, E.; Mackean, G. 2007. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study, Social Science & Medicine 64(10): 2115–2128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.013

Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S. S. 2011. Using AHP and Dempster–Shafer theory for evaluating sustainable transport solutions, Environmental Modelling & Software 26(6): 787–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.11.010

Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S. S.; Omrani, H. 2011. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems, Expert Systems with Applications 38(10): 12270–12280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.005

Bana e Costa, C. A. 2001. The use of multi‐criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi‐actor context: case study, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10(2): 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.292

Banister, D. 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm, Transport Policy 15(2): 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005

Barfod, M. B. 2012a. An MCDA approach for the selection of bike projects based on structuring and appraising activities, European Journal of Operational Research 218(3): 810–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.038

Barfod, M. B. 2012b. Optimising Transport Decision Making Using Customised Decision Models and Decision Conferences: PhD Thesis. Technical University of Denmark. 193 p. Available from Internet: http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/52281928/mbb_thesis.pdf

Barfod, M. B.; Salling, K. B. 2015. A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 72: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.12.001

Belton, V.; Stewart, T. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: an Integrated Approach. Springer. 372 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4

Beukers, E.; Bertolini, L.; Te Brömmelstroet, M. 2012. Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: a process perspective, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46(1): 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.004

Camargo Pérez, J.; Carrillo, M. H.; Montoya-Torres, J. R. 2015. Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review, Annals of Operations Research 226(1): 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1681-8

Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective. Wiley. 424 p.

Damart, S.; Roy, B. 2009. The uses of cost–benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France, Transport Policy 16(4): 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.06.002

Davidson, S. 1998. Spinning the wheel of empowerment, Planning (4): 14–15.

DMT. 2015. Manual for Socio-Economic Appraisal within the Transport Sector. Danish Ministry of Transport (DMT), Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ewing, G.; Sarigöllü, E. 2000. Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles: a discrete choice experiment, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19(1): 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.19.1.106.16946

Fedra, K. 2004. Sustainable urban transportation: a model-based approach, Cybernetics and Systems: an International Journal 35(5–6): 455–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01969720490451779

Franceschini, S.; Marletto, G. 2015. Assessing the benefits and the shortcomings of participation – findings from a test in Bari (Italy), Journal of Transport Geography 44: 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.02.008

Goodwin, P.; Wright, G. 2014. Decision Analysis for Management Judgment. Wiley. 496 p.

Grimble, R.; Wellard, K. 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities, Agricultural Systems 55(2): 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00006-1

Hansen, H. S.; Mäenpää, M. 2008. An overview of the challenges for public participation in river basin management and planning, Management of Environmental Quality: an International Journal 19(1): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830810840372

Hayashi, Y.; Morisugi, H. 2000. International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal, Transport Policy 7(1): 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00015-9

Hsu, C.-Y.; Yang, C.-S.; Yu, L.-C.; Lin, C.-F.; Yao, H.-H.; Chen, D.-Y.; Lai, K. R.; Chang, P.-C. 2015. Development of a cloud-based service framework for energy conservation in a sustainable intelligent transportation system, International Journal of Production Economics 164: 454–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.08.014

Jeon, C. M.; Amekudzi, A. 2005. Addressing sustainability in transportation systems: definitions, indicators, and metrics, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 11(1): 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:1(31)

Jeppesen, S. L. 2009. Sustainable Transport Planning – A Multi-Methodology Approach to Decision Making. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Denmark. 213 p. Available from Internet: http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/5138927/PhDthesis-SaraLiseJeppesen.pdf

Jones, S.; Tefe, M.; Appiah-Opoku, S. 2015. Incorporating stakeholder input into transport project selection – a step towards urban prosperity in developing countries?, Habitat International 45(1): 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.017

Karjalainen, T. P.; Rossi, P. M.; Ala-Aho, P.; Eskelinen, R.; Reinikainen, K.; Kløve, B.; Pulido-Velazquez, M.; Yang, H. 2013. A decision analysis framework for stakeholder involvement and learning in groundwater management, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences: an Interactive Open-Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union 17(12): 5141–5153. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-5141-2013

Keshkamat, S. S.; Looijen, J. M.; Zuidgeest, M. H. P. 2009. The formulation and evaluation of transport route planning alternatives: a spatial decision support system for the Via Baltica project, Poland, Journal of Transport Geography 17(1): 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.04.010

Kropp, W. W.; Lein, J. K. 2012. Assessing the geographic expression of urban sustainability: a scenario based approach incorporating spatial multicriteria decision analysis, Sustainability 4(9): 2348–2365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4092348

Leleur, S. 2012. Complex Strategic Choices: Applying Systemic Planning for Strategic Decision Making. Springer. 170 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2491-7

Leleur, S. 2000. Road Infrastructure Planning: a Decision-Oriented Approach. Polytekisk Forlag. 256 p.

Lootsma, F. A. 1999. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgement. Springer. 286 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/b102374

López, E.; Monzón, A.; Pfaffenbichler, P. C. 2012. Assessment of energy efficiency and sustainability scenarios in the transport system, European Transport Research Review 4(1): 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-011-0063-4

Luyet, V.; Schlaepfer, R.; Parlange, M. B.; Buttler, A. 2012. A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects, Journal of Environmental Management 111: 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.026

Macharis, C.; Turcksin, L.; Lebeau, K. 2012. Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use, Decision Support Systems 54(1): 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.008

Malczewski, J. 1996. A GIS-based approach to multiple criteria group decision-making, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 10(8): 955–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/02693799608902119

Malczewski, J. 2006. GIS‐based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature, International Journal of Geographical Information Science 20(7): 703–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810600661508

Mardani, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Khalifah, Z.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K. 2016. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in transportation systems: a systematic review of the state of the art literature, Transport 31(3): 359–385. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1121517

Mohamadabadi, H. S.; Tichkowsky, G.; Kumar, A. 2009. Development of a multi-criteria assessment model for ranking of renewable and non-renewable transportation fuel vehicles, Energy 34(1): 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.09.004

Noland, R. B. 2007. Transport planning and environmental assessment: implications of induced travel effects, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 1(1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310601095131

OECD. 2001. Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Publishing. 268 p. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en

Olson, D. L.; Fliedner, G.; Currie, K. 1995. Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research 82(3): 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)E0340-4

Owens, S. 1995. From ‘predict and provide’ to ‘predict and prevent’?: pricing and planning in transport policy, Transport Policy 2(1): 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-070X(95)93245-T

Pai, T.-Y.; Hanaki, K.; Ho, H.-H.; Hsieh, C.-M. 2007. Using grey system theory to evaluate transportation effects on air quality trends in Japan, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12(3): 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2007.01.007

Phillips, L. D. 1984. A theory of requisite decision models, Acta Psychologica 56(1–3): 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(84)90005-2

Phillips, L. D. 2007. Decision conferencing, in: W. Edwards, R. F. Miles, D. von Winterfeldt (Eds.). Advances in Decision Analysis: from Foundations to Applications, 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611308.020

Phillips, L. D.; Bane e Costa, C. A. 2007. Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing, Annals of Operations Research 154(1): 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3

Pryn, M. R. 2013. Sustainable Decision Support – a Contextual Analysis of the Importance of Planning Criteria Using MCDA. Technical University of Denmark.

Pryn, M. R.; Cornet, Y.; Salling, K. B. 2015. Applying sustainability theory to transport infrastructure assessment using a multiplicative AHP decision support model, Transport 30(3): 330–341. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1081281

Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review, Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

Roberts, R.; Goodwin, P. 2002. Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Optimization, Learning, and Decision Support 11(6): 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.320

Saaty, T. L. 1977. Scenarios and priorities in transport planning: application to the Sudan, Transportation Research 11(5): 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-1647(77)90044-2

Salling, K. B.; Pryn, M. R. 2015. Sustainable transport project evaluation and decision support: indicators and planning criteria for sustainable development, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 22(4): 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1051497

Sayers, T. M.; Jessop, A. T.; Hills, P. J. 2003. Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options – flexible, transparent and user-friendly?, Transport Policy 10(2): 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00049-5

Shiau, T.-A. 2012. Evaluating sustainable transport strategies with incomplete information for Taipei City, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 17(6): 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.05.002

Shiau, T.-A.; Liu, J.-S. 2013. Developing an indicator system for local governments to evaluate transport sustainability strategies, Ecological Indicators 34: 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.06.001

Shiftan, Y.; Kaplan, S.; Hakkert, S. 2003. Scenario building as a tool for planning a sustainable transportation system, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 8(5): 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(03)00020-8

Steelman, T. A.; Ascher, W. 1997. Public involvement methods in natural resource policy making: advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs, Policy Sciences 30: 71–90. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1931047

Stich, B.; Holland, J. H. 2011. Using a multiple criteria decision-making model to streamline and enhance nepa and public participation processes, Public Works Management & Policy 16(1): 59–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X10390227

Tzeng, G.-H.; Lin, C.-W.; Opricovic, S. 2005. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation, Energy Policy 33(11): 1373–1383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.014

Vickerman, R. 2000. Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom, Transport Policy 7(1): 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00009-3

Von Winterfeldt, D.; Edwards, W. 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press. 624 p.

World Bank. 1996. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. The World Bank, Washington, DC, US. 280 p.

Yedla, S.; Shrestha, R. M. 2003. Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 37(8): 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(03)00027-2