An AHP-ISM approach for considering public preferences in a public transport development decision

    Szabolcs Duleba Affiliation


Recently, there has been a transparent need to involve public in transport development decisions not only in the EU but also in other countries worldwide. Public involvement in decision-making, however, suffers from two critical issues: lack of expertise and lack of enthusiasm. This paper aims to overcome the first problem: how to amend passenger preferences related to public transport development with expert knowledge on transport systems. For this purpose, a new research methodology has been created which combines the well proven Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) methods in a novel way. ISM is used to reveal the non-hierarchical connections of the transport system elements and by this, AHP results are modified with the consideration of element interactions. The first stage of the three-stage-survey has been conducted in Yurihonjo (Japan), the second and third in an international workshop with the participation of experts. Results show that the original AHP scores – gained from passenger evaluations – are significantly modified by adding expert knowledge on factor interactions, thus new preference order is gained related to the importance of the development of public transport system elements. The introduced procedure can be applied for other public transport system improvement decision-making situations in which passenger involvement is required.

First published online 18 March 2019

Keyword : AHP, ISM, passenger preferences, MCDM, element interactions, public involvement

How to Cite
Duleba, S. (2019). An AHP-ISM approach for considering public preferences in a public transport development decision. Transport, 1-10.
Published in Issue
Mar 18, 2019
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

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


Aparicio, A. 2007. Assessing public involvement effectiveness in long-term planning, in Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting, 21–25 January 2007, Washington, DC, US, 1–9.

Al-Atawi, A. M.; Kumar, R.; Saleh, W. 2016. Transportation sustainability index for Tabuk city in Saudi Arabia: an analytic hierarchy process, Transport 31(1): 47–55.

Barić, D.; Pilko, H.; Strujić, J. 2016. An analytic hierarchy process model to evaluate road section design, Transport 31(3): 312–321.

Bhushan, N.; Ria, K. 2004. Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer-Verlag London. 172 p.

Burall, S.; Shahrokh, T. 2010. What the Public Say: Public Engagement in National Decision-Making. Involve Company, UK. 18 p. Available from Internet:

Cascetta, E.; Pagliara, F. 2013. Public engagement for planning and designing transportation systems, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 87: 103–116.

Chen, S.; Pham, V. K.; Chen, J. K. 2016. Evaluating and selecting the best outsourcing service country in East and Southeast Asia: an AHP approach, Journal of Testing and Evaluation 44(1): 89–101.

De Luca, S. 2014. Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: an analytic hierarchy process based approach, Transport Policy 33: 110–124.

Duleba, S.; Mishina, T.; Shimazaki, Y. 2012. A dynamic analysis on public bus transport’s supply quality by using AHP, Transport 27(3): 268–275.

Duleba, S.; Shimazaki, Y.; Mishina, T. 2013. An analysis on the connections of factors in a public transport system by AHP-ISM, Transport 28(4): 404–412.

Eswarlal, V. K.; Dey, P. K.; Shankar, R. 2011. Enhanced renewable energy adoption for sustainable development in India: interpretive structural modeling approach, in Proceedings from the World Renewable Energy Congress, 8–13 May 2011, Linkoping, Sweden, 351–358.

Gao, L.; Hailu, A. 2013. Identifying preferred management options: an integrated agent-based recreational fishing simulation model with an AHP-TOPSIS evaluation method, Ecological Modelling 249: 75–83.

Gao, L.; Hailu, A. 2012. Ranking management strategies with complex outcomes: an AHP-fuzzy evaluation of recreational fishing using an integrated agent-based model of a coral reef ecosystem, Environmental Modelling & Software 31: 3–18.

Iyer, K. C.; Sagheer, M. 2010. Hierarchical structuring of PPP risks using interpretative structural modeling, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136(2): 151–159.

Jen, W.; Tu, R.; Lu, T. 2011. Managing passenger behavioral intention: an integrated framework for service quality, satisfaction, perceived value, and switching barriers, Transportation 38(2): 321–342.

Jharkharia, S.; Shankar, R. 2007. Selection of logistics service provider: an analytic network process (ANP) approach, Omega 35(3): 274–289.

Kannan, G.; Noorul Haq, A.; Sasikumar, P.; Arunachalam, S. 2008. Analysis and selection of green suppliers using interpretative structural modelling and analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Management and Decision Making 9(2): 163–182.

Li, F.; Phoon, K. K.; Du, X.; Zhang, M. 2013. Improved AHP method and its application in risk identification, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139(3): 312–320.

Malone, D. W. 1975. An introduction to the application of interpretive structural modeling, Proceedings of the IEEE 63(3): 397–404.

Pfohl, H.-C.; Gallus, P.; Thomas, D. 2011. Interpretive structural modeling of supply chain risks, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41(9): 839–859.

Renn, O.; Webler, T.; Wiedemann, P. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Springer Netherlands. 381 p.

Saaty, T. L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3): 234–281.

Saaty, T. L. 2013. Analytic network process, in S. I. Gass, M. C. Fu (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science.

Saaty, T. L. 2001. The Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback. RWS publications. 370 p.

Saaty, T. L.; Ozdemir, M. S. 2003. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 38(3–4): 233–244.

Saleeshya, P. G.; Thampi, K. S.; Raghuram, P. 2012. A combined AHP and ISM-based model to assess the agility of supply chain – a case study, International Journal of Integrated Supply Management 7(1–3): 167–191.

Tudela, A.; Akiki, N.; Cisternas, R. 2006. Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 40(5): 414–423.

US DoT. 2015. A Guide to Transportation Decisionmaking. 24 p. US Department of Transportation (DoT), Washington, DC, US. Available from Internet:

US Government. 2005. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users. Public Law 109–59. 10 August 2005. US Government Printing Office. 836 p. Available from Internet:

Vitić-Ćetković, A.; Bauk, S. 2014. E-services and positioning of passenger ports in the context of cruise tourism promotion, Promet – Traffic & Transportation 26(1): 83–93.

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.

Zhang, X.; Gao, L.; Barrett, D.; Chen, Y. 2014. Evaluating water management practice for sustainable mining, Water 6(2): 414–433.