Klaas De Brucker

PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP

Abstract This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the Preference Ranking Organisation MeTHod for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methods. Building upon this analysis, recommendations are formulated to integrate into PROMETHEE a number of useful AHP features, especially as regards the design of the decision-making hierarchy (ordering of goals, sub-goals, dimensions, criteria, projects, etc.) and the determination of weights. As a result of mixing basis features of both methods, operational synergies can be achieved in MCA.

Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach

We demonstrate that stakeholder-oriented multi-criteria analysis (MCA) can adequately address a variety of sustainable development dilemmas in decision-making, especially when applied to complex project evaluations involving multiple objectives and multiple stakeholder groups. Such evaluations are typically geared towards satisfying simultaneously private economic goals, broader social objectives and environmental targets. We show that, under specific conditions, a variety of stakeholder-oriented MCA approaches may be able to contribute substantively to the resolution or improved governance of societal conflicts and the pursuit of the public good in the form of sustainable development. We contrast the potential usefulness of these stakeholder-oriented approaches – in terms of their ability to contribute to sustainable development – with more conventional MCA approaches and social cost–benefit analysis.

THE APPLICABILITY OF MULTICRITERIA-ANALYSIS TO THE EVALUATION OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS (ITS)

This paper describes theoretical foundations of multicriteria analysis (MCA), and the process-related steps to be followed when conducting an MCA in practice. Two MCA methods are discussed in greater detail; namely, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and PROMETHEE. Although the discussion of the merits of MCA can be viewed as generic, special attention is devoted herein to the applicability of these methods to intelligent transportation system (ITS) cases. The paper critically examines the strengths and weaknesses of MCA as compared to cost benefit analysis (CBA), especially in the context of ITS applications.

Best Things First. The Application of Multi-Criteria Analysis to Derive Implementation Priorities for Innovative Road Safety Measures

In this chapter different scenarios for improving road safety by creating a more forgiving road (FOR) and self-explaining road (SER) environment are selected and submitted to a multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA), introduced in Chap. 3. The aim of this MCA is to allow various stakeholders with an interest in improving road safety (in particular public policy makers, but also users and manufacturers) to assess to which extent the future scenarios for creating a more FOR and SER environment contribute to their specific objectives. A separate MCA is, therefore, performed for each of these stakeholders, taking into account the specific objectives considered relevant by them, as measured by criteria. Analysing the differences in preferences among stakeholders, and using the highest expected “added-value” from the community of stakeholders in its entirety on various FOR and SER environments, uncovers useful information on the chances of successful implementation.

Structuring the Way

This chapter briefly describes the basic principles of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and cost–benefit analysis (CBA), in view of their application to the socio-economic evaluation of different scenarios for improving road safety. The specific scenarios for improving road safety by creating a more forgiving road (FOR) and self-explanatory road (SER) environment are, however, identified in subsequent chapters of this book. As regards MCA, the multi-actor MCA (or MAMCA), as well as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), are discussed in more detail. As regard CBA, special attention is given to the definition of specific decision criteria. Special attention is also given to possible approaches to cope with lacking data on safety impacts. By the end of this chapter it should be very clear which are the different interpretations to be placed on the results of CBA and MCA, even in cases when these results are conflicting.