Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

access icon free Strategic analysis of stakeholder preferences regarding the design of ITS-based road safety measures

  • Author(s): Klaas De Brucker 1 ; Cathy Macharis 2 ; Marion Wiethoff 3 ; Vincent Marchau 4
    • View affiliations
    • Affiliations: 1: KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business, Research Centre for Economics and Corporate Sustainability (CEDON), Warmoesberg 26, BE-1000 Brussels, Belgium;
      2: Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Faculty of Economics, Social and Political Sciences, Research Group Mobility, Logistics and Transport Technology (MOBI), Brussels, Belgium;
      3: Technische Universiteit Delft (TUDelft), Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft, The Netherlands;
      4: Nijmegen School of Management, Radbout Universiteit, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Source: Volume 8, Issue 3, May 2014, p. 190 – 199
    DOI:  10.1049/iet-its.2012.0171 , Print ISSN 1751-956X, Online ISSN 1751-9578
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Received 12/11/2012, Accepted 20/05/2013, Revised 24/04/2013, Published 06/01/2014

In this study, a multi-stakeholder/multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) is applied to obtain a selection and preliminary ranking for a number of alternative ways to design innovative ITS-based tools that have the potential to improve road safety by creating a more forgiving road (FOR) and a more self-explaining road (SER) environment. The aim of this MCA is to allow various stakeholders with an interest in improving road safety (in particular public policymakers, but also users and manufacturers), to assess alternative designs for future FOR and SER environments. For each of these stakeholders a separate MCA is carried out taking into account their specific objectives. By analysing the differences in preferences among stakeholders and using the highest expected ‘value-added’ from the community of stakeholders in its entirety on various FOR and SER environments, it has been possible to uncover information on the chances of successful implementation.

Inspec keywords: road safety; automated highways

Other keywords: stakeholder preferences; forgiving road; ITS-based road safety measures; MAMCA; self-explaining road environment; FOR environments; SER environments; public policymakers; strategic analysis; multi-stakeholder-multi-actor multicriteria analysis

Subjects: Traffic engineering computing

References

    1. 1)
      • 5. Theeuwes, J., Godthelp, J.: ‘Begrijpelijkheid van de weg’. Report TNO-TM 1992C-8, TNO Technische Menskunde, Soesterberg/The Netherlands, 1992.
    2. 2)
    3. 3)
      • 14. Macharis, C.: ‘The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport: The MAMCA methodology’. European Transport\Transporti Europei, 2004, 25/26, pp. 114–126.
    4. 4)
    5. 5)
    6. 6)
    7. 7)
    8. 8)
    9. 9)
      • 23. Saaty, T.L.: ‘Decision making for leaders’ (RWS Publications, 1995).
    10. 10)
      • 10. De Brucker, K., Macharis, C., Verbeke, A.: ‘Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: a stakeholder management approach’, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2013, 224, pp. 122–131 (doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.02.021).
    11. 11)
      • 19. Wiethoff, M., de Waard, D., Wenzel, G., et al: ‘Expected safety effects for driver assistance systems’. Proc. Int. Conf. on Applications of Advanced Technologies in Transport (AATT) Conf., Athens, Greece, May 2008.
    12. 12)
      • 6. Macharis, C., De Witte, A., Ampe, J.: ‘The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and practice’, J. Adv. Transp., 2007, 43, (2), pp. 183–202 (doi: 10.1002/atr.5670430206).
    13. 13)
      • 8. Turcksin, L., Macharis, C., Lebeau, K., et al: ‘A multi-actor multi-criteria analysis to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: the case of Belgium’, Energy Policy, 2010, 39, pp. 200–214 (doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.033).
    14. 14)
      • 5. Theeuwes, J., Godthelp, J.: ‘Begrijpelijkheid van de weg’. Report TNO-TM 1992C-8, TNO Technische Menskunde, Soesterberg/The Netherlands, 1992.
    15. 15)
      • 15. Macharis, C., Verbeke, A., De Brucker, K.: ‘The strategic evaluation of new technologies through multicriteria analysis: the ADVISORS case’, in Bekiaris, E., Nakanishi, Y.J. (Eds.): ‘Economic impacts of intelligent transportation systems. Innovations and case studies’ (Elsevier, 2004), pp. 443–462.
    16. 16)
      • 3. Bekiaris, E., Gaitanidou, E.: ‘Towards forgiving and self-explanatory roads’, in Bekiaris, E., Wiethoff, M., Gaitanidou, E. (Eds.): ‘Infrastructure and safety in a collaborative world: road traffic safety’ (Springer, 2011), pp. 15–22.
    17. 17)
      • 9. Charness, A., Cooper, W.W.: ‘Management models and industrial applications of linear programming’ (Wiley, 1961).
    18. 18)
      • 20. Wiethoff, M., Brookhuis, K., de Waard, D., et al: ‘New concepts for driver assistance systems to improve road safety’, in Hilferink, P., Rietveld, P., van den Hanenberg, P. (Eds.): ‘Proc. of the BIVEC-GIBET Transport Research Day 2007’ (Nautilus Academic Books, 2007), pp. 389–402.
    19. 19)
      • 22. Saaty, T.L.: ‘Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process’, Manage. Sci., 1986, 32, (7), pp. 841–855 (doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841).
    20. 20)
      • 14. Macharis, C.: ‘The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport: The MAMCA methodology’. European Transport\Transporti Europei, 2004, 25/26, pp. 114–126.
    21. 21)
      • 13. Forman, E.H., Selly, M.A.: ‘Decision by objectives. How to convince others that you are right’ (World Scientific, 2001).
    22. 22)
      • 11. Macharis, C., Stevens, A., De Brucker, K., Verbeke, A.: ‘A multicriteria approach to the strategic assessment of advanced driver assistance systems’, in: Jourquin, B., Rietveld, P., Westin, P. (Eds.): ‘Transportation economics. towards better performance systems’ (Routledge-Taylor & Francis Books, 2006), pp. 348–373.
    23. 23)
      • 24. Saaty, T.L.: ‘The analytic hierarchy and analytic hierarchy network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision making’, in Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, E. (Eds.): ‘Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys’ (Springer, 2005), pp. 345–407.
    24. 24)
      • 21. Freeman, E.R.: ‘Strategic management: a stakeholder approach’ (Pitman/Ballinger, 1984).
    25. 25)
      • 18. Wiethoff, M., Brookhuis, K., de Waard, D., et al: ‘A methodology for improving road safety by novel infrastructural and invehicle technology combinations’, Eur. Transp. Res. Rev., 2012, 4, (2), pp. 67–77 (doi: 10.1007/s12544-011-0065-2).
    26. 26)
      • 17. Hacker, W.: ‘Allgemeine arbeitspsychologie’ (Huber, 2005).
    27. 27)
      • 12. Commons, J.: ‘Institutional economics. Its place in political economy’ (The University of Wisconsin Press, 1934[onew edition 1959]).
    28. 28)
      • 2. INfrastructure and SAFETY http://www.insafety-eu.org [Accessed 24 April 2013].
    29. 29)
      • 7. Macharis, C., Lebeau, K., Turcksin, L.: ‘Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use’, Decis. Support Syst., 2012, 54, (1), pp. 610–620 (doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.008).
    30. 30)
      • 1. CARE (EU road accidents data base) or national publications http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm [Accessed 24 April 2013].
    31. 31)
      • 16. North, D.: ‘Institutions, institutional change and economic history’ (Norton, 1990).
    32. 32)
      • 4. Wegman, F., Aarts, L.: Denkend over duurzaam veilig, Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOV, Leidschendam/The Netherlands, 2005.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2012.0171
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2012.0171
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address