Two-stage multi-criteria analysis and the future of intelligent transport systems-based safety innovation projects

Klaas De Brucker; Cathy Macharis; Alain Verbeke

Two-stage multi-criteria analysis and the future of intelligent transport systems-based safety innovation projects

View Fulltext

Author(s): Klaas De Brucker ¹ ; Cathy Macharis ² ; Alain Verbeke ^{3, 4, 5}
- Affiliations: 1: Faculty of Economics and Business, Research Centre for Economics and Corporate Sustainability (CEDON), KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Warmoesberg 26, BE-1000 Brussels, Belgium ;
  2: Faculty of Economics, Social and Political Sciences, Research Group Mobility, Logistics and Transport Technology (MOBI), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium ;
  3: Henley Business School, University of Reading, Reading, UK ;
  4: Solvay Business School, VUB, Belgium ;
  5: Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada
Source: Volume 9, Issue 9, November 2015, p. 842 – 850
DOI: 10.1049/iet-its.2014.0247 , Print ISSN 1751-956X, Online ISSN 1751-9578

Received 26/09/2014, Accepted 20/02/2015, Revised 20/01/2015, Published 10/06/2015

This study outlines a new two-stage multi-criteria analysis (MCA) methodology to facilitate assessing and selecting investments in intelligent transport systems (ITSs). The authors focus on ITS-based safety innovation projects (SIPs) in the realm of road transport infrastructure, namely, those conducive to more ‘forgiving roads’ and ‘self-explanatory roads’. Stakeholders interested in improving road safety can use this MCA tool to assess alternative options for improving road safety, based on how each option contributes to each stakeholder group's objectives. The preferences of each stakeholder are fully taken into account in a first stage through partial MCAs, which determine how each SIP contributes to each separate stakeholder's specific objectives. In the second stage, the preferences of all stakeholders are bundled, with more emphasis on societal preferences. This second stage analysis paradoxically allows identifying policy areas where government incentives could address strong concerns voiced by particular stakeholder groups. In other words, an implicit feedback loop is generated to the SIPs’ design, with ‘redesign’ intended to reduce the gap between societal preferences and specific-stakeholder ones, thereby increasing the probability that the support of all stakeholder groups involved could still be ascertained.

References

1. 1)
  - 7. Keeney, R.: ‘Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decision making’ (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).
2. 2)
  - 6. 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).
3. 3)
  - 14. Saaty, T.L.: ‘Decision making for leaders. The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world’ (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1995).
4. 4)
  - 18. Brugha, C.: ‘Structure of multiple criteria decision-making’, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 2004b, 55, pp. 1156–1168 (doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601777).
5. 5)
  - 20. De Brucker, K., Verbeke, A., Macharis, C.: ‘Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: a stakeholder management approach’, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2013, 224, (1), pp. 122–131 (doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.02.021).
6. 6)
  - 10. 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.
7. 7)
  - 8. De Brucker, K., Macharis, C., Verbeke, A., Bekiaris, B.: ‘Integrated multicriteria analysis for advanced driver assistance systems. Final Deliverable of the research project ‘ADVISORS’. Brussels, Commission of the European Union – Department Transport and Energy (DG TREN), FP5 project GRD11999 10047, 2002. Available at http://www.advisors.iao.fhg.de>Reports>Deliverables>D6.1, Accessed 26 September 2014.
8. 8)
  - 12. 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).
9. 9)
  - 1. De Brucker, K., Macharis, C., Wiethoff, M., Marchau, V.: ‘Strategic analysis of stakeholder preferences regarding the design of ITS-based road safety measures’, IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2014, 8, (3), pp. 190–199.
10. 10)
  - 11. Saaty, T.L.: ‘A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures’, J. Math. Psychol., 1977, 15, pp. 234–281 (doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5).
11. 11)
  - 5. Theeuwes, J., Godthelp, J.: ‘Begrijpelijkheid van de weg’. Report, TNO-TM 1992C-8, TNO Technische Menskunde, Soesterberg, The Netherlands, 1992.
12. 12)
  - 21. Commons, J.: ‘Institutional economics. Its place in political economy’ (The University of Wisconsin Press, 1934, [new edition 1959]).
13. 13)
  - 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.
14. 14)
  - 19. Buchanan, J.T., Henig, E.J., Henig, M.I.: ‘Objectivity and subjectivity in the decision making process’, Ann. Oper. Res., 1998, 80, pp. 333–345 (doi: 10.1023/A:1018980318183).
15. 15)
  - 15. Freeman, E.R.: ‘Strategic management. A stakeholder approach’ (Pitman/Ballinger, Boston, 1984).
16. 16)
  - 17. Forman, E.H., Selly, M.A.: ‘Decision by objectives. How to convince others that you are right’ (World Scientific, New Jersey, 2001).
17. 17)
  - 13. Saaty, T.L.: ‘The analytic hierarchy process’ (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988).
18. 18)
  - 9. 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, Amsterdam, 2004).
19. 19)
  - 16. De Brucker, K., Macharis, C.: ‘Chapter 16. Best things first. The application of multi-criteria analysis to derive implementation priorities for innovative road safety measures’, in Bekiaris, E., Wiethoff, M., Gaitanidou, E. (Eds.): ‘Infrastructure and safety in a collaborative world: road trafﬁc safety’ (Springer, 2011), pp. 305–325.
20. 20)
  - 4. Wegman, F., Aarts, L.: ‘Denkend over duurzaam veilig, stichting wetenschappelijk onderzoek verkeersveiligheid SWOV’ (Leidschendam, The Netherlands, 2005).
21. 21)
  - 2. Macharis, C., Verbeke, A., De Brucker, K., Gelová, E., Weinberger, J., Vašek, J.: ‘Implementation scenarios and further research priorities regarding forgiving and self-explaining roads. Implementation priorities and policy recommendations. Final deliverable (Del. 5.3) of the IN-SAFETY research project. Brussels, Commission of the European Union – Department Transport and Energy (DG TREN) (contract No. 506716), 2008. Available at http://www.insafety-eu.org/results.html. Accessed 26 September 2014.

Login

Not registered yet?

Share

Tools

Login to add to favourites

Key

Two-stage multi-criteria analysis and the future of intelligent transport systems-based safety innovation projects

References

Related content