http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

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

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

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
$19.95
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for $120.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IET Intelligent Transport Systems — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

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)
      • 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. 190199.
    2. 2)
      • 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.
    3. 3)
      • 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. 1522.
    4. 4)
      • 4. Wegman, F., Aarts, L.: ‘Denkend over duurzaam veilig, stichting wetenschappelijk onderzoek verkeersveiligheid SWOV’ (Leidschendam, The Netherlands, 2005).
    5. 5)
      • 5. Theeuwes, J., Godthelp, J.: ‘Begrijpelijkheid van de weg’. Report, TNO-TM 1992C-8, TNO Technische Menskunde, Soesterberg, The Netherlands, 1992.
    6. 6)
    7. 7)
      • 7. Keeney, R.: ‘Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decision making’ (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).
    8. 8)
      • 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.
    9. 9)
      • 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).
    10. 10)
      • 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. 348373.
    11. 11)
    12. 12)
    13. 13)
      • 13. Saaty, T.L.: ‘The analytic hierarchy process’ (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988).
    14. 14)
      • 14. Saaty, T.L.: ‘Decision making for leaders. The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world’ (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1995).
    15. 15)
      • 15. Freeman, E.R.: ‘Strategic management. A stakeholder approach’ (Pitman/Ballinger, Boston, 1984).
    16. 16)
      • 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. 305325.
    17. 17)
      • 17. Forman, E.H., Selly, M.A.: ‘Decision by objectives. How to convince others that you are right’ (World Scientific, New Jersey, 2001).
    18. 18)
    19. 19)
    20. 20)
    21. 21)
      • 21. Commons, J.: ‘Institutional economics. Its place in political economy’ (The University of Wisconsin Press, 1934, [new edition 1959]).
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2014.0247
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2014.0247
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address