Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Analytic Hierarchy approach for transport project appraisal an application to Korea

By Sang Min Lee

Abstract

Transport evaluation methodology in Korea has remained largely unchanged even though the evolution of the transport planning process has changed in its nature and\ud circumstances. The economic analysis has played an important role as a decision making method, and the Government has the leading role as a single decision maker.\ud As a result, there are so many debates on most of transport investment projects by other interest groups and by the fact that other non-economic attributes are not\ud properly considered in the evaluation process.\ud \ud Therefore, it is necessary to avoid this costly indecision and incomplete evaluation. As a result, the recent work has focused on improving public participation and evaluation\ud methods utilising multiple criteria decision making methods which are able to reflect diverse interests of multiple actors involved in the project, environmental issues, socioeconomic concerns and public discontent in evaluation process, and to respond to the changed nature of transport planning.\ud \ud In this research, the analytic hierarchy approach which enables to combine the advantages in quantifying the tangible factors from CBA and in deriving weights of the\ud factors from the AHP was attempted to evaluate the transport investment project in Korea as the methodology through reviewing and assessing many multiple criteria\ud decision making methods. The case for application was chosen from the real project implemented by Korean government so as to compare the current evaluation method\ud with the analytic hierarchy approach, one of multiple criteria decision making methods. The project is to develop a high speed rail network passing through/by a historic city\ud with many cultural assets, so there are many conflicting debates between transport efficiency and cultural conservation among the stakeholders affected by this project, supplier, user and community.\ud \ud For the application and evaluation of the project, a model with five levels of hierarchical structure with three stakeholders, six objectives, seven elements and three\ud alternatives was developed. A total of 615 respondents from transport experts, government officials and the general public answered the survey questionnaire to find out the degree of importance for each stakeholder's role on this project investment from transport experts, and a relative preference for each attribute as main factor from all stakeholders. With the evaluation process and results (including alternative ranking) from both methods, they were compared with each other. In addition to this,\ud the applicability and suitability of the analytic hierarchy approach method for the evaluation of transport investment project in Korea were assessed by several assessment criteria.\ud \ud The analytic hierarchy approach (through its application) provided much wider scope than the current evaluation method. It showed a systematic framework for the\ud evaluation in which all possible factors should be judged with the distribution of weights on all stakeholders incorporating qualitative and quantitative information. In\ud addition, it showed the applicability of the analytic hierarchy approach to the transport project due to its ability to deal with complex problems with conflicting attributes and to elicit the preferences of many stakeholders affected by the project into the evaluation process. However, it also showed some drawbacks to be overcome such as a large amount of data and information requirement, inherent difficulty in survey implementation, difficulty in structuring a hierarchy, especially in checking the homogeneity

Publisher: Institute for Transport Studies (Leeds)
Year: 1998
OAI identifier: oai:etheses.whiterose.ac.uk:927

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1996). A Multiattribute Analysis Of Gals For Intelligent Transportation System Planning', doi
  2. (1985). A Multiple Criteria Method For Transportation Investment Planning', doi
  3. (1977). A Scaling Method For Priorities In Hierarchical Structures', doi
  4. (1986). A Simulation Study Of Estimation Methods In The Analytic Hierarchy Process', doi
  5. (1995). AHP In Political Group Decisions: A Study In The Art Of Possibilities', doi
  6. (1990). An Overview Of The Analytic Hierarchy Process And Its Applications', doi
  7. (1986). Analysis Of Multicriteria Decision Aid In Europe', doi
  8. (1985). Analytical Planning, The Organizations Of Systems, doi
  9. (1990). Combining Qualitative And Quantitative Factors-An Analytic Hierarchy Approach', doi
  10. (1973). Concepts Of Independence In Multiattribute Utility Theory', Multiple Criteria Decision Making edited by
  11. (1993). Cost-Benefit Analysis Of Transport Projects', Efficiency In The Public Sector edited by Alan Williams
  12. (1977). Cost-Benefit Analysis', in Urban Transport Economics, David A. Hensher,
  13. (1992). Decision Support Models And Expert Systems,
  14. (1986). Decision Theory: An Introduction To The Mathematics Of Rationality, Ellis Horwood Ltd..
  15. (1993). Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences And Value Trade-Offs. doi
  16. (1989). Developing A Multiple Criteria Model For Use As A Highway Assessment
  17. (1987). Economic Evaluation Of Transport Projects,
  18. (1993). Efficiency In The Public Sector: The Theory And Practice of Cost-Benefit Analysis,
  19. (1983). Essays And Surveys On Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Springer. 227 Harker, Patrick T., `The Analytic Hierarchy Process', Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,
  20. (1996). Feasibility Study Of The Kyongju HSR Route, Seoul The World Bank
  21. (1994). Fundamentals Of Decision Making And Priority Theory', The Analytic Hierarchy doi
  22. (1987). Haulier Selection- An Application of The Analytical Hierarchy Process, doi
  23. (1990). How To Make A Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process', doi
  24. (1995). Improvement On Planning The Process Of High Speed Rail Projects',
  25. (1994). Information Concepts And AHP, doi
  26. (1993). Information Precision and Multicriteria Evaluation Methods', Efficiency In The Public Sector edited by Alan Williams and Emilio Giardina,
  27. (1995). Investment Evaluation Method For The Egyptian National Railway,
  28. (1980). Issues In The Evaluation Of Metropolitan Transportation Alternatives, '
  29. (1982). Matrix Algebra An Introduction, Series', in Quantitative Applications In The Social Sciences, a Sage University paper.
  30. (1984). MCDM. " Past Decade And Future Trends, Decision Research edited by Howard Thomas,
  31. (1988). Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Techniques In doi
  32. (1983). Multiattribute Evaluation', in Quantitative Applications In The Social Sciences, a SAGE University Paper. 226 Egekwu, Okechi Geoffrey
  33. (1996). Multicriteria Decision Making', doi
  34. (1978). Multiobjective Programming And Planning, doi
  35. (1995). Multiple Attribute Decision Making An Introduction', in Quantitative Applications in The Social Sciences, a Sage University paper. doi
  36. (1982). Multiple Criteria Decision Makin;, doi
  37. (1992). Multiple Criteria Decision Making, doi
  38. (1977). Multiple Criteria Decision Making' doi
  39. (1990). Multiple Criteria Evaluation Approaches To Urban Transportation Projects', doi
  40. (1990). Multiple Criteria Evaluation In Physical Planning, doi
  41. (1994). Multiple Criteria Evaluation In Transport Investment Planning, MSc Thesis,
  42. (1995). Multiple Criteria Evaluation o Transportation System Improvement Projects: The Case Of Korea', doi
  43. (1986). On Deriving Priority Vectors From Matrices Of Pairwise Comparisons', doi
  44. (1983). Quantitative Methods For Evaluation And Selection Of TSM Project Alternatives', Transportation Research Record,
  45. (1993). Statistical Yearbook Of Railroad, Seoul. 228 Lo, Gun-Young
  46. (1991). Studies and the MVA consultancy
  47. (1992). Technical Study Qf The Seoul-Pusan High Speed Rail System,
  48. (1982). The Analytic Hierarchy Process And Multicriterion Decision Making', doi
  49. (1986). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Survey of The Method And Its Applications', doi
  50. (1989). The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Applications And Studies, doi
  51. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus Or Minus Two: Some Limits On Our Capacity For Processing Information. The Psychological Review. doi
  52. (1982). The Manual For Assessment Of Transport Investment, Economic Planning Bureau, Seoul Fandel
  53. (1996). The Possibility Theorem For Group Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process,
  54. (1995). Transport Planning With Multiple Criteria: The Analytical Hierarchy Process Applications And Progress Review', doi
  55. (1984). Transportation Investment And Pricing Principles, John willey and Sons. doi
  56. (1993). Transportation Section Financial Plan Report, Seoul The Korea Transport Institute

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.