IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v79y2022ics0038012121000902.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An integrated rough group multicriteria decision-making model for the ex-ante prioritization of infrastructure projects: The Serbian Railways case

Author

Listed:
  • Pamucar, Dragan
  • Macura, Dragana
  • Tavana, Madjid
  • Božanić, Darko
  • Knežević, Nikola

Abstract

Railway transportation is the backbone of the economy significantly influences mobility and life quality in many developed and developing countries. Railway infrastructure investment problems are inherently complex and involve multiple and often conflicting criteria in an uncertain socio-economic environment. This study presents an integrated rough group FUll COnsistency Method (FUCOM) and Multi-Atributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis (MAIRCA) method for railway infrastructure project evaluation and prioritization. The FUCOM method evaluates the selection criteria through a simple algorithm, and the MAIRCA method prioritizes alternative projects through structured and systematic mathematical computations. Sensitivity analysis measures the impact of the criteria weights on the final results. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient assesses the effect of criteria weight variations on alternative rankings' stability. This study's main contribution is developing and implementing a comprehensive and robust framework for ex-ante evaluation and prioritization of railway infrastructure projects. A case study in Serbian Railways demonstrates the proposed integrated framework's applicability and efficacy in evaluating the railway infrastructure projects for Serbian Railways.

Suggested Citation

  • Pamucar, Dragan & Macura, Dragana & Tavana, Madjid & Božanić, Darko & Knežević, Nikola, 2022. "An integrated rough group multicriteria decision-making model for the ex-ante prioritization of infrastructure projects: The Serbian Railways case," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:79:y:2022:i:c:s0038012121000902
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012121000902
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101098?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    2. Elena Arce, María & Saavedra, Ángeles & Míguez, José L. & Granada, Enrique, 2015. "The use of grey-based methods in multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of sustainable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 924-932.
    3. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Dragana Macura & Branislav Boskovic & Nebojsa Bojovic Milos & Milenkovic, 2011. "A Model For Prioritization Of Rail Infrastructure Projects Using Anp," Articles, International Journal of Transport Economics, vol. 38(3).
    6. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    7. Paulo Henrique Kaupa & Renato José Sassi, 2017. "Rough sets: technical computer intelligence applied to financial market," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 13(1), pages 130-145.
    8. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    9. te Boveldt, Geert & Van Raemdonck, Koen & Macharis, Cathy, 2018. "A new railway tunnel under Brussels? Assessing political feasibility and desirability with competence-based multi criteria analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 30-39.
    10. Ahern, Aoife & Anandarajah, Gabrial, 2007. "Railway projects prioritisation for investment: Application of goal programming," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 70-80, January.
    11. Mateus, Ricardo & Ferreira, J.A. & Carreira, Joao, 2008. "Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Central Porto high-speed railway station," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 1-18, May.
    12. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francisco Salas-Molina & Filippo Bistaffa & Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, 2024. "A General Approach for Computing a Consensus in Group Decision Making That Integrates Multiple Ethical Principles," Papers 2401.07818, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    2. Kristina Galjanić & Ivan Marović & Tomaš Hanak, 2023. "Performance Measurement Framework for Prediction and Management of Construction Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Xuemei Chen & Bin Zhou & Anđelka Štilić & Željko Stević & Adis Puška, 2023. "A Fuzzy–Rough MCDM Approach for Selecting Green Suppliers in the Furniture Manufacturing Industry: A Case Study of Eco-Friendly Material Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Salas-Molina, Francisco & Bistaffa, Filippo & Rodríguez-Aguilar, Juan A., 2023. "A general approach for computing a consensus in group decision making that integrates multiple ethical principles," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Mladen Stamenković, 2023. "Where Did All The Papers Go? A Bibliometric Overview Of Publications In Economics From Serbia," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 68(236), pages 29-50, January –.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    2. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    3. Zuo, Ting & Wei, Heng, 2019. "Bikeway prioritization to increase bicycle network connectivity and bicycle-transit connection: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 52-71.
    4. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Daniel R. Georgiadis & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2013. "Using multi criteria decision making in analysis of alternatives for selection of enabling technology," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 287-303, September.
    6. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    7. Misbah Anjum & Vernika Agarwal & P. K. Kapur & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2020. "Two-phase methodology for prioritization and utility assessment of software vulnerabilities," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(2), pages 289-300, July.
    8. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    9. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    10. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi, 2023. "Cryptocurrency portfolio allocation using a novel hybrid and predictive big data decision support system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    12. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    14. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.
    15. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    16. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    17. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Huang, Xianjin & Fu, Guole & Chen, Jia-Tsong & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    18. Łatuszyńska Anna, 2014. "Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Topsis Method For Interval Data In Research Into The Level Of Information Society Development," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, July.
    19. Ustaoglu, E. & Sisman, S. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2021. "Determining agricultural suitable land in peri-urban geography using GIS and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    20. Fatima‐Zohra Younsi & Salem Chakhar & Alessio Ishizaka & Djamila Hamdadou & Omar Boussaid, 2020. "A Dominance‐Based Rough Set Approach for an Enhanced Assessment of Seasonal Influenza Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1323-1341, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:79:y:2022:i:c:s0038012121000902. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.