IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p5980-d815838.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model

Author

Listed:
  • Laila Oubahman

    (Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Faculty of Transportation and Vehicle Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 1111 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Szabolcs Duleba

    (Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Faculty of Transportation and Vehicle Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 1111 Budapest, Hungary
    Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Nyiregyhaza, 4400 Nyiregyhaza, Hungary)

Abstract

Preference surveys often strive to reveal the perceptions of respondents with different demographic and habitual characteristics to reflect the features of a local community or city. However, the target group can be considered a priori homogenous in some cases, which requires an adjusted survey methodology. Apart from the smaller sample size, the aggregation technique of the individual preferences into a global common priority is also different in these types of problems according to the decision science principles. Interestingly, this feature is often ignored in group multi-criteria decision-making problems, especially in PROMETHEE model applications. This paper aims to apply the Aggregation of Individual Judgement technique in PROMETEHEE AIJ-PROMETHEE via the introduction of a hybrid Group AIJ-AHP-PROMETHEE model, specifically designed for homogenous group preference problems, to be compared with the conventional Aggregation of Individual Priorities (AIP). The new AIJ-AHP-PROMETHEE model, which is more suitable for homogenous groups, is less costly and less time-consuming than the general aggregations. The effectiveness of this new model is emphasized with real data, surveying university students’ perceptions of different transport modes in the city of Budapest. Results show considerable findings of the introduced model and its general applicability to the evaluation of the public transport service quality system.

Suggested Citation

  • Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5980-:d:815838
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5980/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5980/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans, 1994. "PROMCALC & GAIA: a new decision support system for multicriteria decision aid," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9349, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. de Luca, Stefano, 2014. "Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 110-124.
    3. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    4. Yeung, Jennifer & Wearing, Scott & Hills, Andrew P., 2008. "Child transport practices and perceived barriers in active commuting to school," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 895-900, July.
    5. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Cathy Macharis, 1998. "The GDSS PROMETHEE procedure: a PROMETHEE-GAIA based procedure for group decision support," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9373, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    7. Patrick Bonnel & Marcela Munizaga, 2018. "Transport survey methods - in the era of big data facing new and old challenges," Post-Print halshs-02115957, HAL.
    8. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    9. María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-jiménez, 2007. "Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 287-301, July.
    10. Juan de O~na & Esperanza Est'evez & Rocio de O~na, 2021. "Public transport users versus private vehicle users: differences about quality of service, satisfaction and attitudes toward public transport in Madrid (Spain)," Papers 2103.14762, arXiv.org.
    11. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh Q. & Reck, Daniel J., 2021. "Corrigendum to “Mobility as a service and private car use: Evidence from the sydney MaaS trial” [Transp. Res. Part A 145 (2021) 17–33]," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 226-226.
    12. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2021. "Threshold-Enhanced PROMETHEE Group Decision Support under Uncertainties," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-21, June.
    13. Redman, Lauren & Friman, Margareta & Gärling, Tommy & Hartig, Terry, 2013. "Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 119-127.
    14. Majid Behzadian & Seyyed-Mahdi Hosseini-Motlagh & Joshua Ignatius & Mark Goh & Mohammad Mehdi Sepehri, 2013. "PROMETHEE Group Decision Support System and the House of Quality," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 189-205, March.
    15. Sarbast Moslem & Omid Ghorbanzadeh & Thomas Blaschke & Szabolcs Duleba, 2019. "Analysing Stakeholder Consensus for a Sustainable Transport Development Decision by the Fuzzy AHP and Interval AHP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    16. Jenelius, Erik, 2018. "Public transport experienced service reliability: Integrating travel time and travel conditions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 275-291.
    17. Milne, Dave & Watling, David, 2019. "Big data and understanding change in the context of planning transport systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-244.
    18. Ratapol Wudhikarn & Nopasit Chakpitak & Gilles Neubert, 2020. "Improving the Strategic Benchmarking of Intellectual Capital Management in Logistics Service Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-25, December.
    19. Ratapol Wudhikarn & Nopasit Chakpitak & Gilles Neubert, 2020. "Improving the Strategic Benchmarking of Intellectual Capital Management in Logistics Service Providers," Post-Print hal-03188190, HAL.
    20. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    21. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    22. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    23. Nguyen-Phuoc, Duy Q. & Currie, Graham & De Gruyter, Chris & Kim, Inhi & Young, William, 2018. "Modelling the net traffic congestion impact of bus operations in Melbourne," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-12.
    24. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh Q. & Reck, Daniel J., 2021. "Mobility as a service and private car use: Evidence from the Sydney MaaS trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 17-33.
    25. M.N. Qureshi & Pradeep Kumar & Dinesh Kumar, 2009. "Framework for benchmarking logistics performance using fuzzy AHP," International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 82-98.
    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. Zorlu, Kuttusi & Dede, Volkan & Zorlu, Burçin Şeyda & Serin, Soner, 2023. "Quantitative assessment of geoheritage with the GAM and MEREC-based PROMETHEE-GAIA method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    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. Ateekh Ur Rehman & Syed Hammad Mian & Usama Umer & Yusuf Siraj Usmani, 2019. "Strategic Outcome Using Fuzzy-AHP-Based Decision Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Seddiki, Mohammed & Bennadji, Amar, 2019. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation in a residential building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 101-117.
    3. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    4. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    5. Mahsa Ghandi & Abbas Roozbahani, 2020. "Risk Management of Drinking Water Supply in Critical Conditions Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE V Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 595-615, January.
    6. Albadvi, Amir & Chaharsooghi, S. Kamal & Esfahanipour, Akbar, 2007. "Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(2), pages 673-683, March.
    7. Mohammad Rahman & Lena Jaumann & Nils Lerche & Fabian Renatus & Ann Buchs & Rudolf Gade & Jutta Geldermann & Martin Sauter, 2015. "Selection of the Best Inland Waterway Structure: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2733-2749, June.
    8. Le Teno, J. F. & Mareschal, B., 1998. "An interval version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of building products' design with ill-defined data on environmental quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 522-529, September.
    9. Marcio Pereira Basilio & Valdecy Pereira & Fatih Yigit, 2023. "New Hybrid EC-Promethee Method with Multiple Iterations of Random Weight Ranges: Applied to the Choice of Policing Strategies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-34, October.
    10. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    11. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    12. Zopounidis, C., 1999. "Multicriteria decision aid in financial management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 404-415, December.
    13. Brans, J. P. & Macharis, C. & Kunsch, P. L. & Chevalier, A. & Schwaninger, M., 1998. "Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 428-441, September.
    14. Rahimdel, Mohammad Javad & Noferesti, Hossein, 2020. "Investment preferences of Iran's mineral extraction sector with a focus on the productivity of the energy consumption, water and labor force," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    15. Castro-Nuño, Mercedes & Arévalo-Quijada, M. Teresa, 2018. "Assessing urban road safety through multidimensional indexes: Application of multicriteria decision making analysis to rank the Spanish provinces," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 118-129.
    16. Ting Kuo & Ming-Hui Chen, 2022. "On Indeterminacy of Interval Multiplicative Pairwise Comparison Matrix," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Bo-Rui Yan & Qian-Li Dong & Qian Li & Min Li, 2022. "A Study on Risk Measurement of Logistics in International Trade: A Case Study of the RCEP Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    18. Barbosa, Ailson de Souza & Shayani, Rafael Amaral & Oliveira, Marco Aurélio Gonçalves de, 2018. "A multi-criteria decision analysis method for regulatory evaluation of electricity distribution service quality," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 38-48.
    19. Batubara, Marwan & Purwanto, Widodo Wahyu & Fauzi, Akhmad, 2016. "Proposing a decision-making process for the development of sustainable oil and gas resources using the petroleum fund: A case study of the East Natuna gas field," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 372-384.
    20. Morais, Danielle C. & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2012. "Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 42-52, January.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5980-:d:815838. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.