IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa13p632.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Participation in Selection of The Road Construction by AHP for Supporting of CO2 Emissions Reduction: Maros-Watampone Road Case

Author

Listed:
  • Wahyuni Any
  • Miyata Yuzuru

Abstract

Public Participation in Selection of the Road Construction by Analytic Hierarchy Process for Supporting of CO2 Emissions Reduction: Maros-Watampone Road Case ANY WAHYUNI Graduate School of Environment and Life Science Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology YUZURU MIYATA Graduate School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology, Abstract Maros-Watampone road passes through a critical geometric conservation area where it is a barrier to the development improvement. Previous studies recommend that three proposed alternative constructions can be used: 1. Elevated Bridge, 2. Cut and Fill, 3. Tunnel system. The Government invited community members to participate in selection the best type of construction that can be applied at their region. That is one way to make the decision in the good governance process for the democratic country system. By using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the results showed that the criteria of benefits (0.300) as a major factor in determining the priority of construction and the second is environmental criteria (0.224). In fact, construction cost (0.081) and maintenance criteria (0.054) had no significant effect. An elevated bridge construction is the most suitable construction to be applied (0.528), followed by cut and fill construction (0.248) and the tunnel system (0.223) respectively. The higher contribution of benefit and environmental criteria are indicated that the community preferences cannot be measured with price system. Besides fairly large energy consumption, the construction activity created CO2 emissions simultaneously. Thus a simply estimation of the CO2 emissions indicates that the elevated bridge construction has the lowest (1.31 TonCO2/km) emissions than the tunnel construction (1.79 TonCO2/km). The decision-making process showed that the public started to pay attention for their quality of life, and the environmental effect caused by their development activity. On the other hand, the Government has a limited budget to choose the best development program; therefore, we made an evaluation of the efficiency of economic resources based on: 1. Benefit-Cost analysis, 2. Net Present Value (NPV) analysis, 3. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) analysis. By the investment feasibility evaluation of the best construction can be proven that the public decision is the right choice to support the government decision. Public participation in economic development is the one way to reach efficiency of economic resources. Keywords: Public Participation, Decision-making, Analytic Hierarchy Process, CO2 Emissions, Efficiency of Economic Evaluation JEL codes: R, R5, R58

Suggested Citation

  • Wahyuni Any & Miyata Yuzuru, 2013. "Public Participation in Selection of The Road Construction by AHP for Supporting of CO2 Emissions Reduction: Maros-Watampone Road Case," ERSA conference papers ersa13p632, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa13p632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa13/ERSA2013_paper_00632.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public participation; decision-making; analytic hierarchy process; co2 emissions; efficiency of economic evaluation jel codes: r; r5; r58;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics
    • R5 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa13p632. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.