IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v116y2022icp386-398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cognitive and participative decision-making model for transportation planning under different uncertainty levels

Author

Listed:
  • Cartenì, Armando
  • Marzano, Vittorio
  • Henke, Ilaria
  • Cascetta, Ennio

Abstract

Decision-making processes related to transportation systems are often very complex, belonging to the class of “wicked problems” in social studies. The literature and the media abound in examples of transportation planning “failures” including decisions made, delayed or withdrawn without any traceable motivations, public opposition, public opposition, extra costs/implementation times and outright cancellation, wrong traffic/revenue forecasts. Planning failures stem from several causes, including technical errors in forecasting predictable effects, lack of consensus, new governance cycles and inability to recognize the intrinsic uncertainty affecting some key variables. The underlying assumption of this paper is that the quality of the decision-making process critically depends on how the process is structured and managed. The paper proposes a conceptual model to represent and organize transport planning as a cognitive decision-making process with strong involvement of different stakeholders in various stages, accounting for different levels of uncertainty and including short- and long-term decisions options. The result is a planning process that allows for changes in objectives, strategies and decisions during different stages of the process itself, as is usually the case when different governance and socio-economic cycles succeed over time. However, the process maintains a form of procedural consistency and is intended to counteract the “Penelope syndrome”, whereby decisions made under previous governance cycles are undone regardless of their merits and costs. The real-life implementation of the proposed model requires strong “political commitment” to an open and accountable decision-making process, a technical structure able to act as “process owner” coordinating technical and engagement activities, and a general societal attitude towards organized participation to public decision making. The proposed model was applied to the Regional Transportation Plan of Veneto in Italy where the above conditions applied. A number of lessons were learnt from that exercise: i) stakeholders’ engagement revealed an important potential to manage uncertainty and increase consensus; ii) flexibility and robustness with respect to medium–to–high uncertainty levels already recognized at the time of the plan (immediately before the COVID-19 crisis) were an appreciated feature of the plan; iii) separation between mature decisions and those needing further analysis was a success strategy, reducing political “decision costs” (from naysaying) by delaying decisions still recognizing underlying needs; iv) reduced decision time (a largely bi-partisan vote in less than one year).

Suggested Citation

  • Cartenì, Armando & Marzano, Vittorio & Henke, Ilaria & Cascetta, Ennio, 2022. "A cognitive and participative decision-making model for transportation planning under different uncertainty levels," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 386-398.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:116:y:2022:i:c:p:386-398
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.12.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X21003668
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.12.013?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. Yingxu Wang & Guenther Ruhe, 2007. "The Cognitive Process of Decision Making," International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), IGI Global, vol. 1(2), pages 73-85, April.
    2. Isaksson, Karolina & Richardson, Tim, 2009. "Building legitimacy for risky policies: The cost of avoiding conflict in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 251-257, March.
    3. Ennio Cascetta, 2009. "Transportation Systems Analysis," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, Springer, number 978-0-387-75857-2, June.
    4. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1983. "Regret theory and measurable utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 19-21.
    5. Kristel Buysse & Alain Verbeke, 2003. "Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 453-470, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Marzano, Vittorio & Tocchi, Daniela & Papola, Andrea & Aponte, Dario & Simonelli, Fulvio & Cascetta, Ennio, 2018. "Incentives to freight railway undertakings compensating for infrastructural gaps: Methodology and practical application to Italy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 177-188.
    8. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    9. Birger Wernerfelt & Aneel Karnani, 1987. "Competitive strategy under uncertainty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 187-194, March.
    10. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    11. McQuaid, Ronald & Grieco, Margaret, 2005. "Edinburgh and the politics of congestion charging: Negotiating road user charging with affected publics," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 475-476, September.
    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. Bo Cao & Abdol Aziz Shahraki, 2023. "Planning of Transportation Infrastructure Networks for Sustainable Development with Case Studies in Chabahar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Vickerman, Roger, 2024. "The transport problem: The need for consistent policies on pricing and investment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 49-58.
    3. Zhang, Siyao & Fu, Daocheng & Liang, Wenzhe & Zhang, Zhao & Yu, Bin & Cai, Pinlong & Yao, Baozhen, 2024. "TrafficGPT: Viewing, processing and interacting with traffic foundation models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 95-105.
    4. Marzano, Vittorio & Tinessa, Fiore & Fiori, Chiara & Tocchi, Daniela & Papola, Andrea & Aponte, Dario & Cascetta, Ennio & Simonelli, Fulvio, 2022. "Impacts of truck platooning on the multimodal freight transport market: An exploratory assessment on a case study in Italy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 100-125.
    5. Armando Cartenì & Ilaria Henke, 2022. "Transportation Planning, Mobility Habits and Sustainable Development in the Era of COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-8, March.

    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. Armando Cartenì & Luca D’Acierno & Mariano Gallo, 2020. "A Rational Decision-Making Process with Public Engagement for Designing Public Transport Services: A Real Case Application in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Cascetta, Ennio & Cartenì, Armando & Pagliara, Francesca & Montanino, Marcello, 2015. "A new look at planning and designing transportation systems: A decision-making model based on cognitive rationality, stakeholder engagement and quantitative methods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 27-39.
    3. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    4. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    5. Jiakun Zheng, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Post-Print hal-04227370, HAL.
    6. Zheng, Jiakun, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 596-607.
    7. Willem Smit, 2023. "Top Manager Heuristics Under Knightian Uncertainty: Control Versus Prediction and the Moderating Impact of Framing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1302-1340, July.
    8. Ben Irons & Cameron Hepburn, 2007. "Regret Theory and the Tyranny of Choice," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(261), pages 191-203, June.
    9. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    10. Chen Li & Zhihua Li & Peter Wakker, 2014. "If nudge cannot be applied: a litmus test of the readers’ stance on paternalism," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 297-315, March.
    11. Tocchi, Daniela & Sys, Christa & Papola, Andrea & Tinessa, Fiore & Simonelli, Fulvio & Marzano, Vittorio, 2022. "Hypergraph-based centrality metrics for maritime container service networks: A worldwide application," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Anat Bracha, 2004. "Affective Decision Making in Insurance Markets," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2665, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Sep 2004.
    13. Jason R. W. Merrick & Philip Leclerc, 2016. "Modeling Adversaries in Counterterrorism Decisions Using Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 681-693, April.
    14. Moreno Jiménez, J.Mª & Escobar Urmeneta, Mª T., 2000. "El pesar en el proceso analítico jerárquico1," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 14, pages 95-115, Abril.
    15. Daniel Serra, 2021. "Decision-making: from neuroscience to neuroeconomics—an overview," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 1-80, July.
    16. Schneider, Mark & Coulter, Robin A., 2015. "A Dual Process Evaluability Framework for decision anomalies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 183-198.
    17. Didi Alaoui, Mohamed & Valette-Florence, Pierre & Cova, Véronique, 2022. "How psychological distance shapes hedonic consumption: The moderating role of the need to justify," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 57-69.
    18. Ordonez, Lisa D. & Benson, Lehman & Beach, Lee Roy, 1999. "Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 63-80, April.
    19. Buonocore, Ciro & Carlucci, Fabio & Ciciarelli, Lucia & Papola, Andrea & Tinessa, Fiore & Tocchi, Daniela & Trincone, Barbara, 2023. "Accessibility analysis in spatial planning: A case of special economic zones (SEZs) in Campania, Southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    20. Anat Bracha, 2004. "Affective Decision Making in Insurance Markets," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2665, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Sep 2004.

    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:trapol:v:116:y:2022:i:c:p:386-398. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    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.