IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v48y2021i6d10.1007_s11116-020-10158-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods

Author

Listed:
  • Kuldeep Kavta

    (Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur)

  • Arkopal K. Goswami

    (Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur)

Abstract

A robust and scientific selection of appropriate Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures is likely to ensure that the purpose of their implementation is met. The existing methods of TDM measure selection do not often adopt a multi-dimensional approach in their decision-making process. Besides, there is minimal scholarly work on the selection of a ‘push plus pull’ integrated TDM package, even though it has been emphasized in the published literature. These gaps are addressed in our study, which adopts a novel approach of a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methodology. A combination of ‘Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory’ (DEMATEL) and ‘Analytical Network Process‘(ANP), along with the VIKOR, which is a ranking method used to select a suitable TDM package, a priori. The demonstration of the proposed methodology is presented for the case study area of Ahmedabad’s old city, which is located in the western state of Gujarat in India. A total of six TDM packages were initially shortlisted as probable contenders for the study area, each package consisting of one coercive (push) and one attracting (pull) measure. The MCDM tool ‘VIKOR’ was used to derive the ranking of these packages based on their performance in seven different criteria. The DEMATEL based ANP method was used to determine the weights of these criteria by comparing the influence of criteria over each other. The uncertainty and subjectivity involved in the entire process was taken into account by employing fuzzy logic into our proposed methodology. The research contribution of the study is a methodological framework that can assist policymakers in the a priori selection of a TDM package. The outputs from the study are twofold—(a) the Influence Network Relationship Map (INRM) and (b) the ranking of the TDM packages for the case study area. The INRM explains the relations between dimensions as well as between criteria within each dimension. Additionally, it classifies the dimension and criteria into cause and effect groups, which can help policymakers in developing a better understanding of the TDM implementation process. In our case study, the TDM package of congestion pricing and public bike sharing was the top ranked package. The most influential dimension was political feasibility, followed by private participation and public acceptability. In addition, effectiveness, investment attractiveness, and system resistance were the most influencing criteria within their respective dimensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuldeep Kavta & Arkopal K. Goswami, 2021. "A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3059-3084, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:48:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s11116-020-10158-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-020-10158-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-020-10158-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-020-10158-0?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. Percoco, Marco, 2014. "Quality of institutions and private participation in transport infrastructure investment: Evidence from developing countries," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 50-58.
    2. Liou, James J.H. & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Chang, Han-Chun, 2007. "Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 243-249.
    3. Wang, Tsung-Cheng, 2012. "The interactive trade decision-making research: An application case of novel hybrid MCDM model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 926-935.
    4. Azari, Kian Ahmadi & Arintono, Sulistyo & Hamid, Hussain & Davoodi, Seyed Rasoul, 2013. "Evaluation of demand for different trip purposes under various congestion pricing scenarios," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 43-51.
    5. Pendyala, Ram M. & Kitamura, Ryuichi & Chen, Cynthia & Pas, Eric I., 1997. "An activity-based microsimulation analysis of transportation control measures," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 183-192, July.
    6. 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.
    7. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    8. Litman, Todd, 2003. "The Online TDM Encyclopedia: mobility management information gateway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 245-249, July.
    9. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    10. M. Freimer & P. L. Yu, 1976. "Some New Results on Compromise Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 688-693, February.
    11. Athena Roumboutsos & Aristeidis Pantelias, 2015. "Allocating Revenue Risk in Transport Infrastructure Public Private Partnership Projects: How it Matters," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 183-203, March.
    12. Agarwal, Ashish & Shankar, Ravi & Tiwari, M.K., 2006. "Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: An ANP-based approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(1), pages 211-225, August.
    13. Hensher, David A. & Puckett, Sean M., 2007. "Congestion and variable user charging as an effective travel demand management instrument," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 615-626, August.
    14. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    15. Eriksson, Louise & Garvill, Jörgen & Nordlund, Annika M., 2008. "Acceptability of single and combined transport policy measures: The importance of environmental and policy specific beliefs," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1117-1128, October.
    16. Nozick, Linda K. & Borderas, Hector & Meyburg, Arnim H., 1998. "Evaluation of travel demand measures and programs: a data envelopment analysis approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 331-343, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Kelly, Charlotte & May, Anthony D. & Jopson, Ann, 2008. "The development of an option generation tool to identify potential transport policy packages," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 361-371, November.
    19. King, David & Manville, Michael & Shoup, Donald, 2007. "The political calculus of congestion pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9js9z8gz, University of California Transportation Center.
    20. Meyer, Michael D., 1999. "Demand management as an element of transportation policy: using carrots and sticks to influence travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 575-599.
    21. King, David & Manville, Michael & Shoup, Donald, 2007. "The political calculus of congestion pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 111-123, March.
    22. Nourinejad, Mehdi & Roorda, Matthew J., 2017. "Impact of hourly parking pricing on travel demand," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 28-45.
    23. Martens, Karel, 2007. "Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 326-338, May.
    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. Kavta, Kuldeep & Goswami, Arkopal K., 2022. "Estimating mode choice of motorized two-wheeler commuters under the influence of combined travel demand management measures: An ICLV modeling approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 327-335.

    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. Habibian, Meeghat & Kermanshah, Mohammad, 2013. "Coping with congestion: Understanding the role of simultaneous transportation demand management policies on commuters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 229-237.
    2. Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Chi-Yo Huang, 2012. "Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing & logistics systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 159-190, August.
    3. Hsu, C.-H. & Wang, Fu-Kwun & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2012. "The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 95-111.
    4. Morton, Craig & Mattioli, Giulio & Anable, Jillian, 2021. "Public acceptability towards Low Emission Zones: The role of attitudes, norms, emotions, and trust," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 256-270.
    5. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2024. "Acceptability of transportation demand management policy packages considering interactions and socio-economic heterogeneity," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Li, Xun & Rey, David & Dixit, Vinayak V., 2018. "An axiomatic characterization of fairness in transport networks: Application to road pricing and spatial equity," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 142-157.
    7. 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.
    8. Wu, Hung-Yi & Lin, Yi-Kuei & Chang, Chi-Hsiang, 2011. "Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 37-50, February.
    9. Büsing, Christina & Goetzmann, Kai-Simon & Matuschke, Jannik & Stiller, Sebastian, 2017. "Reference points and approximation algorithms in multicriteria discrete optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 829-840.
    10. Lu, Ming-Tsang & Hsu, Chao-Che & Liou, James J.H. & Lo, Huai-Wei, 2018. "A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 9-19.
    11. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2023. "Transportation demand management policy efficiency: An attempt to address the effectiveness and acceptability of policy packages," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 317-330.
    12. Amir Hossein Salimi & Amir Noori & Hossein Bonakdari & Jafar Masoompour Samakosh & Ehsan Sharifi & Mohammadreza Hassanvand & Baharam Gharabaghi & Mehdi Agharazi, 2020. "Exploring the Role of Advertising Types on Improving the Water Consumption Behavior: An Application of Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-33, February.
    13. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    14. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    15. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "An Innovative Job Evaluation Approach Using the VIKOR Algorithm," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    20. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.

    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:kap:transp:v:48:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s11116-020-10158-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.