IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v58y2024i3d10.1007_s11135-023-01731-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of urban transportation preferences with analytical hierarchy process method

Author

Listed:
  • Fuat Sekmen

    (Sakarya University)

  • Isa Demirkol

    (Bursa Technical University)

  • Haşmet Gökırmak

    (Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University)

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the inner-city transportation modes and rank them according to some predetermined criteria for the city of Bursa. The Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) method, a Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method, was used to create a general ranking for the modes of vehicles operating within the city. A total of seven criteria that affect the choice of transportation type were considered in this study. These are price, prestige, comfort, timely arrival, safety, ease of payment, and courtesy. A group of experts was consulted to determine the importance of these criteria. Safety, on-time arrival, and courtesy were the most critical factors for this analysis. Four modes, UBER, taxi, minibus, and bus, were used as alternative transportation modes. The AHP method was used to estimate weighted average scores of seven criteria for four-mode alternatives. The AHP analysis results indicate that the most preferred inner-city transportation alternative is UBER, followed by taxi, bus, and minibus.

Suggested Citation

  • Fuat Sekmen & Isa Demirkol & Haşmet Gökırmak, 2024. "Evaluation of urban transportation preferences with analytical hierarchy process method," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2087-2101, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01731-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-023-01731-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-023-01731-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-023-01731-7?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. Benítez, Julio & Carpitella, Silvia & Certa, Antonella & Izquierdo, Joaquín, 2020. "Constrained consistency enforcement in AHP," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 380(C).
    2. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Georgios Apostolidis & Haris Doukas, 2020. "An AHP-SWOT-Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for Achieving a Cross-Border RES Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-28, April.
    3. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    4. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    7. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Angappa Gunasekaran & Pravin Kumar, 2018. "Third party logistics (3PL) selection for cold chain management: a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 267(1), pages 531-553, August.
    8. 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.
    9. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    2. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    3. Tomashevskii, I.L., 2015. "Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 774-780.
    4. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    5. M Tavana, 2006. "A priority assessment multi-criteria decision model for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1197-1215, October.
    6. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    7. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    8. Azzopardi, Ernest & Nash, Robert, 2013. "A critical evaluation of importance–performance analysis," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 222-233.
    9. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    10. Fernandez Portillo, Luis A. & Nekhay, Olexandr & Estepa Mohedano, Lorenzo, 2019. "Use of the ANP methodology to prioritize rural development strategies under the LEADER approach in protected areas. The case of Lagodekhi, Georgia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. L C Leung & Y V Hui & M Zheng, 2003. "Analysis of compatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(7), pages 758-768, July.
    12. L. Sun & B. S. Greenberg, 2006. "Multicriteria Group Decision Making: Optimal Priority Synthesis from Pairwise Comparisons," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 317-339, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    15. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    16. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.
    17. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    18. Devesh Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Rohit Joshi & Vipul Jain & Amrik Sohal, 2022. "Modelling supply chain viability during COVID-19 disruption: A case of an Indian automobile manufacturing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1224-1240, December.
    19. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.
    20. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Transportation; AHP; Transportation modes;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C45 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Neural Networks and Related Topics
    • C46 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Specific Distributions
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques

    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:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01731-7. 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.