IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ind/igiwpp/2007-011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Application of analytic hierarchy process to prioritize urban transport options: Comparative analysis of group aggregation methods

Author

Listed:
  • Sudhakar Yedla

    (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research)

  • Ram M. Shrestha

    (Asian Institute of Technology)

Abstract

The present study presents a comparative analysis of different group aggregation methods adopted in AHP by testing them against social choice axioms with a case study of Delhi transport system. The group aggregation (GA) methods and their correctness were tested while prioritizing the alternative options to achieve energy efficient and less polluting transport system in Delhi. It was observed that among all group aggregation methods, geometric mean method (GMM) - the most widely adopted GA method of AHP - showed poor performance and failed to satisfy the most popular "pareto optimality and non-dictatorship axiom" raising questions on its validity as GA method adopted in AHP. All other group aggregation methods viz. weighted arithmetic mean method with varying weights and equal weights (WAMM, WeAMM) and arithmetic mean of individual priorities (AMM) resulted in concurring results with the individual member priorities. This study demonstrates that WeAMM resulted in better aggregation of individual priorities compared to WAMM. Comparative analysis between individual and group priorities demonstrates that the arithmetic mean (AMM) of priorities by individual members of the group showed minimum deviation from the group consensus making it the most suitable and simple method to aggregate individual preferences to arrive at a group consensus.

Suggested Citation

  • Sudhakar Yedla & Ram M. Shrestha, 2007. "Application of analytic hierarchy process to prioritize urban transport options: Comparative analysis of group aggregation methods," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2007-011, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    • Handle: RePEc:ind:igiwpp:2007-011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2007-011.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    3. Hansson, Bengt, 1969. "Group Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(1), pages 50-54, January.
    4. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1990. "Reply to "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process" by J. S. Dyer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 269-273, March.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Homogeneity and clustering in AHP ensures the validity of the scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 598-601, February.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    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. Sudhakar Yedla & Ram M. Shrestha, 2007. "Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban Transport Options - Comparative Analysis of Group Aggregation Methods," Microeconomics Working Papers 22400, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    2. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    3. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    4. Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2010. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 699-711, April.
    5. Jicang Xu & Linlin Li & Ming Ren, 2022. "A Hybrid ANP Method for Evaluation of Government Data Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-32, January.
    6. Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
    7. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    8. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    9. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    10. 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).
    11. Berumen, Sergio A. & Pérez-Megino, Luis P., 2016. "Ranking Socioeconómico para el Desarrollo de las Regiones Carboníferas en Europa || Socioeconomic Ranking for the Development of coal-mining regions in Europe," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 21(1), pages 39-57, June.
    12. Jain, Bharat A. & Nag, Barin N., 1996. "A decision-support model for investment decisions in new ventures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 473-486, May.
    13. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    14. Azam Abdolazimi & Mehdi Momeni & Majid Montazeri, 2015. "Comparing ELECTRE and Linear Assignment Methods in Zoning Shahroud-Bastam Watershed for Artificial Recharge of Groundwater with GIS Technique," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(1), pages 1-68, January.
    15. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    16. Millet, Ido & Saaty, Thomas L., 2000. "On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 205-212, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Finan, J. S. & Hurley, W. J., 1999. "Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 367-372, January.
    19. BERUMEN, Sergio A. & LLAMAZARES-REDONDO, Francisco, 2014. "Economic Development and Viability Firms in European Mining Regions," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 14(1), pages 33-46.
    20. Abbas, Ali E. & Hupman, Andrea C., 2023. "Scale dependence in weight and rate multicriteria decision methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 225-235.

    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:ind:igiwpp:2007-011. 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: Shamprasad M. Pujar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/igidrin.html .

    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.