Evaluating goals and impacts of two metro alternatives by the AHP

Abstract

The transport planning and its decision making involve a large number of goals and more than one alternative to be evaluated. This analysis comprises technical and financial features up to social and environmental impacts. We show how the AHP is a useful tool in this procedure, and evaluate several objectives and impacts of the implantation of the third metro line in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, where there were two alternative outlines and one of them to be selected.

Validating the usability attributes of AHP-software risk prioritization model using partial least square-structural equation modeling

“…AHP is suited for situations in which variables are quantified based on subjective judgment to provide a numeric scale for prioritizing decision alternatives (Mouette and Fernandes, 1996). Furthermore, AHP is based on a matrix of pairwise comparisons between criteria, and it can be used to evaluate the relative performance of decision alternatives with respect to the relevant criteria (Poh and Ang, 1999).…”

“…According to Saaty (2008), (Mouette and Fernandes, 1996) below are the advantages of applying AHP: AHP takes into consideration the relative priorities of factors or alternatives and represents the best alternative. AHP provides an easy applicable decision making methodology that assist the decision-maker to precisely decide the judgments. AHP uses either objective or subjective considerations or either quantitative or qualitative information play an important role during the decision process. AHP has a very wide range of usage such as planning, effectiveness, benefit and risk analysis and choosing any kind of decision among alternatives. AHP relies on the judgments if experts from different backgrounds; so the main focus or the problem can be evaluated easily from different aspects. AFP makes it possible to measure the consistency of decision-maker’s judgments. …”

“…Below are the disadvantages of AHP as stated by Mouette and Fernandes (1996), Poh and Ang (1999) and Kerk et al (2017): There is not always a solution to the linear equations. There is issue in AHP in achieving full pair comparisons and, consequently, inconsistency in judgments. The computational requirement is tremendous even for a small problem. AHP has a subjective nature of the modeling process is a constraint of AHP. That means that methodology cannot guarantee the decisions as definitely true. AHP is faced with the impossibility of confronting ambiguities and uncertainties in issues of high complexity. When the number of the levels in the hierarchy increase, the number of pair comparisons also increase, so that to build the AHP model takes much more time and effort. …”

Applications of intuitionistic fuzzy set aggregation operators in transport multi-factor project evaluation

“…Increasingly, MFPE methods have been developed which seek to identify a 'best' project in the context of multiple factors, or what are variously termed 'attributes', 'criteria', 'objectives', 'impacts' or 'dimensions'. Examples range over many years and include Jessiman et al (1967), Schimpeler and Grecco (1968), Guiliano (1985), Teodorovic (1985), Saaty (1977aSaaty ( , 1997bSaaty ( , 1995, Janarthanan and Schneider (1986), Tzeng and Shiau (1987), Pak et al (1987), Won (1990), Azis (1990), Van Huylenbroeck (1991), Holguín-Veras (1993), Ulengin (1994), Mouette and Fernandes (1996), Rogers and Bruen (1996), Teng and Tzeng (1996), Schwartz and Eichhorn (1997), Schwartz et al (1998), Tzeng and Lee (1998), Poh and Ang (1999), Hsu (1999), Yeh et al (2000), Guegan et al (2000), Khasnabis et al (2002), Ababutain and Bullen (2003), Tsamboulas and Kopsacheili (2003), Yedla and Shrestha (2003), Lirn et al (2003), Lirn et al (2004), Macharis et al (2004, Gerçek et al (2004), Tzeng et al (2005), Tsamboulas (2007), Mateus et al (2008) and Nathanail (2008).…”