Location Preferences of New Pedestrian Bridges Based on Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and GIS-Based Estimation

Abstract

Non-motorized pedestrian and bicycle traffic is an effective and efficient tool for reducing the negative environmental impacts of transport and improving the quality of life in urban conditions. The strategies of creating new attractive spaces on the waterfront are prevalent amongst the municipalities in different countries. This kind of development intends the construction of new connection bridges, usually meant solely for walking and cycling. There are a significant number of studies covering the theme of pedestrian bridges, but the studies typically focus on technical parameters – serviceability, stress and vibrations, specifications for the design. Researchers and stakeholders rarely discuss displacement strategy, expenditure and future usability. This study aims to find out the best and the most useful bridge locations that would contribute to pedestrian network improvement, would add value to city image and give other benefits. A novel hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) model, based on five different multi-criteria decision-making methods: Multiplicative Exponential Weighting (MEW), method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS), an Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method, expert judgement, and Step‐Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA), is presented. A developed model allows solving complicated problems and finding a rationally, balanced solution. Arguments derived from this study help politicians and town planners as well as society.

An overview of ARAS method: Theory development, application extension, and future challenge

“…In the studies of the ARAS methods, to handle the complex decision-making problems more comprehensively, there are some researchers that combine the ARAS method with other kinds of decision-making methods to rank the alternatives**. These studies can be segmented to two categories, that is, the parallel combination-based studies, 23,27,37,41,44,50,[54][55][56]63,67,[72][73][74][75]83,86,96,97,99,[122][123][124][125][126][127] and the subsequent combinationbased studies. 46 For the studies belonging to the first category, the methods and the ARAS method derive rankings separately, and then researchers generally analyze the different rankings or aggregate the rankings into one final ranking.…”

“…In GDM environment, the evaluations are usually given by several experts with different knowledge backgrounds, and aggregating their evaluation information is one of the most important steps. For the studies on the ARAS method in GDM environment, there are mainly six different ways to aggregate individual evaluations, that is, (1) the arithmetic mean, 69,80,95,99 (2) the sets' characters-based method, 5,29,43,46,60,65,82,100 (3) Geometric Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Weighted Averaging (GHFLWA) operator, 8 (4) Interval-valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Weighted Averaging (IIFWA) operator, 7,38 (5) entropy-based method, 101 and (6) Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) method 75 (see Table 4). Let assume that there are K experts.…”

“…For the parallel combination-based studies, some of them mainly started from the perspective of overviewing to analyze the features of different methods, 125 some combined different methods to decide the final ranking and analyzed the results derived from the different methods, 27,37,44,50,55,63,[72][73][74]86,96,97,99,[122][123][124]127 and the other had the specific procedure to aggregate the results derived from the different methods. 23,41,54,56,67,75,83 As Figure 10 shows, the analyses for the rankings derived from different methods mainly start from the following two perspectives: (1) correlation index, which mainly analyzes the correlation between the rankings.…”

“…67 Zavadskas et al 60 proposed a new ARAS-based method to select a deep-water port in the Eastern Baltic sea. The rest of the studies are all related to the detailed construction program, such as foundation installment analysis, 131 evaluation of stairs' shapes for dwelling houses, 56 location selection of new pedestrian bridges, 99 selection of pile-column construction technology, 85,96 and selection of the construction delay change plans. 63…”

Determination of Objective Weights Using a New Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC)

“…In practical situations, we can be confronted with some problems in which a finite set of alternatives need to be evaluated in terms of multiple criteria [6][7][8][9]. MCDM methods provide us with a process that results in rational, explainable, and justifiable decisions.…”