Decision-Support Framework for Selecting the Optimal Road Toll Collection System

Milenković, Marina; Glavić, Draženko; Mladenović, Miloš N.

doi:10.1155/2018/4949565

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a decision-support framework has to be based on understanding that true optimal solutions only exist if we consider a single criterion [43,50]. In real planning situations, basing decision-making on only one criterion would be insufficient to account for complex infrastructural and behaviour interdependencies, thus failing to account for multiple conflicting and frequently non-commensurable objectives, stemming from a multitude of stakeholders [38,46,47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, this iterative decision-making process is similar to the structure existing in a Delphi method and relies on inperson participation in a workshop setting. [39,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. This DSF centres on Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE), as the outranking method capable of accommodating a larger number of criteria and alternatives [50].…”

Section: Knowledge Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decision Support Framework for Cycling Investment Prioritization

Glavić

Mladenović²,

Milenković

2019

Journal of Advanced Transportation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considering the significant potential for environmental, economic, social and health benefits from cycling, transport planners around the world are considering a wide variety of strategies for its promotion. However, cycling investments still have to find their place in a coherent package among other policies. Different constraints often imply a need for prioritization in cycling project implementation. The need for prioritization list of proposed investments can be caused by different factors such as available budget, available time, and regulatory constraints. Evaluation of investments in cycling infrastructure is a field of study that still requires further development, as previous research has mostly focused on questions of what to build and where. Previously used cost-benefit methods have substantive and procedural limitations in dealing with non-commensurable effects, and dealing with multiple conflicting objectives stemming from different stakeholders. On the contrary, development of prioritization list is formulated here as a semi-structured decision problem, thus belonging to the group of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) methods. The MCA methodology implemented in this decision-support framework is based on Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE). The expert-based decision-support framework includes procedures for defining list of evaluation criteria and their weights, scoring of alternatives, and sensitivity analysis. Presented decision-support framework is applied on six bicycle sections of the EuroVelo route 8 through Montenegro. Results provide a list of prioritized infrastructural investments, as well as list of criteria with weights, and sensitivity analysis. Decision-support framework is discussed in the context of further professionalizing of cycling planning, as well as short-term and long-term structuration of organization learning in the transition country context. Finally, this development opens up directions for further contextualization of decision criteria, and greater consideration of user attitudes in cycling promotion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowledge Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Support Framework for Cycling Investment Prioritization

Glavić

Mladenović²,

Milenković

2019

Journal of Advanced Transportation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The total number of 48 criteria in the SWOT group were studied and ranked-12 strengths criteria, 15 weaknesses criteria, 12 opportunities criteria and 9 threats criteria. The SWOT analysis was integrated with the Fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (F-PROMETHEE) method for the selection of the optimal toll collection system [32]. The alternatives were analysed based on the SWOT analysis according to their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Policies of Railway Operators Using SWOT Criteria and the SIMUS Method: A Case for the Bulgarian Railway Network

Stoilova

Munier

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is useful for railway operators as it enables them to verify their decisions against the results of the application of the techniques of strategic planning and multi-criteria analysis. It gives railway stakeholders concise, objective and unbiased information so that they can then make decisions and also allows them to determine the strengths and sensitivity, of the best solution found. This paper presents a methodology for the assessment of the policies of railway operators using Strengths–Weakness–Opportunities–Threats (SWOT) criteria and the Sequential Interactive Modelling for Urban Systems (SIMUS) method. The methodology of the research consists of two stages. In the first stage, the alternatives of the policies for the railway operator are formulated; the criteria in the SWOT group are defined; and the values of the criteria are determined for each of the alternatives. In the second stage, the SIMUS method is applied to rank the alternatives and assess the criteria in the SWOT groups. The criteria are interpreted as objectives and linear optimizations are performed. A comparison between the desired values for each objective of the SWOT criteria and the optimum values of the objective functions obtained by SIMUS was made. The methodology was applied to the Bulgarian railway network. Three policies for railway operation were studied. The total number of 17 railway policies criteria in the SWOT group were defined and assessed—three strengths criteria, seven weaknesses criteria, three opportunities criteria and four threats criteria. The results indicated that the best strategy is A3 (some reconstruction of the railway infrastructure and new rolling stock on some lines), with the highest score of 3.76, followed by A2 (new rolling stock on some lines), with a score of 2.71. The status-quo strategy (A1) has a very low score of 0.43, that the current situation or status-quo cannot be supported. The weights of both strengths and opportunities are both of the same importance with a weight of 0.180. It was found out that the clusters Weakness and Threats are dominant with weights of 0.4 and 0.24 respectively. The results show that the weights are all practically the same, about 0.06, and therefore, no discrimination by importance is possible. The methodology makes it possible to consider the alternatives simultaneously, and in this way, the results will reflect the effect of one criterion on all others, and permit us to quantify the differences between expected and real results.

show abstract

“…The method is also effective considering field of road, transportation and logistics management such as maintenance management of road infrastructure (Jajac et al, 2009), selection of the optimal toll collection system (Milenković, Glavić and Mladenović, 2018), as well as location selection of a multimodal logistics center (Pamučar, Tarle and Parezanović, 2018). They highlighted that PRO-METHEE can offer consistent solutions and have a stable and well-structured analytical framework for ranking the alternatives.…”

Section: Overview Of the Promethee As A Tool For Group Decision--making In Civil Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group decision-making in civil engineering based on AHP and PROMETHEE methods

Marović

Tijanić

Šopić

et al. 2020

srees

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and PROMETHEE have gained increasing attention in the field of construction management as techniques for the analysis of complex situations and as decision support for decision makers. However, these two methods in themselves or their potential applications to problems of construction management are not sufficiently defined in the existing literature. The environment of group decision-making bring even more challenges. This paper consolidates and critically discusses the current knowledge on the application of AHP and PROMETHEE methods in the light of the specifics of the construction industry. A systematic literature review was used to select the contributions indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science. The findings indicate that the studies deal with broad topics and different aspects in different phases of civil engineering projects. This paper provides a useful reference work for researchers and practitioners interested in the application of AHP and PROMEETHEE as tools for group decision-making in civil engineering.

show abstract

Decision-Support Framework for Selecting the Optimal Road Toll Collection System

Cited by 21 publications

References 39 publications

Decision Support Framework for Cycling Investment Prioritization

Decision Support Framework for Cycling Investment Prioritization

Analysis of Policies of Railway Operators Using SWOT Criteria and the SIMUS Method: A Case for the Bulgarian Railway Network

Group decision-making in civil engineering based on AHP and PROMETHEE methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About