A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices

dc.contributor.authorKhraibani, R.
dc.contributor.authorde Palma, André
dc.contributor.authorPicard, Nathalie
dc.contributor.authorKaysi, Isam A.
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering
dc.contributor.facultyMaroun Semaan Faculty of Engineering and Architecture (MSFEA)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T11:26:57Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T11:26:57Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractThe Transportation Elimination-by-Aspects (TEBA) framework, a new evaluation and decision making framework (and methodology) for large transportation projects, is proposed to elicit, structure and quantify the preferences of stakeholder groups across project alternatives. The decision rule used for group decision making within TEBA is the individual non-compensatory model of choice elimination by aspects (EBA). TEBA is designed to bring out the decision rule employed by decision makers when ranking the options presented, incorporate various criteria types and ease communication of relevant information related to options and criteria for multiple stakeholder groups. It is a platform for democratizing the decision making process. The TEBA framework was tested using a case study investigating alternative land connections between Beirut and Damascus. Key results showed that (1) stakeholders have employed EBA in making decisions, (2) a defined group of decision makers will rank options differently when provided with modified sets of criteria, (3) the public sector and general public groups ranked Impact on Employment among the top criteria, (4) the most important criterion per group from EBA was as expected; (5) the EBA analysis suggested that only 3-4 criteria are significant in reaching a decision; (6) aggregation of user assigned weights masked relative importance of criteria in some cases; and (7) analysis of user assigned weights and Minimum Threshold (MT) values suggest higher risk perception with increased criterion importance. Policy implications include recommendation to reach out to stakeholders for input on decisions, including the people but refrain from relying on criteria weights assigned by experts and reduce the experts' role in decision making. Also, it is recommended to model the decision making in a probabilistic framework rather than a deterministic one score approach, seek to identify a consensus ranking, place particular attention on determining the values of the criteria that emerged as top at the evaluation stage and continue to emphasize risk measures. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.02.005
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-84959350514
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/26731
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofTransport Policy
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectTransportation investment
dc.subjectCollective decision making
dc.subjectCost benefit analysis
dc.subjectElimination by aspects
dc.subjectConsensus model/joint decision making
dc.subjectIndex of dispersion
dc.subjectBehavioral choice
dc.subjectInfrastructure
dc.titleA new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2016-9519.pdf
Size:
1.79 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format