Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchal Process for Sustainable Public Transport System

Havraz Khedhir  Younis Al-Zibaree; Mine  Konur

doi:10.31181/jopi1120234

Authors

Havraz Khedhir Younis Al-Zibaree Department of Civil Engineering, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-124X
Mine Konur Department of Industrial Engineering, Turkish Naval Academy, National Defence University, Istanbul, Turkey Author https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8057-5854

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/jopi1120234

Keywords:

Fuzzy sets, Analytic Hierarchal Process, Service quality, Public transport

Abstract

The analytic The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a well-established methodology for tackling complex multi-criteria decision problems in practical contexts. However, like many decision-making approaches, AHP confronts certain limitations, particularly in scenarios where evaluations are fraught with uncertainty and imprecision. This study sets out to enhance the capabilities of the AHP method and provide a comprehensive evaluation of public bus transport service quality within Budapest, Hungary. To address the inherent uncertainties in real-world decision-making, the study leverages the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), a fusion of Fuzzy Set Theory with the traditional AHP. This novel approach equips decision-makers with a more robust framework to handle the multifaceted nature of real-world decision problems. The study is grounded in empirical data obtained through dynamic surveys, ensuring its relevance to the actual conditions experienced in Budapest. Expert evaluators, well-versed in the field, contribute their assessments to enrich the analysis. This novel FAHP approach doesn't just promise improved decision-making outcomes; it also champions simplicity and comprehensibility. Its computational efficiency streamlines the decision-making process, providing a powerful tool for evaluating public bus transport service quality, thereby offering a significant contribution to the sustainable development of Budapest's transportation system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Havraz Khedhir Younis Al-Zibaree, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq

.
Mine Konur, Department of Industrial Engineering, Turkish Naval Academy, National Defence University, Istanbul, Turkey

.

References

Becker J. U., & Albers S., (2016). The limits of analyzing service quality data in public transport. Transportation, 43(5), 823-842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9621-2

Zhang C., Liu Y., Lu W., & Xiao G. (2019). Evaluating passenger satisfaction index based on PLS-SEM model: Evidence from Chinese public transport service. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 120, 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.12.013

Wong R. C. P., Szeto W. Y., Yang L., & Li Y. C., Wong S. C. (2017). Elderly users’ level of satisfaction with public transport services in a high-density and transit-oriented city. Journal of Transport & Health, 7, 209-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.10.004

Morton C., Caulfield B., & Anable J., (2016). Customer perceptions of quality of service in public transport: Evidence for bus transit in Scotland. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4(3), 199-207.

Sun C. C., (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert systems with applications, 37(12), 7745-7754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2016.03.002

Duleba S., & Moslem S., (2019). Examining Pareto optimality in analytic hierarchy process on real Data: An application in public transport service development. Expert Systems with Applications, 116, 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.08.049

Ghorbanzadeh O., Moslem S., Blaschke T., & Duleba S., (2018). Sustainable Urban Transport Planning Considering Different Stakeholder Groups by an Interval-AHP Decision Support Model. Sustainability, 11(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010009

Dožić S., Lutovac T., & Kalić M., (2018). Fuzzy AHP approach to passenger aircraft type selection. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 68, 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.08.003

Sahin, B., & Yip, T. L. (2017). Shipping technology selection for dynamic capability based on improved Gaussian fuzzy AHP model. Ocean Engineering, 136, 233-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.03.032

Sarkar B., Chakraborty D., & Biswas A. (2023). Development of type-2 Pythagorean fuzzy set with its application to sustainable transport system selection, Applied Soft Computing, 142, 110332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110332

Yucesan M., Özkan B., Mete S., Gul M., & Özceylan E. (2024). Evaluating sustainability of urban mobility of Asian cities: An integrated approach of interval type-2 fuzzy best-worst method and MULTIMOORA, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127, 107266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107266

Sarkar A., Moslem S., Esztergár-Kiss D., Akram M., Jin L., & Senapati T. (2023). A hybrid approach based on dual hesitant q-rung orthopair fuzzy Frank power partitioned Heronian mean aggregation operators for estimating sustainable urban transport solutions, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 124, 106505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106505

Senapati T., Simic V., Saha A., Dobrodolac M., Rong Y., & Tirkolaee E.B. (2023). Intuitionistic fuzzy power Aczel-Alsina model for prioritization of sustainable transportation sharing practices, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 119, 105716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105716

Bouraima M.B., Qiu Y., Stević Z., & Simić V., (2023). Assessment of alternative railway systems for sustainable transportation using an integrated IRN SWARA and IRN CoCoSo model, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 86, 101475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101475

Rajak S., Parthiban P., & Dhanalakshmi R., (2016). Sustainable transportation systems performance evaluation using fuzzy logic, Ecological Indicators, 71, 503-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.031

Gandhi, N., & Kant, R. (2023). Evaluation of sustainability performance of the rail freight transportation: An index-based analysis. Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.01.193

Makarova I., Pashkevich A., & Shubenkova K., (2017). Ensuring Sustainability of Public Transport System through Rational Management, Procedia Engineering, 178, 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.078

Antunes J., Tan Y., Wanke P., & Jabbour C.J.C., (2023). Impact of R&D and innovation in Chinese road transportation sustainability performance: A novel trigonometric envelopment analysis for ideal solutions (TEA-IS), Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 87, 101544, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101544

Ngossaha J.M., Ngouna R.H., Archimède B., & Nlong J.M., (2017). Sustainability assessment of a transportation system under uncertainty: an integrated multicriteria approach, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50, 7481-7486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1064

Dahooie J.H., Muhammedian E., Kurbani A.R., & Daim T., (2023). A portfolio selection of internet of things (IoTs) applications for the sustainable urban transportation: A novel hybrid multi criteria decision making approach, Technology in Society, 75, 102366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102366

Büyüközkan G., Feyzioğlu O., & Göçer F., (2018). Selection of sustainable urban transportation alternatives using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral approach,

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 58, 186-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.005

Pathak D.K., Shankar R., & Choudhary A., (2021). Performance assessment framework based on competitive priorities for sustainable freight transportation systems, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 90, 102663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102663

Pamucar D., Deveci M., Gokasar I., Tavana M., & Köppen M., (2022). A metaverse assessment model for sustainable transportation using ordinal priority approach and Aczel-Alsina norms, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121778

Ayadi H., Hamani N., Benaissa M., & Kermad L., (2022). Conceptual Framework for Assessing Sustainability of Urban Freight Transport, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55, 251-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.397

Gumus A.T., (2009). Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 4067–4074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.013

Duleba S., Mishina T., & Shimazaki Y., (2012). A dynamic analysis on public bus transport’s supply quality by using AHP, Transport, 27(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2012.719838

Hsieh T.Y., Lu S.-T., & Tzeng G.H., (2004). Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002

Saaty T. L., (1997). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5