Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Multi-criteria analysis of transport infrastructure projects

T
⁎
Elzbieta Broniewicz , Karolina Ogrodnik
Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska St. 45A, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Planning, construction and operation of transport infrastructure are associated with a multitude
MCDM/MCDA methods of adverse effects on the environment. The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and
Multi-criteria analysis Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are important legal instruments of the European Union's
Transport environmental policy that allows for identifying, predicting, preventing, and mitigating and or
Sustainable development
compensating for these adverse effects. As part of the environmental impact assessment, variants
of planned activities and investment projects are considered in order to select the option, which is
the most favourable from the environmental point of view. The primary goal of this work is to
examine the possibility of using multi-criteria methods in order to select the route variant most
favourable for the environment. In the first stage, a review of global literature from 2010 to 2019
was conducted on the subject of MCDM/MCDA (Multi-Criteria Decision Making/Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis) methods used in transportation. Based on the review, it was proven that the
most popular methods used to solve multi-criteria decision problems in the field of transport are
respectively: AHP with modifications, TOPSIS, DEMATEL, as well as methods encompassed in the
so-called European trend, i.e. PROMETHEE and ELECTRE. Four selected methods were used in
the empirical part of this work. They were used to select the variant of the expressway section in
north-eastern Poland and compare the result of the analysis with the choice made in the analyzed
environmental impact report.

1. Introduction

Efficient and operational transport infrastructure is essential for the effective functioning of the economy and society. The need
for efficient transport requires the use of financial and spatial resources and justifies the negative phenomena that are typically
associated with it. From an environmental point of view, transport infrastructure causes changes in almost every element of the
environment: from the most obvious, such as the loss of local ecosystems, landscape changes or emissions of air pollutants, noise
emissions; to disturbances and changes in the quality of ecosystems, or changes in hydrological processes. Some authors, however,
present a positive impact of transport infrastructure on the environment; mainly on the increase in the population of animals looking
for food along the roads (Fahrig and Rytwinski, 2009), on birds (Morelli et al., 2014) or its neutral influence - e.g. on butterflies
(Saarinen et al., 2005) or on meadow vegetation (Hovd and Skogen, 2005). That being said, it is the negative impact of transport
infrastructure on the environment that is typically emphasized. Table 1 summarizes the negative impact of transport infrastructures
on the environment.
To reduce the negative environmental impact of planning documents and investment projects, including those related to transport
infrastructure, in 1985 two instruments of environmental impact assessment were introduced in the EU - Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) of policies, strategies, plans and programs as well as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of investment

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: e.broniewicz@pb.edu.pl (E. Broniewicz), k.ogrodnik@pb.edu.pl (K. Ogrodnik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102351

1361-9209/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Table 1
Overview of transport infrastructure’s negative impacts on the environment.
Source: author’s work based on Karlson et al. (2014).
Action Impact

construction phase – habitat is converted into a construction site

operational phase
– local impact on populations
– increased landscape subdivision, especially from linear constructions, resulting in reduced connectivity and increased isolation
– alteration of hydrological processes
– demolition of residential houses
– logging
– destruction of plan and animal sites
– alteration of habitat size
– increased habitat fragmentation and changes in connectivity
– alteration of hydrological processes
– alteration of microclimatic conditions
– animal mortality
– altered noise levels
– light pollution
– local contamination of heavy metals and chemicals to the air, water and soil

projects.
They are widely utilized in all EU countries, in accordance with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment (SEA) and Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(EIA)1.
The environmental impact assessment, in accordance with legal requirements, is based on identifying, describing and assessing -
in an appropriate manner - the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:

– human beings, fauna and flora,

– soil, water, air, climate and the landscape,
– the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first and second indents,
– material assets and the cultural heritage (Art. 3 Directive 85/337/EEC).

As part of the environmental impact assessment, it is necessary to analyze reasonable alternative design options and select the
option where the environmental impact is the lowest. The legal requirements do not specify the methods of choosing the best option.
This choice should be as objective as possible and has to be based on reliable information. The ability to make correct assessments
regarding a project’s environmental impact depends largely on the quality of the information used, but also on the application of
appropriate selection methods for picking the most favourable option. Subjective assessment of options and a selection of the wrong
methods for analysis can lead to wrong decisions. The primary goal of this article is to analyze the rationale and applicability of the
MCDM/MCDA methods in solving transport decision-making problems, especially in the process of selecting investment options for
transport infrastructure.
The specific objectives of this study were (i) to carry out a review of current applications of the MCDM/MCDA methods for the
purpose of selecting decision problems in the field of transport, based on the world scientific literature and together with an in-
dication of the most popular methods and their combinations (ii) to present the analyzed environmental impact report of a specific
investment related to the construction of an expressway (iii) to perform a multi-criteria analysis of design variants for a selected
investment using a hybrid approach and applying the following methods: AHP, Fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE (iiii) to
compare the selection of a variant picked according to multi-criteria methods with the choice actually made in the analyzed en-
vironmental impact report.

2. Literature review

A total of 58 scientific articles concerning the application of MCDM/MCDA methods to selected decision problems in the field of
transport between 2000 and 2019 worldwide were analyzed (Appendix A). Taken into consideration were papers indexed in Scopus
and Web of Science, with the main search criteria being the keywords: “MCDM/MCDA in transport”. During the analysis, six areas of
activity associated with transport infrastructure were identified: quality and safety of public transport, scenarios for the development
of public transport systems, the selection of the investment location, road, air, rail and sea transport, electric vehicles, and other areas

1
The list of legal requirements is much longer, they relate to public participation in making decisions regarding plans and programs related to
environmental protection (Directive 2003/35/EC), access to information on the state of the environment (Directive 2003/4/EC), as well as the
protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) (Directive 92/43/EEC)
and the protection of wild birds (on the conservation of wild birds) (Directive 2009/147/EC).

2
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Fig. 1. The popularity of multi-criteria decision-making methods in projects associated with transport infrastructure. Source: author’s work.

of activity. During the literature review, particular attention was paid to the types of MCDM/MCDA methods used, as well as the
research problem and temporal and territorial delimitation of research (details are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B).
Based on the carried out review of world literature, it can be seen that the most popular methods used for the selected decision
problems in the field of transport are: AHP with its modifications (e.g. Fuzzy AHP or Group AHP) and the TOPSIS method. Besides,
the DEMATEL method is gaining popularity (which makes it possible to examine cause-effect relationships), as well as methods from
the so-called European trend: PROMETHEE and ELECTRE (Fig. 1).
Additionally, based on the analysis carried out, it can be seen that the MCDM/MCDA methods are constantly evolving, with fuzzy
sets being the most popular type of their modification. Also, due to the limitations of individual methods, a hybrid approach is
increasingly used in research, as it includes combining several methods or their selected algorithms2. These methods are also used as

2
The advantages and disadvantages of MCDM/MCDA methods have been described, among others, in works of: Aruldoss et al., 2013, Velasquez

3
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Fig. 2. Basic assumptions of the hybrid approach used. Source: author’s work.

part of this work.

3. Research methodology

In this work, a hybrid approach—which (according to the review carried out) combines the MCDM/MCDA methods most
commonly applied to decision problems in the field of transport—was used. First, in order to estimate the criteria weights – the classic
AHP method was applied. This method appeared most frequently in the review of the current literature on the subject. Moreover, the
AHP method was included in the handbook of good practices for carrying out environmental studies for national roads, which was
created in 2012 on behalf of the General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways (General Director for National Roads and
Motorways, 2012). Due to the growing importance of fuzzy set theory in the field of multi-criteria methods, in addition to the
classical AHP method, Fuzzy AHP was also used to estimate the weight of decision factors. The main purpose of this action was to
conduct a comparative analysis of two sets of weights, as well as to determine the impact of the fuzzy scale on factor weights
and—subsequently—on decision rankings. What is important, both classic AHP and FAHP were used for factor weighing, while two
other methods were used to develop final rankings: TOPSIS and PROMETHEE. The TOPSIS method came second in terms of the
number of its applications (after a group of methods from the AHP family); its significant advantage is the relatively simple calcu-
lation algorithm and the ability to analyze quantitative data (Roszkowska, 2013). In addition to the TOPSIS method, the PROME-
THEE method was also used for the purposes of this paper, which is characterized by a completely different procedure. The PRO-
METHHE method, similarly to the ELECTRE family, belongs to the so-called European trend; both methods are gaining popularity for
decision-making problems in the field of transport. For the purposes of this paper, the PROMETHEE method has been selected,
primarily due to its possibility of assessing the significance of differences between individual variants in the light of the chosen
criteria. It is worth noting that the developed list of the most popular MCDM/MCDA methods used in the field of transport (Fig. 1),
also includes the DEMATEL method which is generally used to analyze cause-effect relationships. Due to the nature of the decision
problem considered in this paper, i.e. the choice of the location of a given investment, this method has not been included in the
developed hybrid approach. The details of this hybrid approach, used together with the indication of the main elements of the
selected methods, are presented in Fig. 2.

3.1. Transformation of the original weights of decision factors

The first stage of the analysis was to transform the weights given by the authors of the report into the forms that enable the
creation of a square comparison matrix via the AHP method. The report originally used a point scale from 1 to 5, where 1 point meant
the lowest weight of the decision-making factor and 5 points – the highest (Environmental impact assessment report, 2018, p. 467).

3.2. Calculating the weighting of decision factors via the classical AHP method

In the beginning, a comparison matrix of decision factors was developed. Individual decision factors were compared in pairs using
the classic Saaty scale (Table 2). In addition, a conformity assessment was carried out (Table 5).

(footnote continued)
and Hester, 2013, Moghtadernejad et al., 2018.

4
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Table 2
Classic Saaty scale and selected fuzzy triangular scales.
Source: Saaty (2008) and Ayhan (2013).
Definition classic Saaty Scale fuzzy triangular scale

Equal Importance 1 1,1,1

Weak or slight 2 1,2,3
Moderate importance 3 2,3,4
Moderate plus 4 3,4,5
Strong importance 5 4,5,6
Strong plus 6 5,6,7
Very strong 7 6,7,8
Very, very strong 8 7,8,9
Extremely strong 9 9,9,9
“If an activity “i“ has one of the above non-zero numbers assigned to it when compared with activity “j”, then “j” has Reciprocals of above Reciprocals of above
the reciprocal value when compared with “i”

Table 3
Variants’ characteristics.
Source: author’s work based on Environmental impact assessment report (2018).
No. Name The variant of expressway route The variant of the national road route Length [km] Number of engineering objects

W1 Variant 1 1 1 53 856.37 80
W2 Variant 2 1 2 53 651.39 82
W3 Variant 3 1 3 53 517.19 77
W4 Variant 4 2 2 52 249.97 78
W5 Variant 5 2 1 53 230.57 79
W6 Variant 6 2 3 52 891.39 76

Table 4
Decision criteria - basic information.
Source: author’s work based on Environmental impact assessment report (2018).
No. Name Unit Character (stimulant/destimulant) Aspect

C1 the occupied area of Natura 2000 sites in the investment’s demarcation lines hectares ↓ environmental
C2 the length of the investment’s Natura 2000 sites intersections meters ↓ environmental
C3 the number of vascular plant species destroyed number ↓ environmental
C4 the number of species of fungi (lichen) destroyed number ↓ environmental
C5 area of destroyed natural habitats from Annex I to the Habitats Directive hectares ↓ environmental
C6 impact on snail habitats number ↓ environmental
C7 impact on insect habitats number ↓ environmental
C8 the number of herpetofauna sites in the test buffer number ↓ environmental
C9 length of sections with high pollution risk kilometre ↓ environmental
C10 number of collisions with cultural heritage objects number ↓ cultural
C11 intersection length of soil complex meters ↓ environmental
C12 number of demolitions of residential buildings number ↓ social
C13 number of buildings exposed to excessive noise number ↓ social

↓ destimulant.

3.3. Calculating the weights of decision factors using the fuzzy AHP method

As part of multi-criteria analysis, the second set of decision factor weights was also estimated using the fuzzy AHP method. The
starting point, as is the case with a classical AHP, was the development of a comparison matrix. A fuzzy scale was used to compare
pairs of decision factors. Table 2 presents a fuzzy triangular scale with its counterparts from the classic Saaty scale.
Subsequently, a Buckley procedure was used to calculate the weights of decision factors, which consists of the following stages:
calculation of the geometric mean of fuzzy for each decision factor; calculating the fuzzy weights of each decision factor (this stage of
the procedure includes, in order: calculating the sum of the vectors, finding the (−1) power of summation vector along with a
ranking of values, multiplying each triangular value with this reverse vector); de-fuzzified by centre of area method; the last stage is
the normalization of the weights obtained (the results of these calculations are presented in Table 6) (Buckley, 1985; Ayhan 2013;
Ogrodnik, 2019).

3.4. Developing a decision variant ranking using the TOPSIS method

Using the previously estimated weights of decision factors and the assessment of decision variants, in the light of these factors

5
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Table 5
Decision factors weights with compliance assessment - set I.
Source: author’s work.
Factor Weights – classical AHP

C1 0.106
C2 0.106
C3 0.039
C4 0.039
C5 0.106
C6 0.106
C7 0.106
C8 0.106
C9 0.019
C10 0.039
C11 0.019
C12 0.106
C13 0.106
Compliance assessment λ max = 13.009
CR = 0.005

Table 6
Weights of decision factors together with conformity
assessment - set II.
Source: author’s work.
Factor Weights – fuzzy AHP

C1 0.105
C2 0.105
C3 0.041
C4 0.041
C5 0.105
C6 0.105
C7 0.105
C8 0.105
C9 0.019
C10 0.041
C11 0.019
C12 0.105
C13 0.105

(Environmental impact assessment report, 2018, p. 473), a multi-criteria analysis of the variants was made in accordance with the
TOPSIS method algorithm (Table 7). Initially, the output ratings of variants were normalized, to be then corrected by the weighting of
individual decision-making factors. Subsequently, ideal solutions (the strongest evaluation values) and anti-ideal solutions (the
weakest evaluation values) were determined. In the next stage, which was central to the selected method, the distances between
individual variants and the designated ideal and anti-ideal solutions were calculated. The final ranking of variants was developed
based on the so-called global evaluation. The higher the global rating value, the higher the variant scores in the ranking. As men-
tioned before, the calculations were made for two sets of weights, obtained via AHP and FAHP. (Tables 8 and 9). The full algorithm of
the TOPSIS method has been presented, e.g. in this paper (Hwang and Yoon, 1981, pp. 126–134).

Table 7
Variants assessment in the light of decision factors together with their character – output data into the TOPSIS method.
Source: Environmental impact assessment report (2018).
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13

W1 86.1 2425 9 0 39.1 4 11 64 3.1 23 12,850 7 7

W2 42.6 953 11 0 44.8 5 10 62 2.9 22 12,268 9 7
W3 42.6 937 11 0 41.8 4 11 60 2.9 23 11,806 8 7
W4 48.6 1573 9 1 62.9 6 6 65 2.9 33 14,353 14 26
W5 92.1 3045 7 1 57.2 5 7 68 3.1 34 15,185 17 26
W6 48.6 1557 9 1 59.9 5 7 64 2.9 34 14,141 14 26
CHARACTER dest dest dest. dest dest. dest. dest. dest. dest. dest. dest. dest. dest.

6
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Table 8
Distances from the model and the anti-model with a total assessment of decision variants (weights from classic AHP).
Source: author’s work.
Distance from model Distance from anti-model Assessment

W1 0.051 0.068 0.571

W2 0.024 0.084 0.777
W3 0.026 0.087 0.772
W4 0.063 0.052 0.452
W5 0.087 0.023 0.209
W6 0.061 0.051 0.457

Table 9
Distances from the model and anti-model with a total assessment of decision variants (weights from FAHP).
Source: author’s work.
Distance from model Distance from anti-model Assessment

W1 0.051 0.068 0.572

W2 0.024 0.083 0.777
W3 0.025 0.086 0.772
W4 0.063 0.052 0.450
W5 0.086 0.023 0.209
W6 0.061 0.051 0.455

3.5. Developing a ranking of decision variants using the PROMETHEE method

Also, a multi-criteria analysis was carried out using the PROMETHEE method, which is characterized by a different algorithm
than the other methods used in this paper. The starting point, as is the case with the TOPSIS method, was a matrix with variant
assessments in the light of individual decision-making factors, as well as an estimated two sets of weights for these factors.
Based on the differences between the variant assessments, in the light of the factors, preference functions were assigned.
Analyzing variant evaluations and the basic statistical measures calculated on their basis (Table 10), a V-shaped function was selected
from 6 preference functions available for each criterion. It is worth noting that this function expresses the strength of the decision
maker's preferences, and its values are in the range of 0–1. The final ranking of variants has been developed based on the value of so-
called net preference flow (Phi) (Tables 11 and 12). The higher the value of this indicator, the better the assessment of a given variant
from the point of view of the decision problem under consideration (Brans and Mareschal, 2005; Trzaskalik, 2014; Ogrodnik, 2017).
More information about PROMETHEE can be found in the papers written by its creators, e.g. (Brans and Mareschal, 2005, pp.
163–195).

4. Case study

The hybrid approach described in the previous part of the work, including the following methods: AHP, Fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS and
PROMETHEE, was used to deliver a multi-criteria analysis of the layout of planned road infrastructure in north-eastern Poland,

Table 10
Basic statistical measures of decision variants in the light of factors together with the selected preference function.
Source: author’s work.
Best value Worst value Average value Standard deviation Function*

C1 42.60 92.10 60.10 20.72 V-shaped

C2 937.00 3045.00 1748.33 763.48 V-shaped
C3 7.00 11.00 9.33 1.37 V-shaped
C4 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 V-shaped
C5 39.10 62.90 50.95 9.34 V-shaped
C6 4.00 6.00 4.83 0.69 V-shaped
C7 6.00 11.00 8.67 2.05 V-shaped
C8 60.00 68.00 63.83 2.48 V-shaped
C9 2.90 3.10 2.97 0.09 V-shaped
C10 22.00 34.00 28.17 5.52 V-shaped
C11 11806.00 15185.00 13433.83 1208.40 V-shaped
C12 7.00 17.00 11.50 3.69 V-shaped
C13 7.00 26.00 16.50 9.50 V-shaped

* It has been determined, that the differences between individual alternatives in respect to a given criterion are not insignificant, therefore the V-
shaped function has been chosen.

7
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Table 11
Decision variants preference flows (AHP weights).
Source: author’s work.
Phi Phi+ Phi-

W1 0.1031 0.3507 0.2476

W2 0.2679 0.3941 0.1262
W3 0.3922 0.4861 0.0940
W4 −0.2015 0.1794 0.3809
W5 −0.4459 0.1072 0.5531
W6 −0.1158 0.1865 0.3023

Table 12
Decision variants preference flows (FAHP weights).
Source: author’s work.
Phi Phi+ Phi-

W1 0.1051 0.3513 0.2462

W2 0.2674 0.3941 0.1267
W3 0.3905 0.4853 0.0947
W4 −0.2021 0.1789 0.3810
W5 −0.4436 0.1083 0.5519
W6 −0.1173 0.1859 0.3032

including the construction of an expressway and a trunk road. Importantly, the work uses data made available by the General
Directorate for National Roads and Highways, Białystok Branch. The results of the multi-criteria analysis performed were compared
with the results presented in the shared report on the environmental impact of the selected undertaking (Environmental impact
assessment report, 2018).
The planned project involves the construction of an express road on the section between the towns of Choroszcz-Ploski and a
national road on the section between the towns of Kudrycze-Kuriany-Grabówka, as well as the construction, extension and re-
construction of other roads including the construction of the necessary technical infrastructure. The planned investment will run
through the selected municipalities of the Podlasie Voivodship. The planned investment both plays a key role in the context of the
economic development of this region of Poland and will positively affect the quality and safety of traffic. It is worth to emphasize the
importance of this investment also for international routes. What is important, 6 location variants were adopted for this analysis’
purposes, of which 2 variants of the expressway and 3 variants of the national road were considered. These variants differ slightly in
regard to the road course and the number of engineering objects (Environmental impact assessment report, 2018); the details are
presented in Table 3.

4.1. Decomposition of the decision problem

According to the assumptions of the report, the multi-criteria analysis covers six different variants of the planned road’s layout
and 13 decision factors concerning the impact on the environment and society (Table 4).

4.2. Calculation

Tables 5–12 present the calculation results necessary to create a ranking of variants for each approach.

5. Discussion of the results

The first stage of a multi-criteria analysis pertained to the estimation of normalized weights for the decision factors. For this
purpose, two AHP methods were used: classical and fuzzy methods.
Based on the calculations carried out using the standard Saaty scale, it can be determined that the highest weights (at the level of
0.106) were obtained by the factors concerning the protection of: 1. Natura 2000 sites in the investment’s demarcation lines (C1), the
length of the investment’s Natura 2000 sites intersections (C2) and area of destroyed natural habitats from Annex I to the Habitats
Directive (C5); 2. fauna: the impact on snail habitats (C6), the impact on insect habitats (C7) and the number of herpetofauna sites in
the test buffer (C8). Moreover, the highest importance was obtained by the factors connected to the social environment, that is the
number of demolitions of residential buildings (C12) and the number of buildings exposed to excessive noise (C13). The second
position (with a weight of 0.039) was obtained respectively by the number of vascular plant species destroyed (C3) and the number of
species of fungi (lichen) destroyed (C4). Additionally, the same value was obtained by the factor pertaining to the number of
collisions with cultural heritage objects (C10), whereas the lowest weights (0.019) were obtained by two other criteria: the length of
sections with high pollution risk (C9) and the intersection length of soil complex (C11).

8
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

It is worth noting that the weights obtained using the fuzzy scale are comparable, and the differences between the individual
values are small. The weights of factors connected to the protection of Natura 2000 areas, the protection of chosen fauna and to the
protection of the human living environment (C1, C2, C5, C6, C7, C8, C12 and C13) obtained by FAHP equalled 0.105 respectively (a
difference of only 0.001 compared to the values of the weights of these factors obtained through a classic AHP). In turn, factors
connected to the protection of chosen flora and cultural heritage sites (C3, C4 and C10) obtained the weight of 0.041 using FAHP (a
difference of 0.002), while factors: the length of sections with high pollution risk (C9) and intersection length of soil complex (C11) —
the weight of 0.019 respectively (the same value was obtained in classical AHP).
Two issues are worth clarifying at this point: the selection of example criteria and their weight. This analysis accepts the criteria
that are enclosed in a report (Environmental impact assessment report, 2018) and pertain to the key aspects of natural environment
protection and to the quality of human life, which is in agreement with environmental policy, as well as stems from the specifics
transport-related investments.
The application of comparative analysis methods for the weights of criteria obtained with a classic AHP method, as well as its
modification for fuzzy sets, should also be noted. It can be undoubtedly stated that fuzzy sets are also gaining in popularity in the field
of multi-criteria methods (Kahraman, 2008). Their advantage is greater choice flexibility when comparing factor pairs on consecutive
levels and the fact that they allow uncertainties. This is undoubtedly advantaged from the decision maker’s point of view. On the
other hand, the fuzzy sets methods are characterized by more complicated algorithms, which can contribute to limitations of their
use. Referring to the results obtained in this paper, the differences between the weights of factors gathered with AHP and FAHP
methods were not significant. It should also be mentioned that this analysis uses a very popular algorithm, which however is not the
only one in existence (Buckley algorithms). The analysis of the most popular algorithms can be found, among others, in the (Ahmed
and Kilic, 2019). Using both fuzzy scales and other algorithms definitely determine the direction for future research. Calculating the
weights by using different procedures and different scales will allow for a more reliable evaluation of the FAHP method. When it
comes to the example from this paper, the FAHP method returned the results almost identical to those obtained using the classical
AHP method, which is certainly characterized by an easier calculation procedure and therefore is less demanding in terms of time and
works required.
Moving on to interpret the obtained rankings, one can notice their mutual similarity (regardless of the multi-criteria method
used). When it comes to calculations using the TOPSIS method (using the weights calculated through a classic AHP), it was W2
(0.777) that obtained the highest assessment value, followed by W3 (0.772). It should be emphasized, however, that the difference
between options 2 and 3 is minimal and amounts to only 0.005. The subsequent positions were taken by W1, W6, W4, respectively,
and W5 was ranked last with a total rating of 0.209. In the case of calculations carried out using the TOPSIS method, but with a set of
weights from Fuzzy AHP, the ranking of decision variants has not changed. The ranking obtained with the use of TOPSIS method
shows that sometimes the differences between variants are, in fact, small. In the case of theoretical considerations, it does not pose a
problem, but for practical implications, the variant selection should be carried out with a few different methods.
On the other hand, the rankings obtained using the PROMETHEE method, both with the first and the second set of weights, are
identical to the original ranking presented in the analyzed Report. W3 came first, W2 came second, W1 came third. However, W5
took the last position. It should be added that the flow values were very similar. Table 13 presents collectively elaborated rankings of
decision variants.
It is also worthwhile to look at the final rankings of the considered variants. Variant no. 3 scored first most often, which is mainly
due to the lower (compared to the other analyzed solutions) negative impact on Natura 2000 areas (areas introduced in accordance
with Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC), selected fauna components, as well as due to a smaller interference with the
current state of spatial development. The considered case study perfectly shows that sometimes selected variants may be similar to
each other (just like W2 and W3 in this example). In connection with the above, in order to select the most favourable option in the
light of the defined criteria, it is worth using several, sometimes very different methods.
Based on the multi-criteria analysis and obtained results, several observations can be made about the practical implications of the
proposed approach.
Firstly, the key stage (in any decision-making problem) is the selection of appropriate decision factors. In the case of transport
investments, especially in the scope of road routing, environmental and social factors play a key role, with the economic area also
being important, as dictated by the sustainable development paradigm. The selection of decision-making factors, when it comes to
transport infrastructure, should be the result of global assessment (taking into account environmental policy, transport policy, spatial
development concepts), as well as the assessment of local conditions that stem from the specificity of a given location.
Secondly, the next important step is weighing those factors. There are many known methods for estimating the importance of

Table 13
Ranking of decision variants - summary list.
Source: author’s work.
Method used Variant ranking (from best to worst)

Report Method W3 > W2 > W1 > W6 > W4 > W5

TOPSIS (AHP weights) W2 > W3 > W1 > W6 > W4 > W5
TOPSIS (FAHP weights) W2 > W3 > W1 > W6 > W4 > W5
PROMETHEE (AHP weights) W3 > W2 > W1 > W6 > W4 > W5
PROMETHEE (FAHP weights) W3 > W2 > W1 > W6 > W4 > W5

9
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

criteria; in this study, the AHP and FAHP methods were used. It should be emphasized that the assessment of factors’ significance
should stem from the collaboration of the involved parties: investors, authorities, experts in the field of transport and ecology, as well
as residents. A holistic outlook, already adopted at the stage of selecting and weighing decision factors, can help to determine the
optimal final solution. It is worth adding that the General Director of National Roads and Motorways included the AHP method in the
handbook of good practices for carrying out environmental studies for national roads (General Director for National Roads and
Motorways, 2008).
Thirdly, due to the nature of transport investments (high impact scale, cost-absorption), it is recommended to use hybrid ap-
proaches that assume the application of several multi-criteria methods, preferably from different trends. Appendix B, developed as a
part of this paper, provides information on the current applications of selected MCDM/MCDA methods in the field of transport, which
may facilitate the selection of a method for a specific decision -making problem in everyday engineering practice.

6. Conclusions

Based on literature studies and multi-criteria analysis, it can be concluded that:

• MCDM/MCDA methods are an important support tool in solving various decision-making problems in the field of transport,
especially in the field of safety and quality of public transport, selection of development scenarios for public transport systems,
location analyses of transport projects, as well as in other problems related to broadly understood road, air, rail and sea transport.
• MCDM/MCDA methods are constantly evolving; however, the following can be indicated as the most popular methods in the
researched field: the AHP, TOPSIS and DEMATEL methods, as well as European methods.
• The theory of fuzzy sets in MCDM/MCDA methods is undoubtedly an important research direction, which is confirmed by the
significant, and annually growing, the number of publications on this topic. On the one hand, it facilitates making decisions in
situations of uncertainty and ambiguity of data, but - on the other hand - more complicated algorithms may present certain
limitations to their practical application. Based on the conducted multi-criteria analysis, it can be stated that both the fuzzy scale
and the algorithm did not affect the weights of the selected factors. However, this is only one of the many available scales and
procedures. As mentioned before, the calculation of weights with the use of other available procedures (Ahmed and Kilic, 2019)
and scales (e.g. the Online Output Software program offers as many as 9 different scales to choose from, which shows the available
options) will allow for a more reliable assessment of the FAHP method’s applicability.
• The results of the conducted multi-criteria analysis almost overlap with the results of the analyzed report for the selected un-
dertaking. The TOPSIS method serves as a single exception, where W3 lost its position as a clear leader in the ranking. It is worth
emphasizing that, in the case of investments such as transport infrastructure, it is worth using a hybrid approach, enabling the
development of several independent variants.
• Multi-criteria decision support and its instruments constitute a wide field and provide many opportunities for further development
of the conducted research. Future research directions include multi-criteria analysis on fuzzy sets using other algorithms and fuzzy
scales, as well as other, increasingly popular weighing methods, such as SWARA.
• The use of such methods also requires precise quantitative data wherever possible, which in turn requires the work of multiple
specialists, as well as – more often – specialized software.

Funding sources

This work was supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (the research projects WZ/WB-IIL/6/2019 and
WZ/WB-IIŚ/1/2020).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Elzbieta Broniewicz: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Visualization. Karolina Ogrodnik: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Visualization.

Appendix A. Compilation of literature review pertaining to multi-criteria methods applied in transport-related projects

Author (year of pub- Location MCDM/MCDA methods The main subject of the research
lication) used

Safety and quality of public transport

Celik et al. (2013) Istanbul (Turkey) Fuzzy TOPSIS Fuzzy GRA Assessment of the level of passenger satisfaction with the quality of public
transport
Pitchipoo et al. (201- India COPRAS Reducing the blind spot area by optimizing design parameters of rearview
4) AHP mirror designs for heavy vehicles
FARE
Entropy
Podvezko et al. (201- Lithuania AHP Identifying relationships between transport system elements in terms of traffic
4) safety and the assessment of the quality of rail passenger transport

10
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Pandian et al. (2016) India ANOVA A model of optimizing blind spots in heavy transport vehicles
TOPSIS
FAHP
GRA
Nassereddine and Es- Tehan (Iran) Delphi Assessment of the level of passenger satisfaction with the quality of public
kandari (2017) GAHP transport systems
PROMETHEE
Hsu et al. (2018) Taipei (Taiwan) DEMATEL Assessment and improvement of the quality of public bicycle rental system
AHP services
VIKOR
Kumar and Ganguly New York (USA) AHP Identification and assessment of the importance of factors that determine the
(2018) Delhi (India) choice of public transport type
Erdogan and Kaya (- Istanbul (Turkey) interval type −2 fuzzy AHP Determining the severity of failures in the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system
2019) stochastic TOPSIS
Delphi
Ghorbanzadeh et al. Mersin (Turkey) AHP Evaluation of citizens' preferences regarding public bus transport
(2019) Interval-AHP
Nalmpantis et al. (2- Thessaloniki AHP Evaluation of innovations in the field of public transport as part of social
019) Southern Tuscany participation
Rotterdam
The Hague
Frankfurt

Scenarios for the development of public transport systems

Hou et al. (2010) Taichung Metropolitan DEMATEL Analyzing factors taken into consideration during the planning stage of bus
(Taiwan) routes
Fierek and Żak (201- Poznan (Poland) ELECTRE III/IV Evaluating development scenarios for integrated urban transportation system
2) (IUTS)
Nosal and Solecka (- Cracow (Poland) AHP Evaluating variants of the integrated system of urban public transport (ISUPT)
2014)
Żak et al. (2014) Poznan (Poland) ELECTRE III Multi-criteria analysis of the street reconstruction variants
AHP
Sirikijpanichkul et al. Bangkok (Thailand) MAUT Selecting a transit system
(2017) ROC
Awasthi et al. (2018) Luxembourg fuzzy TOPSIS Evaluating projects in the field of sustainable mobility in cities
fuzzy VIKOR
fuzzy GRA
Kiciński and Solecka Cracow (Poland) AHP Evaluating the selected scenarios for the development of urban public trans-
(2018) ELECTRE III portation systems (UPTS)
Kijewska et al. (2018) Szczecin (Poland) AHP Analyzing systems that influence the sustainable development of cargo transport
DEMATEL in cities
Lee (2018) Korea AHP Selecting the optimal advanced public transport modes (APTM)
Hamurcu and Eren (- Ankara (Turkey) ANP Evaluation of alternative monorail routes
2019) TOPSIS
Lambas et al. (2017) Santa Cruz, Tenerife TOPSIS Comparative analysis of the selected city transport systems: Light-Rail Transit
(Spain) Prato (Italy) (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Mavi et al. (2018) Teheran (Iran) SWARA-G Evaluating development scenarios of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
COPRAS-G
Moslem et al. (2019) Mersin (Turkey) Fuzzy AHP A support model for reaching consensus between interested parties in decision-
Interval AHP making problems pertaining to improvements in public transport

Site selection
Zečević et al. (2017) Belgrade (Serbia) fuzzy Delphi Intermodal transport terminal (ITT) site selection
fuzzy ANP
fuzzy VIKOR
Zavadskas et al. (20- Klaipeda (Lithuania) AHP Seaport site selection
15) ARAS-F
Komchornrit (2017) Thailand CFA Dry port site selection
MACBETH
PROMETHEE
Deveci et al. (2018) Istanbul (Turkey) WASPAS Selecting a site for a new car-sharing station
TOPSIS

Road, air, railway and sea transport.

Barfod et al. (2011) Sweden REMBRANDT COSIMA Evaluating transport infrastructure projects (new high-speed railway line)
Haghighat (2011) The Bushehr province GAHP Evaluating road traffic safety levels
(Iran) TOPSIS
Golbabaie et al. (20- Dubai AHP Analyzing the selected scenarios of placement of container areas inside a
12) Iran shipyard
Rotterdam
Liu et al. (2013) Taipei (Taiwan) DEMATEL Developing a strategy for improving subway-airport connection to promote
DANP tourism
VIKOR
Podvezko and Sivile- Lithuania AHP Analyzing interactions between the selected elements of a transport system that
vičius (2013) influence the safety levels of road traffic

11
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Lupo (2015) Sicily (Italy) ELECTRE IIII Evaluating the quality of passenger services at international airports
da Rocha et al. (2016) Brazil De Borda Comparative analysis of quality of service at the selected airport terminals
AHP
Cai et al. (2017) Pekin (China) TOPSIS Developing a strategy for the sustainable development of a cab fleet
SAW
ELECTRE III
Gagatsi et al. (2017) Greece PROMETHEE Designing a sea transport policy
AHP
Krmac and Djordjević Slovenia AHP Multi-criteria evaluation of sustainable models of restructuring railways
(2018) TOPSIS
Lu et al. (2018) Taiwan DEMATEL Evaluating the efficiency of an international airport in terms of sustainable
DANP development
modified VIKOR
Nanda and Singh (2- India Fuzzy AHP Evaluating the factors of road incidents
018)
Sharma et al. (2018) India modified rough AHP Evaluating the efficiency of railway stations
modified rough MABAC
Jimenez-Delgado et a- Colombia Fuzzy AHP Evaluating the safety and work hygiene in land transport
l. (2019)
Krstić et al. (2019) Belgrade (Serbia) FSWARA Evaluation and selection of transhipment equipment in an intermodal terminal
FBWM
Rezaei et al. (2019) Piraeus (Greece) Best-Worst Method (BWM) Evaluating the efficiency of seaports
Koper (Slovenia)
Genova (Italy)
Antwerp (Belgium)
Rotterdam (Netherlands)
Hamburg (Germany)
Gdansk (Poland)
Sivilevičius and Mas- the international train AHP Evaluating the quality of railway transport transits
keliūnaitė (2019) ‘Vilnius-Moscow’
Turskis et al. (2019) Vilnius (Lithuania) Fuzzy MULTIMOORA Selecting second runway alternatives at an airport

Electric vehicles
Liu et al. (2017) China DEMATEL Identifying factors that influence the development of electric cars in China
Wątróbski et al. (20- Poland PROMETHEE II Multi-criteria analysis of the selected electric trucks
17) Fuzzy TOPSIS

Other
Baležentis and Balež- Lithuania MULTIMOORA Evaluating the efficiency of the transport sector
entis (2011) DEA
Liu et al. (2012) Taiwan Fuzzy DEMATEL Analyzing the dependencies between stress-inducing factors among coach
drivers
Jensen (2012) Denmark AHP Multi-criteria decision support pertaining to transport projects
Sweden REMBRANDT
Vujanović et al. (20- Belgrade (Serbia) DEMATEL Evaluation of vehicle fleet maintenance management indicators
12) ANP
Cadena and Magro (- Spain REMBRANDT Evaluation of transport projects
2015) Delphi method
Dimić et al. (2016) Serbia ANP A model for transport strategic management (based on the oil industry)
DEMATEL
Palevičius et al. (20- Vilnius (Lithuania) AHP Evaluating the criteria influencing the usage of parking lots in shopping centres
16) SAW
TOPSIS
PROMETHEE
Wang et al. (2016) Taiwan Fuzzy AHP Selecting a means of transport for military logistics on near-coast islands
Bartłomiejczyk (201- Gdynia (Poland) TOPSIS Comparative analysis of a system for powering trolleybuses
7)
Srisawat et al. (2017) Thailand Fuzzy AHP Evaluating the efficiency of transport logistics on a regional scale
Barfod (2018) Denmark SMARTER Evaluation of infrastructure projects
AHP

Source: author’s work.

Appendix B. A summary of the methods’ application in selected areas associated with transport infrastructure

Method Safety and quality of Scenarios for the development of the Choice of invest- Road, air, rail and sea Electric ve- Other
public transport public transport system ment location transport hicles

AHP 6 5 1 6 – 3
Fuzzy AHP 2 1 – 2 – 2
Interval AHP 1 1 – – – –
GAHP 1 – – 1 – –
modified rough AHP – – – 1 – –
ANP – 1 – – – 2

12
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Fuzzy ANP – – 1 – – –
DANP – – – 2 – –
TOPSIS 1 2 1 3 – 2
Fuzzy TOPSIS 1 1 – – 1 –
stochastic TOPSIS 1 – – – – –
DEMATEL 1 2 – 2 1 2
Fuzzy DEMATEL – – – – – 1
PROMETHEE 1 – 1 1 1 1
ELECTRE III/IV – 3 – 2 – –
VIKOR 1 – – 1 – –
Fuzzy VIKOR – 1 1 – – –
Modified VIKOR – – – 1 – –
Delphi 2 – – – – 1
Fuzzy Delphi – – 1 – – –
SAW – – – 1 – 1
REMBRANDT – – – 1 – 2
ANOVA 1 – – – – –
GRA 1 – – – – –
Fuzzy GRA 1 1 – – – –
COPRAS 1 – – – – –
COPRAS-G – 1 – – – –
FARE 1 – – – – –
Entropy 1 – – – – –
MAUT – 1 – – – –
ROC – 1 – – – –
SWARA-G – 1 – – – –
FSWARA – – – 1 – –
CFA – – 1 – – –
MACBETH – – 1 – – –
ARAS-F – – 1 – – –
MULTIMOORA – – – – – 1
Fuzzy MULTIMO- – – – 1 – –
ORA
De Borda – – – 1 – –
BWM – – – 1 – –
FBWM – – – 1 – –
modified rough – – – 1 – –
MABAC
COSIMA – – – 1 – –
WASPAS – – 1 – – –
DEA – – – – – 1
SMARTER – – – – – 1

Source: Appendix A.

References

Ahmed, F., Kilic, K., 2019. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: A performance analysis of various algorithms. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 362, 110–128.
Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T.M., Venkatesan, V.P., 2013. A Survey on Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods and Its Applications. Am. J. Inform. Syst. 1 (1), 31–43.
https://doi.org/10.12691/ajis-1-1-5.
Awasthi, A., Omrani, H., Gerber, P., 2018. Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility
projects. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 116, 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.007.
Ayhan, M.B., 2013. A fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection problem: a case study in a gearmotor company. Int. J. Manag. Value Supply Chains (IJMVSC) 4 (3),
11–23. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijmvsc.2013.4302 11.
Baležentis, A., Baležentis, T., 2011. Assessing the efficiency of Lithuanian transport sector by applying the methods of MULTIMOORA and data envelopment analysis.
Transport 26 (3), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2011.621146.
Barfod, M.B., 2018. Supporting sustainable transport appraisals using stakeholder involvement and MCDA. Transport 33 (4), 1052–1066. https://doi.org/10.3846/
transport.2018.6596.
Barfod, M.B., Jensen, A.V., Leleur, S., 2011. Examination of Decision Support Systems for Composite CBA and MCDA Assessments of Transport Infrastructure Projects.
In: Shi, Y., et al. (Eds.), New State of MCDM in the 21st Century, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 648, pp. 167–176. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-19695-9_14.
Bartłomiejczyk, M., 2017. Transmission Losses Spatial Analysis of the Supply System of Electrified Urban Transport Network. In: 9th International Scientific
Symposium on Electrical Power Engineering (ELEKTROENERGETIKA). Technical Univ Kosice, pp. 138–141.
Brans, Jean-Pierre, Mareschal, Bertrand, 2005. Promethee Methods. In: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Multiple Criteria Decision
Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, vol. 78. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 163–186. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5https://doi.org/10.1007/
0-387-23081-5_5.
Buckley, J.J., 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1 (1), 233–247.
Cadena, B.P.C., Magro, J.M.V., 2015. Setting the weights of sustainability criteria for the appraisal of transport projects. Transport 30 (3), 298–306. https://doi.org/10.
3846/16484142.2015.1086890.
Cai, Y., Applegate, S., Yue, W., Cai, J., Wang, X., Liu, G., Li, C., 2017. A hybrid life cycle and multi-criteria decision analysis approach for identifying sustainable
development strategies of Beijing's taxi fleet. Energy Policy 100, 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.047.
Celik, E., Bilisik, O.N., Erdogan, M., Gumus, A.T., Baracli, H., 2013. An integrated novel interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to improve customer satisfaction in public
transportation for Istanbul. Transp. Res. Part E: Log. Transp. Rev. 58, 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.06.006.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, L 175/40.

13
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, L 206/7.
da Rocha, P.M., de Barros, A.P., da Silva, G.B., Costa, H.G., 2016. Analysis of the operational performance of brazilian airport terminals: A multicriteria approach with
De Borda-AHP integration. J. Air Transp. Manage. 51, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.11.003.
Deveci, M., Canitez, F., Gökaşar, I., 2018. WASPAS and TOPSIS based interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method for a selection of a car sharing station. Sustain. Cities Soc.
41, 777–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.034.
Dimić, S., Pamučar, D., Ljubojević, S., Dorović, B., 2016. Strategic Transport Management Models - The Case Study of an Oil Industry. Sustainability 8. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su8090954.
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the
environment.
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans
and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/
EC, L 156/17.
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive
90/313/EEC, L 41/26.
Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, L 20/7.
Environmental impact assessment report: construction of the S19 road on the section Choroszcz - Ploski along with the construction of the section of national road No.
65 Kudrycze - Kuriany - Grabówka as well as the construction, extension and reconstruction of roads of other categories and the necessary technical infrastructure,
2018. Transprojekt Gdański, provided by General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways, Department in Białymstoku [in Polish].
Erdogan, M., Kaya, I., 2019. Prioritizing failures by using hybrid multi criteria decision making methodology with a real case application. Sustain. Cities Soc. 45,
117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.027.
Fahrig, L., Rytwinski, T., 2009. Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecol. Soc. 14 (1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/
iss1/art21/.
Fierek, Sz, Żak, J., 2012. Planning of an Integrated Urban Transportation System based on Macro - Simulation and MCDM/A Methods. Proc. - Soc. Behav. Sci. 54,
567–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.774.
Gagatsi, E., Giannopoulos, G., Aifantopoulou, G., Charalampous, G., 2017. Stakeholders-based multi-criteria policy analysis in maritime transport: from theory to
practice. Transp. Res. Procedia 22, 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.062.
General Director for National Roads and Motorways, 2008. Podręcznik dobrych praktyk wykonywania opracowań środowiskowych dla dróg krajowych. Krakow,
Poland.
Ghorbanzadeh, O., Moslem, S., Blaschke, T., Duleba, T., 2019. Sustainable Urban Transport Planning Considering Different Stakeholder Groups by an Interval-AHP
Decision Support Model. Sustainability 11, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010009.
Golbabaie, F., Seyedalizadeh Ganji, S.R., Arabshahi, N., 2012. Multi-criteria evaluation of stacking yard configuration. J. King Saud Univ. - Sci. 24 (1), 39–46. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2010.08.010.
Haghighat, F., 2011. Application of a multi-criteria approach to road safety evaluation in the Bushehr province, Iran. Promet – Traff. Transp. 23 (5), 341–352.
Hamurcu, M., Eren, T., 2019. An Application of Multicriteria Decision-making for the Evaluation of Alternative Monorail Routes. Mathematics 7 (1), 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.3390/math7010016.
Hou, H., Chen, Y., Hou, P., Tzeng, G., 2010. Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) on High Potential City Bus Routes in Taiwan. J. Soc. Transp.
Traff. Stud. 1, 26–35.
Hovd, H., Skogen, A., 2005. Plant species in arable field margins and road verges of central Norway. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 110 (3–4), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agee.2005.04.013.
Hsu, C.C., Liou, J.J.H., Lo, H.W., Wang, Y.C., 2018. Using a hybrid method for evaluating and improving the service quality of public bike-sharing systems. J. Cleaner
Prod. 202 (20), 1131–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.193.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Methods and Applications. A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
Jensen, A.V., 2012. Comparisons of robustness measures as a communicative means for involvement of decision makers. Urban Transp. 128, 603–614. https://doi.org/
10.2495/UT120511.
Jimenez-Delgado, G., Balmaceda-Castro, N., Hernández-Palma, H., de la Hoz-Franco, E., García-Guiliany, J., Martinez-Ventura, J., 2019. An Integrated Approach of
Multiple Correspondences Analysis (MCA) and Fuzzy AHP Method for Occupational Health and Safety Performance Evaluation in the Land Cargo Transportation.
In: Duffy, V. (Eds.), Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Human Body and Motion. HCII 2019. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science 11581. Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22216-1_32.
Kahraman, C., 2008. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods and Fuzzy Sets. In: Kahraman, C. (Eds.), Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Springer Optimization
and Its Applications, vol. 16. Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 1–18.
Karlson, M., Mörtberg, U., Balfors, B., 2014. Road ecology in environmental impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 48 (2014), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eiar.2014.04.002.
Kiciński, M., Solecka, K., 2018. Application of MCDA/MCDM methods for an integrated urban public transportation system – case study, city of Cracow. Arch. Transp.
46 (2), 71–84.
Kijewska, K., Torbacki, W., Iwan, S., 2018. Application of AHP and DEMATEL Methods in Choosing and Analysing the Measures for the Distribution of Goods in
Szczecin Region. Sustainability 10 (7), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072365.
Komchornrit, K., 2017. The Selection of Dry Port Location by a Hybrid CFA-MACBETH-PROMETHEE Method: A Case Study of Southern Thailand. Asian J. Ship. Log.
33 (3), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.09.004.
Krmac, E., Djordjević, B., 2018. A multicriteria assessment tool for the evaluation of sustainable railway restructuring models. In: Rolando, D. (Ed.), The Analytic
Hierarchy Process: Advances in Research and Applications. Nova Science Publishers, pp. 71–106.
Krstić, M., Tadić, S., Brnjac, N., Zečević, S., 2019. Intermodal Terminal Handling Equipment Selection Using a Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-making Model. Promet –
Traff. Transp. 31 (1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v31i1.2949.
Kumar, C., Ganguly, A., 2018. Travelling together but differently: comparing variations in public transit user mode choice attributes across New Delhi and New York.
Theor. Empir. Res. Urban Manage. 13 (3), 54–73.
Lambas, M.E.L., Giuffrida, N., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., 2017. Comparison between Bus Rapid Transit and Light-Rail Transit Systems: A multi-criteria decision analysis
approach. Urban Transp. XXIII, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT170131.
Lee, D.J., 2018. A multi-criteria approach for prioritizing advanced public transport modes (APTM) considering urban types in Korea. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract.
111, 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.02.005.
Liu, C.H., Tzeng, G.H., Lee, M.H., Lee, P.Y., 2013. Improving metro-airport connection service for tourism development: Using hybrid MCDM models. Tour. Manage.
Perspect. 6, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.09.004.
Liu, C.H., Tzeng, G.H., Lee, M.H., Tseng, H.L., Lee, P.Y., 2012. Using a Hybrid MCDM Model Combining Fuzzy DEMATEL Technique to Examine the Job Stress of Coach
Driver. In: Watada, J., Watanabe, T., Phillips-Wren, G., Howlett, R., Jain, L. (Eds.), Intelligent Decision Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-29920-9_16.
Liu, H.C., You, X.Y., Xue, Y.X., Luan, X., 2017. Exploring critical factors influencing the diffusion of electric vehicles in China: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Res.
Transp. Econ. 66, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.10.001.
Lu, M.T., Hsu, C.C., Liou, J.J.H., Lo, H.W., 2018. A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for
international airports. J. Air Transp. Manage. 71, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.008.
Lupo, T., 2015. Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily. J. Air Transp. Manage.

14
E. Broniewicz and K. Ogrodnik Transportation Research Part D 83 (2020) 102351

42, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.11.006.

Mavi, K.R., Zarbakhshnia, N., Khazraei, A., 2018. Bus rapid transit (BRT): A simulation and multi criteria decision making (MCDM) approach. Transp. Policy 72,
187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.03.010.
Moghtadernejad, S., Chouinard, L.E., Mirza, M.S., 2018. Multi-criteria decision-making methods for preliminary design of sustainable facades. J. Build. Eng. 19,
181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.006.
Morelli, F., Beim, M., Jerzak, L., Jones, D., Tryjanowski, P., 2014. Can roads, railways and related structures have positive effects on birds? – A review. Transp. Res.
Part D: Transp. Environ. 30, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.006.
Moslem, S., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Blaschke, T., Duleba, S., 2019. Analysing Stakeholder Consensus for a Sustainable Transport Development Decision by the Fuzzy AHP
and Interval AHP. Sustainability 11 (12), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123271.
Nalmpantis, D., Roukouni, A., Genitsaris, E., Stamelou, A., Naniopoulos, A., 2019. Evaluation of innovative ideas for Public Transport proposed by citizens using Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 11 (22), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-019-0356-6.
Nanda, S., Singh, S., 2018. Evaluation of Factors Responsible for Road Accidents in India by Fuzzy AHP. In: Perez, G., Mishra, K., Tiwari, S., Trivedi, M. (Eds.),
Networking Communication and Data Knowledge Engineering. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies 3. Springer, Singapore.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4585-1_15.
Nassereddine, M., Eskandari, H., 2017. An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 106,
427–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.013.
Nosal, K., Solecka, K., 2014. Application of AHP Method for Multi-criteria Evaluation of Variants of the Integration of Urban Public Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 3,
269–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.006.
Ogrodnik, K., 2017. The application of the PROMETHEE method in evaluation of sustainable development of the selected cities in Poland. Econ. Environ. 3 (62),
19–36.
Ogrodnik, K., 2019. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Design Solutions in Architecture and Engineering: Review of Applications and a Case Study. Buildings 9 (12). https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings9120244.
Online Output Softwares. http://www.onlineoutput.com.
Palevičius, Vytautas, Burinskienė, Marija, Podvezko, Valentinas, Paliulis, Gražvydas Mykolas, Šarkienė, Edita, Šaparauskas, Jonas, 2016. Research on the demand for
parking lots of shopping centres. E+M 19 (3), 173–194. https://dspace:tul.cz/bitstream/handle/15240/18199/EM_3_2016_12.pdf?sequence=1https://doi.org/
10.15240/tul/001/2016-3-012.
Pandian, P., Sundaram, V.D., Sivaprakasam, R., 2016. Development of fuzzy based intelligent decision model to optimize the blind spots in heavy transport vehicles.
Promet – Traff. Transp. 28 (1), 1–10.
Pitchipoo, P., Vincent, D.S., Rajini, N., Rajakarunakaran, S., 2014. COPRAS Decision Model to Optimize Blind Spot in Heavy Vehicles: A Comparative Perspective.
Procedia Eng. 97, 1049–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.383.
Podvezko, V., Sivilevičius, H., 2013. The use of AHP and rank correlation methods for determining the significance of the interaction between the elements of a
transport system having a strong influence on traffic safety. Transport 28 (4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2013.866980.
Podvezko, V., Sivilevičius, H., Podviezko, A., 2014. Scientific applications of the AHP method in transport problems. Arch. Transp. 29 (1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.
5604/08669546.1146966.
Rezaei, J., van Wulfften Palthe, L., Tavasszy, L., Wiegmans, B., van der Laan, F., 2019. Port performance measurement in the context of port choice: an MCDA
approach. Manag. Decis. 57 (2), 396–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2018-0482.
Roszkowska, E., 2013. The application of TOPSIS procedure to the analysis of the negotiation process.Studia Ekonomiczne. Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach
38, 95–108.
Saarinen, K., Valtonen, A., Jantunen, J., Saarnio, S., 2005. Butterflies and diurnal moths along road verges: Does road type affect diversity and abundance? Biol.
Conserv. 123 (3), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.12.012.
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1 (1), 83–98.
Sharma, H.K., Roy, J., Kar, S., Prentkovskis, O., 2018. Multi criteria evaluation framework for prioritizing Indian railway stations using modified rough AHP-MABAC
method. Transp. Telecommun. 19 (2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2018-0010.
Sirikijpanichkul, A., Winyoopadit, S., Jenpanitsub, A., 2017. A multi-actor multi-criteria transit system selection model: A case study of Bangkok feeder system. Transp.
Res. Procedia 25, 3736–3755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.228.
Sivilevičius, H., Maskeliūnaitė, L., 2019. The model assessing the impact of price and provided services on the quality of the trip by train: MCDM approach. Bus.
Admin. Manage. 2 XXI, 51–67. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2019-2-004.
Srisawat, P., Kronprasert, N., Arunotayanun, K., 2017. Development of decision support system for evaluating spatial efficiency of regional transport logistics. Transp.
Res. Procedia 25, 4832–4851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.493.
Trzaskalik, T., 2014. Multicriteria decision support. Review of methods and applictions. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and
Management Series 74, 239–263.
Turskis, Z., Antuchevičienė, J., Keršulienė, V., Gaidukas, G., 2019. Hybrid Group MCDM Model to Select the Most Effective Alternative of the Second Runway of the
Airport. Symmetry 11 (6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11060792.
Velasquez, M., Hester, P.T., 2013. An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. Int. J. Operat. Res. 10 (2), 56–66.
Vujanović, D., Momčilović, V., Bojović, N., Papić, V., 2012. Evaluation of vehicle fleet maintenance management indicators by application of DEMATEL and ANP.
Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (12), 10552–10563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.159.
Wang, Y.J., Han, T.C., Chung, C.C., Fang, C.L., 2016. FAHP for Selecting Transport Modes of Taiwan Off-Shore Islands’ Military Logistics. Int. J. Marit. Eng. 158.
https://doi.org/10.3940/rina.ijme.2016.a4.383.
Wątróbski, J., Małecki, K., Kijewska, K., Iwan, S., Karczmarczyk, A., Thompson, R.G., 2017. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electric Vans for City Logistics. Sustainability 9
(8), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081453.
Żak, J., Firek, Sz, Kruszyński, M., 2014. Evaluation of Different Transportation Solutions with the Application of Macro Simulation tools and Multiple Criteria Group
Decision Making/Aiding Methodology. Proc. - Soc. Behav. Sci. 111, 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.067.
Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Bagočius, V., 2015. Multi-criteria selection of a deep-water port in the Eastern Baltic Sea. Appl. Soft Comput. 26, 180–192. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.09.019.
Zečević, S., Tadić, S., Krstić, M., 2017. Intermodal Transport Terminal Location Selection Using a Novel Hybrid MCDM Model. Int. J. Uncert. Fuzzin. Knowl. Based
Syst. 25 (06), 853–876. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488517500362.

15