Buse Tali - MSC Thesis - TU Delft

by
Buse Tali
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in Engineering and Policy Analysis
at Delft University of Technology

to be defended publicly on September 30, 2016 at 11.30.
Graduation Committee:
Chair: Prof. dr. L. Tavasszy TU Delft
First supervisor: Dr. J. Rezaei TU Delft
Second supervisor: Dr. P. W. Heijnen TU Delft
An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/.

ii
Acknowledgements
This thesis is the final assignment of my Master’s studies in Engineering and Policy
Analysis at TU Delft. Looking after my half yearlong journey within this research, I can
say that it has been challenging, sometimes tiring and edgy; yet, full of support, cheer and
motivation. This period will remain as one of the unforgettable stories in my life for sure.
Here I would like to take the opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the ones who
have been supporting me.
Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Jafar Rezaei, my first supervisor, for his continuous
support, supervision and all valuable discussions; and for encouraging me to take a step
with his expertise in Multi-criteria Decision Aiding when I had very less knowledge in this
area and almost clueless on how to start. To Prof. dr. Lori Tavasszy, my graduation
chairman, for encouraging me to work on this interesting research question and widening
my perspective with his intellectual curiosity; and for his critical feedbacks. To Dr. Petra
Heijnen, my second supervisor, for her support, critical questions and constructive advices;
and for broadening my window to connect my theoretical research with a policy making.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Ioanna Kourounioti for her guidance and helps, which
boosted my understanding on choice modeling theory and application; and for her critical
and valuable feedbacks that helped me to improve my work. To Geert Wanders for
providing me the data to conduct my empirical study.
I also would like to thank all of my classmates at TU Delft for their sharing and
encouragement. In particular, to Jingqi Shi for her kindest support and borderless
friendship. To Andita Rahmi Faradina for all valuable talks and laughs. To Erwanda Setya
Nugroho for the endless support, company and motivation.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family. To my sister Tu!çe Tali
Hazar and my brother Cem Hazar for making the Netherlands my new home; and for their
unconditional supports. And, to my parents for believing, supporting and loving me always
unconditionally; and for encouraging me to follow my dreams to the Netherlands.
Anneci•im, babac•••m ve ablac•••m, bu günlere gelmemde bana en büyük destek olan

ko!ulsuz inanc•n•z ve sonsuz sevginiz için te!ekkürler.
Buse Tali
Delft, September 2016
iii
This page intentionally left blank
iv
Executive Summary
Introduction
The economic growth and intensive global trade have raised the significance of global
supply chains and have attracted more attention to the logistics management. The
competitive business and increasing demand of goods have raise the awareness on efficient
transport of goods with lower cost, high service quality and on-time delivery. Therefore,
hinterland freight transport between port terminals and destination points have attracted the
attention of actors involved in supply chains as well as researchers of freight transportation.
Considering the transport of the goods from producers to consumers, various transport
activities are performed by many actors. In particular, mode choice decision is regarded as
one of the most important steps in transport planning, with its very significant impact on
the efficiency.
The literature study conducted in this research indicates that many factors have influenced
the mode choice behavior of the relevant actors, such as transport cost, transit time, delivery
time reliability and service flexibility. On the contrary, highly dense freight activities may
also lead to some undesired nuisances, such as traffic congestion and high emissions. To
eliminate these effects and to enhance the sustainability of the transportation, the
governments have recently started to revise their freight transport policy by including the
environmental concerns. In fact, the intermodal transport is greatly promoted for these
reasons. Since many economic, qualitative and environmental factors may affect the mode
choice behavior in freight transport, it is necessary to conduct a research on attribute
preferences on mode choice.
In this regard, discrete choice models have been widely applied in literature to model the
mode choice behavior of shippers and logistics service providers. These models follow a
specific methodology that their choices are collected through choice sets based on
attributes. The model estimates the attribute parameters and predicts choices. Afterwards,
the consistency between the predicted and observed choices is analyzed to describe the
behavioral process. This thesis aimed to study the Multi-criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA)
based on an intellectual curiosity whether an MCDA approach could be applicable as an
alternative method to the discrete choice models in its specific framework. It is observed
that the application of MCDA methods are still very limited in this area, although they are
appropriate to analyze multiple yet conflicting criteria, easy to use with a simpler
methodology, suitable to handle large-scale data and taking uncertainties into account.
Consequently, the gap in the freight transport literature is determined, which is no
methodological study has been conducted to determine any MCDA approach that can be
applied in a different way than its conventional use to describe a choice behavior process
by utilizing the choice data like other choice models. In order to fill the scientific gap in
literature and to analyze the mode choice behavior, the following main research question
was explored in this methodological study:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an MCDA approach in dealing with
shippers’ attribute preferences in freight transport mode choice behavior as an alternative
method to discrete choice modeling by utilizing the same choice data?
v
Methodology
This research aimed to determine an appropriate MCDA method that can utilize the choice
data and follow the same framework with choice models to model the predicted choices
and examine their consistency with an observed behavior. A comprehensive literature
review on MCDA approaches found that the disaggregation – aggregation approach may
be the most suitable one to employ the choice data. Among the variants of this approach,
UTASTAR and ACUTA methods were selected for analyses. For comparison purposes,
multinominal logit (MNL) method was selected among various discrete choice models. To
observe the performances of the selected UTA-type and MNL methods for describing the
attribute preferences on a choice behavior, a case study was conducted on container
shippers that operate between Venlo and Port of Rotterdam. The mode choice data of these
shippers consider transport cost, travel time, CO2 emissions and on-time reliability as
determinants of the choice behavior.
The empirical study provided the model predictions of the selected methods on shippers’
choices. Each model outcome also presented the weights of given attributes for the sample
population, which implies the relative significance of these attributes in choices. The
predicted choices were compared with an observed behavior of shippers for each model
and the performances of these models were analyzed in terms of representing the choices
of the sample population. To validate the model outcomes, a repetitive 10-fold cross
validation technique was applied to all models by replicating the analyses with different
small samples from a given population.
Conclusions
1. UTA-type models are normally structured to use the ranking information of given
alternatives as an input data. However, this research utilized these models in a different
way by adapting their model formulations to use a choice data instead of ranking. This
adaptation led to some extent of information loss in preferences. However, the analyses
indicate that UTA-type models still outperform the MNL model in representing the
choices of respondents. More specifically, ACUTA has the best performance followed
by the UTASTAR and MNL models when the predicted choices are compared to the
observed ones.
2. UTA-type models are able to detect inconsistent choices of respondents over the
sample. When excluding these inconsistent choices from an MNL model, it also
improves its performance by representing the sample at a higher extent. Therefore,
UTA-type models can help to enhance the performance of choice models by making
the data more consistent.
3. ACUTA outperforms the UTASTAR model, probably because the model formulation
of ACUTA is more stringent in finding the best solution.
4. The MNL model is limited to explain random taste variation on attributes over the
sample. On the contrary, UTA-type models can generate the distribution of attribute
weights over the sample, which helps to explain the taste variations between different
respondents. Some variations are found on transport cost, travel time and CO2
emissions for a given sample population. One reason might be the different product
types of shippers since they transport either agricultural or manufacturing products. A
negative correlation is found between cost and time. Moreover, as expected, the
variation on CO2 emissions is higher, probably because not all shippers value
vi
environmental effects and sustainability. A negative correlation between emissions and
cost is also found as shippers who are environmental friendly are less sensitive to higher
costs.
5. The shippers’ willingness to pay for time and reliability are found. The MNL model
finds the value of time and reliability values in line with literature findings while UTA-
type models find considerably different values. This implies that the MNL model may
be more suitable for willingness to pay analysis.
6. The UTA-type attribute estimations are in line with literature findings such that
transport cost has the highest significance for the entire sample followed by travel time
and on-time reliability. As expected, the least significant criteria is CO2 emissions,
probably because only some shippers attach importance to the environmental issues in
transport activities.
Policy Recommendations
1. The UTA-type models can be applied for both institution-based and general policy
making purposes when considering transport mode choice problem. Shippers and
logistics service providers can employ these methods, and so do transport policy
makers.
2. When collecting a large scale data is challenging for local regions, UTA-type models
may be beneficial for policy makers to assess taste variations among shippers.
3. The shippers are suggested to pay more attention on their efficiency in production or
their services to compensate the cost of transportation. Furthermore, logistics service
providers are recommended to work on their pricing policy for transport services in
order to create a competitive sector with competitive prices.
4. Transport policy makers and construction companies are suggested to be aware of
different possible value of time and reliability values and pay more attention to their
application in cost-benefit analysis, since different values can have very significant
consequences on the benefits and costs of the policies or infrastructure projects.
vii
viii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xiii
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xv
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research background....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research problem ............................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research objective and research questions ...................................................................... 4
1.4 Research methods ............................................................................................................ 5
1.5 Research framework and thesis outline ........................................................................... 5
2 Literature review on freight transport...................................................................................... 7
2.1 The decisions and involved stakeholders in freight transport ......................................... 7
2.2 Mode choice behavior and its determinants .................................................................... 9
2.3 Predictive analysis of freight transport .......................................................................... 12
3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Behavioral choice models.............................................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Discrete choice models .......................................................................................... 16
3.2 Multi-criteria decision aiding ........................................................................................ 18
3.2.1 Multi-objective optimization approach ................................................................. 20
3.2.2 Value systems approach ........................................................................................ 22
3.2.3 Outranking relation approach ................................................................................ 24
3.2.4 Disaggregation – aggregation approach ................................................................ 26
4 Empirical study: Preference model design and analysis........................................................ 36
4.1 Data selection for an empirical study ............................................................................ 36
4.2 Application of UTASTAR ............................................................................................ 38
4.2.1 UTASTAR preference model design .................................................................... 38
4.2.2 UTASTAR model estimation ................................................................................ 40
4.2.3 MNL model estimation based on UTASTAR application .................................... 43
4.2.4 Validation of UTASTAR and MNL models ......................................................... 44
4.3 Application of ACUTA ................................................................................................. 47
4.3.1 ACUTA preference model design ......................................................................... 47
4.3.2 ACUTA model estimation ..................................................................................... 48
4.3.3 MNL model estimation based on ACUTA application ......................................... 49
4.3.4 Validation of ACUTA and MNL models .............................................................. 50
ix
5 Discussion on preference models .......................................................................................... 52
5.1 Comparison of applied models: Advantages and disadvantages ................................... 52
5.2 Important attributes on mode choice behavior .............................................................. 62
6 Conclusions and recommendations ....................................................................................... 64
6.1 Applied preference models on freight transport mode choice behavior ........................ 64
6.2 Policy implications and recommendations for transport mode choice .......................... 65
6.3 Limitations of this research ........................................................................................... 66
6.4 Future research recommendations ................................................................................. 67
References ..................................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix I – Choice sets in an experimental design..................................................................... 82
Appendix II – An example of UTASTAR model application ....................................................... 84
Appendix III – UTASTAR model estimation results .................................................................... 89
Appendix IV – Biogeme input and output files of MNL model.................................................... 91
Appendix V – Cross validation results of UTASTAR and ACUTA models ................................ 95
Appendix VI – Conditions of paired sample t-test ........................................................................ 98
Appendix VII – An example of ACUTA model application......................................................... 99
Appendix VIII – ACUTA model estimation results .................................................................... 101
x
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Overarching framework to provide descriptive analysis on choice behavior ............... 3
Figure 1-2. Research flow diagram ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2-1. The interaction between actors in freight transport systems ......................................... 8
Figure 2-2. The frequency of attributes used in reviewed literature papers .................................. 10
Figure 2-3. The classification of freight transport analysis models............................................... 14
Figure 3-1. The division of behavioral models.............................................................................. 15
Figure 3-2. The logit curve ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 3-3. General framework for a decision aiding process....................................................... 19
Figure 3-4. Four main streams in MCDA ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 3-5. The multi-objective optimization approach ................................................................ 21
Figure 3-6. The value systems approach ....................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-7. The outranking relation approach ............................................................................... 25
Figure 3-8. The disaggregation-aggregation approach .................................................................. 27
Figure 3-9. Ordinal regression curve ............................................................................................. 33
Figure 3-10. A graphical representation of the multiple optimal solutions ................................... 34
Figure 4-1. Piecewise linear curves of attributes indicating the normalized marginal utility values
....................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4-2. The 9 LP models' replication on choice sets for Shipper 5 ......................................... 42
Figure 5-1. The distribution of attribute values over the sample in UTASTAR ........................... 57
Figure 5-2. The graph of transport cost vs travel time .................................................................. 57
Figure 5-3. The distribution of attribute values over the sample in ACUTA ................................ 59
xi
xii
List of Tables
Table 3-1. The performances of the given MCDA approaches on the selection criteria .............. 28
Table 4-1. The attribute levels (Adapted from Wanders, 2014) .................................................... 37
Table 4-2. An example of a choice set used in the survey (Adapted from Wanders, 2014) ......... 37
Table 4-3. An example of a choice set with the choice of respondent .......................................... 38
Table 4-4. An example of the regular input data of UTASTAR ................................................... 38
Table 4-5. The found criteria weights in UTASTAR .................................................................... 41
Table 4-6. Estimated utility parameters of a base MNL model with 455 choice observations ..... 43
Table 4-7. Estimated utility parameters of the MNL model with 441 consistent choice
observations determined by UTASTAR ....................................................................................... 43
Table 4-8. Paired sample t-test results for UTASTAR and MNL model runs .............................. 47
Table 4-9. The found criteria weights in ACUTA......................................................................... 49
Table 4-10. Estimated utility parameters of the MNL model with 405 consistent choice
observations determined by ACUTA ............................................................................................ 49
Table 4-11. Paired sample t-test results for ACUTA and MNL model runs ................................. 51
Table 5-1. Summary table of UTASTAR & MNL model results ................................................. 52
Table 5-2. Summary table of ACUTA & MNL model results ...................................................... 52
Table 5-3. An example of a post-optimality analysis results ........................................................ 55
Table 5-4. Descriptive statistics of the attributes found by UTASTAR method ........................... 56
Table 5-5. The Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the attributes – UTASTAR ............... 58
Table 5-6. Descriptive statistics of the attributes found by ACUTA method ............................... 58
Table 5-7. The Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the attributes – ACUTA ................... 60
Table 5-8. The values of time and reliability for freight transport as estimated from the sample . 61
Table 5-9. Freight value of time and reliability found in reviewed literature ............................... 62
xiii
xiv
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Stands for
ACUTA Analytic Center UTA

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
BWM Best – worst method
CBA Cost – benefit analysis
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DCs Distribution centers
DM Decision-maker
ELECTRE ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELimination and Choice
Expressing REality)
FAHP Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
FVOR Freight value of reliability
FVOT Freight value of time
GHG Greenhouse gases
LP Linear programming
MAUT Multi-attribute utility theory
MAVT Multi-attribute value theory
MCDA Multi-criteria decision aiding
MMP Multi-objective mathematical programming
MNL Multinominal logit
MOIP Multi-objective integer programming
NLP Non-linear programming
ORT Outranking relation theory
PDA Preference disaggregation – aggregation
PROMETHEE Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations
SUFT Sustainable urban freight transport
UTA UTilités Additives (Utility Additive)
UTADIS UTilités Additives DIScriminantes (Utility Additive Discriminant)
UTAMIME UTA Minimising the Maximum individual Error
UTASTAR UTilités Additives Star (Utility Additive Star)
WTP Willingness to pay
xv
xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Research background
Economic growth, highly intensive trading activities and global supply chains have
attracted more attention to the logistics management (Wei et al., 2006; Arvis et al., 2008).
On-time delivery of supplies under desired conditions has gained more importance because
of the existence of highly competitive markets (Tersine & Hummingbird, 1995). The
continuous expansion of global material flow also provides a challenge for logistics
operations (Meixell & Norbis, 2008). Thus, the hinterland transportation has recently
become more crucial. Despite its contribution to supply chain network operations,
hinterland freight transportation has some undesired impacts. Higher number of freight
vehicles on the roads have led to increase in traffic congestion and environmental concerns
(Taniguchi et al., 2016). The road freight transport has had a sharp increase since 2000 in
Europe with an average annual rise of 3.3% (Blauwens et al., 2006), which causes a
significant contribution to the congestion. The freight transport vehicles also cause
pollution, noise and time losses in traffic (Crainic et al., 2004).
Freight operations are expected to expand 50% between 2000 and 2020 in the EU-25
(European Commission, 2007). The anticipated growth, and the aforementioned societal
and environmental nuisances have triggered public bodies and stakeholders such as city
planners, port authorities and shippers to take a precaution (Zografos & Regan, 2004). As
many studies have indicated in transport literature (Crainic et al., 2004; Torbianelli, 2009;
Kayikci, 2010), the intermodal split of transport has become a widely suggested approach
to eliminate the nuisances. The intermodal transport means using multiple modes in door-
to-door cargo transportation such as inland waterway, railway and road instead of using a
single mode, while avoiding additional handling operations (Bowersox et al., 2007, p. 187).
The European Commission has supported the increase in intermodal share by publishing
whitepapers and launching Marco Polo program. The aim is to reduce road congestion,
pollution and high level of emissions with the encouragement of using greener transport
modes, thus the intermodal transport share should be increased to 30% by 2030 (European
Commission, 2011).
Despite its benefits, the intermodal transport may not be preferable by shippers due to
several reasons such as existing long-lasting contracts with logistics service providers or
longer travel times. Shippers consider various factors such as not only congestion and
environmental factors but also transport cost, reliability of service, amount of damage,
transit time and frequency of service (Bristow & Zanni, 2006). Therefore, the transport
mode choice decision includes many conflicting criteria and needs to be considered
critically. For this purpose, the preferences of shippers on transport mode choice and its
affecting factors should be taken into account. In this regard, a review on transport literature
reveals that different approaches have been applied to model shippers’ preferences, mostly
focused on choice modeling theory. Yet, the studies employing Multi-criteria Decision
Aiding (MCDA) methods are limited in this area. Thus, a scientific study to provide the
contribution of MCDA into choice behavior is needed. The results could be expected to
add value to the strategic planning of transport mode choice and MCDA applications in
transport literature.
1
Analysis of container shippers’ freight transport mode choice behavior
1.2 Research problem

Many stakeholders with different interests, various policies on transport and different
economic conditions are included in mode choice issue. Preparing a recipe for all markets
or countries on transport mode choice or intermodal shift is a challenging task due to these
differences (Woxenius & Bärthel, 2008). A passenger transport literature includes many
studies on customer behavior and mode choice problem. However, the mode choice studies
in freight transport are limited so far, and still needs to be improved (Arunotayanun &
Polak, 2011). In freight transport, the target group is a shipping company or logistics
service provider instead of individuals, which adds more complexity to the nature of the
problem. The expectations and requirements of shippers from a transport quality vary based
on their values and preferences. The studies in literature mainly focus on the mode choice
determinants considering the performance quality changes. Transport cost, travel time,
reliability, flexibility and frequency are the most reported important attributes in the
literature. The preferences of shippers on such attributes while selecting the transport mode
have been studied in various case studies.
Choice modeling has been a widely applied theory on behavior of travelers in transport
literature. Because every individual may reveal different preferences, choice analysis is
applied for “explaining variability in behavioral response in a sampled population of
individuals (or other units of choice making such as households, firms, community groups,
etc.)” (Hensher et al., 2005, p. 72). In order to deal with a sample population and variations,
choice modeling theory has been developed and two different approaches have been
generated, which are aggregate and disaggregate choice models. Depending on the traveler
target group and travel demand, an appropriate approach has been used to model travel
behaviors. Particularly in passenger transport, disaggregate choice theory has been
employed (Hall, 1999, p. 5). Disaggregate models allow one to use individual statistics
records than averages whereas it is difficult to obtain the aggregate data (Watson & Westin,
1975), making disaggregate models more favorable.
In this regard, the overarching framework of discrete choice models for describing the
choice behavior is illustrated in Figure 1-1. In such models the decision-maker (DM),
alternatives, attributes and decision rule are respectively determined. The potential
alternatives are listed in the choice set and attributes are assigned to each alternative (Hall,
1999, p. 6). In order to set values to the alternatives in selecting the best option, random
utility theory is widely used as a decision rule. It is assumed that “the decision-maker
assigns to each alternative […] a perceived utility or attractiveness and selects the
alternative that maximizes this utility” (Cascetta, 2009, p. 90). Firstly, the choice model is
estimated and the attribute parameters are obtained. Afterwards, the predicted choice is
found by utilizing the parameter values and random utility theory by means of simulation.
In order to provide a descriptive analysis on behaviors, the consistency between the model
prediction and the observed behaviors of the DM is analyzed. The consistency can be
monitored for the entire sample population, as the model is fitted to the population. The
higher model fit indicates that the model represents the population behavior better as the
sample data represents the population.
2
Choice
Alternatives
attributes
DM’s actual choices on
choice sets
Choice sets
Model input
MCDA method Discrete choice

(?) model
Model estimation by a
decision rule
Model
Attribute simulation Predicted Observed
parameters/ choice behavior choice behavior
weights of DM Consistency of of DM
model prediction and
Model outputs observed behavior
Figure 1-1. Overarching framework to provide descriptive analysis on choice behavior
Although discrete choice modeling is a widely accepted technique on mode choice

problems, this thesis aimed to go beyond the methods because of intellectual curiosity and
to find an alternative technique to the choice modeling for explaining the choice behavior.
More specifically, it would be interesting to use MCDA methods to explain choice
behavior. As MCDA methods are good fit for analyzing the situations with multiple but
conflicting criteria, they may be applicable for analyzing the attribute preferences of
shippers on transport mode choice. There are many studies employing MCDA models for
hub location selection (Kayikci, 2010; Awasthi et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011; Surmeli et al.,
2015) and port choice (Lirn et al., 2003; Chou, 2005; Chou, 2010) in transport literature.
However, the studies regarding mode choice are still limited. Shafabakhsh et al. (2014)
applies fuzzy decision making for public transportation system design, whereas Cheng
(2010) studies the intermodal passenger transport by using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
Process (FAHP). In freight transport literature, Hanaoka and Kunadhamraks (2009) benefit
from FAHP and fuzzy-MCDA to analyze logistics attribute values, but not to model mode
choice behavior.
MCDA is a broad discipline, which consists of different approaches within its theory. The
MCDA methods vary in terms of their objectives, assumptions and methodologies, hence
requiring different input datasets. An interesting question might be asked if there is any
suitable MCDA approach that can utilize the choice data to model the choice behavior. In
other words, if any MCDA approach can follow the overarching framework illustrated in
Figure 1-1 as an alternative method to the discrete choice models. Two reasons might be
presented for questioning the utilization of choice data by an MCDA approach: (1) The
choice behavior models employ a specific choice dataset gathered from DMs, so the choice
data shall be used as an input rather than any other type of data to describe the behaviors.
(2) Applying the same choice data on both MCDA and discrete choice models is practical
for good comparison of models.
3
Most MCDA methods are normative in their methodologies as they aim to identify the best
decision for a rational DM, such as multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) and multi-
attribute utility theory (MAUT) (Herath & Prato, 2006, p. 5). That is, this study explored
whether an MCDA method could be used in a different way than its conventional purpose
(i.e. normative approach) to describe the choice behavior by checking the consistency of
its model prediction with observed behavior or whether an appropriate MCDA method that
has a descriptive value could be employed to explain choice behaviors. To the knowledge
of the author, there is neither methodological nor practical study found in the existing
literature where an MCDA method is used with the choice data on mode choice problems.
In order to fill the scientific gap in freight transport literature, the methodological study on
MCDA could be conducted to investigate if any method fits to the given overarching
methodology to describe choice behavior. Furthermore, the application of the existing
MCDA methods could be studied to model mode choice problem, as the MCDA
applications are still limited in this area. On one hand, MCDA methods are based on
optimality while considering decision-makers as an individual. Thus, the results are
supposed to reflect the behavior of individuals. On the other hand, discrete choice models
can be used to describe either an individual’s repeated choices or a population’s behavior.
Therefore, this research aimed to go further by exploring whether the selected MCDA
methods can be used to model the behavior of a population. This also makes the comparison
of discrete choice model and the selected MCDA methods easier. By means of comparison,
it could be observed whether the selected MCDA methods find similar results with the
discrete choice model, despite the differences in their methodologies.
This thesis attempted to investigate if there is any MCDA method which approaches the
model fit that choice model presents. If it can be shown that an MCDA method is as
descriptive as the choice model, finds similar weights in shipper preference data and
represents the sample population at least as good as the choice model, it would be a
significant scientific contribution. Furthermore, MCDA methods have more clear
methodology with their assumptions. They are easier to use, suitable to handle large-scale
data and taking uncertainties into account (Velasquez & Hester, 2013). Therefore, this
technique would be a better fit for problem solving and ease the communications with
DMs. Thus, this research may also have a social relevance.
1.3 Research objective and research questions

The objective of this research was to contribute to the freight transport literature dealing
with the shippers’ mode choice behavior by applying an appropriate MCDA method and
comparing this approach with a discrete choice modeling theory. The main research
question answered in this thesis was formulated as:
In order to answer the main question and achieve the research objective, the following sub-
questions was also explored:
4
1. What attributes are taken into account by shippers in freight transport mode choice
decision?
2. Which MCDA method is the methodologically appropriate one for utilizing the
same choice dataset with discrete choice models as a model input?
3. What is the relative importance of the attributes according to the shippers, in
general, in a sample population?
4. How are the performances of the selected MCDA and discrete choice models with
respect to representing the choices of the sample population?
5. How do the estimated model parameters explain the taste variations over the
sample?
6. What recommendations can be formulated for applying either MCDA method or
choice modeling approach on mode choice decisions?
1.4 Research methods

In this research, it is aimed to search for an appropriate MCDA method in terms of its
methodology which provides similar (or even better) results with (than) choice modeling
on shippers’ mode choice data considering the choice determinants. Firstly, the literature
review was conducted on the predictive models of freight transport and it was found that
discrete choice models are widely applied for mode choice problems. After exploring the
discrete choice theory and existing models, multinominal logit (MNL) model was selected
for comparison purposes. Secondly, an extensive literature study was conducted on MCDA
approaches to find the suitable one for this study. Disaggregation – aggregation approach
of MCDA might be the most appropriate stream in MCDA to apply choice analysis. Among
this stream, UTASTAR and ACUTA models were selected for the analyses.
In order to analyze the performances of all selected methods on the same data, a case study
was performed. The data of Wanders (2014) collected from the shippers operating between
Venlo and Port of Rotterdam in food/agricultural and manufacturing industries was
employed in an empirical study. In case study, only the choice data was extracted for this
research, but not the model analyses or results. The model estimations with attribute
weights and utility functions were found for each model in this thesis. The given data was
evaluated to obtain the performance of each model. Then, the validation of models was
done by applying a 10-fold cross validation technique. In parallel, a review was conducted
on freight transport literature to see the significance of attributes on mode choice.
According to the model predictions and outcomes, the performances of the selected models
were compared, and their advantages and disadvantages were determined to provide the
recommendations.
1.5 Research framework and thesis outline

The research flow diagram, which summarizes the research methods elaborated in the
previous section, is presented in Figure 1-2.
Chapter 2 provides an introduction to the decision problems in freight transport by

including the involved actors in relevant sector segments. Then, the affecting factors on
mode choice decisions are provided by means of a literature review. Lastly, the models that
are used in freight transport problems are briefly explored in light of mode choice
5
problems. Chapter 3 explores the existing behavioral choice models, more specifically the
MNL model, as well as the main approaches of MCDA. Four main streams of MCDA are
discussed, stating that disaggregation – aggregation approach might be the most suitable
one for this research. Thus, the algorithms of the selected UTASTAR and ACUTA methods
are provided in detail. Chapter 4 presents the empirical study. Firstly, the data selection is
presented with the characteristics of the choice data. Secondly, the applications of all
models are provided with model designs, estimations, analysis and validation. Chapter 5
elaborates more on the selected methods by quantitative comparison analyses. Moreover,
further qualitative analysis is presented with the advantages and disadvantages of the
selected methods. The outcomes are also compared with early literature findings. Lastly,
Chapter 6 provides the concluding remarks on preference models, policy implications and
recommendations for transport mode choice, the limitations of the study and
recommendations for future research.
Methodological study
Literature
review: Choice
modeling Empirical study
Chapter 3.1
Literature review Preference model Conclusion &
Literature design Recommendations
Decisions and
review: MCDM
involved actors Comparative study Conclusions on
in freight Preference model preference
transport Comparative estimation Quantitative
models
analysis: MCDM comparative
Affecting factors analysis Policy
of mode choice Chapter 3.2 Preference model implications &
behavior analysis
Case selection recommendation
Predictive Qualitative
Attribute Research
analysis of analysis
selection limitations &
freight transport
Validation Chapter 5 Future research
Chapter 2
Data selection Chapter 6
Chapter 4.2 & 4.3
Chapter 4.1
Figure 1-2. Research flow diagram
6
Chapter 2: Literature review on freight transport
2 Literature review on freight transport

The rapidly growing global trade and globalization have stimulated the flow of goods and
services around the world. As an important part of the global supply chains, the volume of
freight transportation across the globe has been raised. This situation has also boosted the
number of researches on freight transport. Freight models emerged in 1960s despite their
slow development and a clear distinction of freight transport from passenger transport
research were made in 1970s (Tavasszy & de Jong, 2014, pp. 1-2). The models were
developed to understand the relationship between transport and economical institutions,
and the behavioral freight studies were arisen (Tavasszy, 2006). Meanwhile, the research
on logistics and supply chain management was improved at a significant level, which also
helped the development of advanced novel modeling and approaches on freight transport
since the late 1980s (Tavasszy & de Jong, 2014, p. 2).
Freight transport is a broad discipline which consists of a wide range of decision problems
while incorporating many actors from different backgrounds. Therefore, the decisions on
freight transport are briefly discussed and classified in Chapter 2.1. The involved
stakeholders are also described. Chapter 2.2 elaborates the mode choice problem by
presenting the important determinants of freight mode selection process. Lastly, the
modeling approaches in freight literature are discussed with a classification in Chapter 2.3.
2.1 The decisions and involved stakeholders in freight transport

The freight transport activities significantly contribute to sustainable economic
development and growth (Samimi et al., 2011). Therefore, a wide range of decisions on
freight activities shall be understood well and associated with the right actors so that the
freight system will be efficiently operated. In order to establish the short and long term
strategies sufficiently for freight activities, Tavasszy and de Jong (2014, pp. 2-3) classify
the freight activities into three markets, which are:
1. The commodity market
2. Inventory logistics services
3. Transport logistics services
Considering the flow of goods in a value chain, it can be concluded that freight activities
start from the production step and finish at end-users. Thus, the production-related
decisions affecting the freight until the consumer can be analyzed under the commodity
market. The two important actors in this market are producers and consumers. Harker
(1985) states that these actors are the economic agents who create the market prices of the
goods by means of demand – supply interaction. According to Tavasszy and de Jong (2014,
pp. 3-4), the most common issues to be decided in this market are the production site
location, the factors influencing the production rate such as capital and labour, production
volume, and the order size. The paper also states that the choices of suppliers and retailers
are specified in this market. Depending on the decision, relevant actors could comprise of
production manager, marketing manager, sales manager, households or corporate clients.
The second market includes the inventory-based decisions while the goods are stored at
intermediate facilities after they are produced until they are transported to the consumer.
Inventory processes lead to high fixed and operational costs, so the decisions are also
7
critical at this level. The location allocation of distribution centers (DCs), inventory levels
and volumes, and shipment sizes are the examples of decisions taken in this market.
Tavasszy and de Jong (2014, p. 4) point out that logistics managers are responsible for
such decisions, but some firms prefer to outsource these activities to the logistics service
providers.
Transport logistics services include the decisions on trips, routes and choice of modes and
means of transport. The network decisions on shipments between production site – DCs
and DCs – customers, shipment sizes, the assignment of routes to the shippers and the
scheduling of the shipments can be considered as critical issues in this market. Moreover,
the mode choice of freight transport is one of the widely discussed topics in the literature
as well as in transport policy making (Tavasszy & de Jong, 2014, p. 4). Means of transport
cover the vehicle selection decisions after deciding the transport mode. de Jong (2014, p.
131) states that the routing decisions are determined by shippers, while mode choice is
made by shippers, but can be outsourced to the logistics service providers at some
companies at a cost. Although most studies in literature accept that shippers are mainly the
responsible agent for the modes of transport.
Harker (1985) defines shippers as economic agents responsible for the decisions from the
start point of the goods flows until the end, including multiple DMs such as logistics
managers, transport managers, freight-forwarders in shipping, distribution or receiving
departments. The paper also introduces carriers as transport firms responsible for the actual
movement of the freight. As they are the outsourced agents, they can be referred to as
logistics service providers. Harker (1985) also adds potential carriers to the involved
actors in freight transport, as the potential entry of new carrier firms to the market
influences transport market dynamics. The last actor introduced by Harker (1985) is the
government which reflects the institutions making the transport policies and regulations as
well as constructing the transport infrastructures. Tavasszy and de Jong (2014, p. 4) also
state that government interacts with the actors in the commodity market since they are
affected by the trade laws such as import – export barriers, taxation and customs
regulations. The interactions between the involved actors are presented Figure 2-1.
Regulations Governmental
Producers
institutions
Regulations &
Market prices Shippers infrastructure
Routing Potential
decisions & Logistics service entry Potential
Consumers service level providers carriers
Figure 2-1. The interaction between actors in freight transport systems (Adapted from: Harker, 1985)
8
2.2 Mode choice behavior and its determinants

Ortuzar and Willumsen (2011) describe the transport mode choice behavior as one of the
most important decision steps in transport planning, because it has a big impact on the
efficiency of transport activities. The paper adds that it is valid for both passenger and
freight transport, and in particular the mode choice issues are covered broadly in freight
transport policies. The reasons may be that mode choice problem affects the other elements
of the chain and the resource allocation significantly, and it is relevant to many actors in
the system and their concerns and preferences. Therefore, it is essential to take into account
the important factors and concerns of actors affecting the mode choice decisions.
According to Cunningham (1982, as cited in Samimi et al., 2011), the shipment cost was
the only determinant in mode choice models in early freight transport literature, but other
non-cost determinants such as reliability, safety and flexibility have been considered with
the development of random utility theory lately (Norojono & Young, 2003).
This section presents the significant attributes of mode choice models in the freight
transport literature by means of a literature review. With the same purpose, Cullinane and
Toy (2000) conducted an extensive literature review by considering 75 papers published
before 2000. They employed a content analysis methodology to justify the attributes and
determined the first five most important attributes, which are ranked as follows: (1)
Cost/Price, (2) Speed/Transit time, (3) Transit time reliability, (4) Characteristics of the
goods, and (5) Service. Cullinane and Toy (2000) mention that the service can be taken as
an abstract term implying the characteristics of the service in a wide variety based on the
DM. This paper still indicates that the cost is the most important element in comparing
different transport modes.
In order to observe how the attribute selection evolves over time, a literature review was
also conducted for more recently published papers, i.e. from 2000 onwards. It was found
that Feo-Valero et al. (2011a) have reviewed 31 recently published papers on freight
transport and found the widely employed attributes as price/cost, transit time, frequency,
flexibility, delivery time reliability and loss/damage rate. Reis (2014) also presents delivery
time reliability, transit time and cost as important attributes in a review paper. Considering
these review papers and the list of articles reviewed, the overlaps in the reviewed lists were
eliminated. Moreover, 9 additional articles were found in the literature of modeling the
mode choice behavior. The results of all of the identified papers were combined according
to the determinants. The overall result indicating the frequency of each attribute throughout
the reviewed papers is presented in Figure 2-2. As shown in Figure 2-2, the most commonly
used attributes in freight transport mode choice models are, in the order of frequency:
transport cost, transit time, delivery time reliability, frequency, flexibility and loss/damage
rate.
9
CO2 emissions
Shipper's market considerations
Security
Service level
Loading capacity
Shipment traceability
Transfer
Mode
Loss/ Damage
Flexibility
Frequency
Delivery time reliability
Transit time
Transport cost
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Shipper's
Delivery
Transport Loss/ Shipment Loading Service market CO2
Transit time time Frequency Flexibility Mode Transfer Security
cost Damage traceability capacity level consideratio emissions
reliability
ns
Frequency of attributes 50 50 43 26 17 15 8 1 1 1 2 3 3 2
Figure 2-2. The frequency of attributes used in reviewed literature papers (based on Garcia-Menendez et al., 2004; Danielis et al., 2005; Danielis & Marcucci, 2007;
Fries, 2009; Arunotayanun & Polak, 2011; Feo et al., 2011; Feo-Valero et al., 2011a; Feo-Valero et al., 2011b; Beltran et al., 2012; Brooks et al., 2012; Reis, 2014)
10
In this context, transport cost represents the overall cost of transport activities associated
to the mode between the origin and destination points, including the loading and unloading
costs as defined by Beuthe et al. (2003). However, other logistics costs such as inventory,
safety stock and cycle stock costs are excluded from the definition. Transit time might also
be defined differently in some studies such as speed, average lead time or travel time, yet
it represents the door-to-door travel time in general. Most studies have not explicitly
considered the additional operations such as inventory operations, although the loading,
unloading and transshipment times are considered in case of intermodal transportation
(Chiara et al., 2008).
Moreover, the reliability can be defined twofold in transport literature. Firstly, the transport
mode could be considered reliable if the variance of lead time is low, which can be called
as delivery time reliability or on-time reliability. Secondly, the modes that have low rate of
loss or damages in the delivery of goods may be perceived as reliable. The reviewed papers
classify these definitions into two attributes. From the reviewed papers it was found that
on-time reliability is considered more important than loss/damage rate. Feo-Valero et al.
(2011a) explain this situation with the high service level development in transport sector
because of the improving transport technology and infrastructure. The paper also points
out that the definition of qualitative variables is essential as different definitions may cause
errors in evaluation. For instance, the delivery time reliability is taken as a percentage of
on-time delivery in most papers. Moreover, the term flexibility is expressed with a reverse
measure minimal notice time for transport order in hours by Bolis and Maggi (2003), and
as a percentage of unplanned shipments executed without excessive delay by Beuthe and
Bouffioux (2008), Beuthe et al. (2003) and Witlox and Vandaele (2005). Additionally,
Norojono and Young (2003, as cited in Feo-Valero et al., 2011a) take it as a responsiveness
to problems in case of change in delivery frequency or time. Bergantino and Bolis (2008),
Patterson et al. (2007) and Zotti and Danielis (2004) also consider the mode as an attribute
in mode choice modeling. As Feo-Valero et al. (2011a) state, the mode is used to evaluate
if the DMs have a tendency or bias in mode selection depending on the mode name without
considering other attributes.
Apart from the aforementioned attributes, other factors such as CO2 emissions, security,
transfer and loading capacity are also used in some studies but not to a large extent. Among
the less frequently applied attributes, CO2 emissions may require more attention in the
freight transport literature. This is because transport activities could also negatively impact
the society and environment as a major source of air and water pollution, as well as noise
(Coyle et al., 2006). Samimi et al. (2011) state that the freight transport network shall be
developed by decreasing the burden on the network to reduce the negative effects such as
pollution, excessive fuel consumption and loss of time due to congestion. In this regard,
Tavasszy and de Jong (2014, p. 1) also point out that the public policy making on freight
transport are recently being improved to minimize the aforementioned effects. Yet, the
studies in freight transport literature are still lacking for the research on environmental
concerns as Meixell and Norbis (2008) state. The paper suggests that the transport choice
decision can be a starting point to discover how the environmental criteria influence and
be used for effective outcomes. Behrends et al. (2008, p. 704) also mention the importance
of sustainable urban freight transport (SUFT) by exploring its definition. According to the
11
paper, one of the objectives of the SUFT is “to reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, waste and noise to levels without negative impacts on the health of the citizens
or nature”, and the CO2 emission levels is considered as one of the indicators of sustainable
transport.
de Jong (2014, p. 118) states that the freight transport mode choice is an essential part of
the freight transport models as it helps to explore the emissions. The research suggests that
road transport has the highest emission level, followed by rail transport and sea transport.
However, to the knowledge of the author, the studies in which the emissions are used as an
attribute are very limited as seen from literature review. Patterson et al. (2008) modeled
the carrier selection process in the Quebec City – Windsor corridor, and involved the
emission levels indirectly to the model. The paper assumed that road transport has 13 times
lower emissions than rail transport, and added the transport mode in the model as an
attribute, which means higher parameter of rail transport is more environmental friendly.
Moreover, Beltran et al. (2012) include CO2 emissions directly to the model while
analyzing the mode choice behavior of Dutch shippers. The second example found in
literature is Fries (2009) that uses the GHG emissions more generally in modeling Swiss
shippers’ behavior. Yet, the paper adds that the emission level has a minor effect on mode
choice, since the variation of transport cost between modes plays the major effect in choice
behavior. However, the research on environmental factors is still needed to explore the
level of effects on mode choice models broadly.
2.3 Predictive analysis of freight transport

There are various approaches developed to model freight transport systems depending on
the system scope, problem definition and the characteristics of the involved stakeholders.
Chiang et al. (1980) state that generated models from many different disciplines are also
signs that the decision making process in freight transport involves complexity. As depicted
in Figure 2-3, to select the best possible approach for a given case despite this complexity,
Harker (1985) classifies the main approaches in freight transport analysis into three
categories: the econometric model, the spatial price equilibrium model and the freight
network equilibrium model.
The econometric models in transport aim to explore the causal relationships between the
freight demand and the affecting attributes as stated by Strong et al. (1996, cited in Regan
and Garrido, 2002). Harker (1985) also suggests that the time series historical data is
utilized to analyze these structural relationships. Moreover, the demand functions are
estimated based on the level of service attributes and rates. Econometric models ease to
study the policy effects on the system. However, the inclusion of a transport network in
econometric models is very limited. In this sense, the spatial price equilibrium models and
the freight network equilibrium models may be preferred, as both involve a network in
their structures. The network type models are represented by a set of nodes and arcs
indicating the facilities and the modes of transport, respectively. Harker (1985) also states
that each node and arc in the network are represented by some level of attributes and
measures. The objective of network models is mostly to optimize the freight transport
distribution as defined by Strong et al. (1996, cited in Regan and Garrido, 2002). Because
the aim of studying mode choice behavior is mainly to analyze structural and causal
relationships between factors, econometrics models are more suitable for the problem.
12
It is seen that the econometrics models are classified as supply-side, demand-side and
integrated models by Harker (1985), in which the purpose of supply-side models is to
analyze the production of freight transport services with cost characteristics, while
demand-side models focus on the demand for freight transport services and their
characteristics, whereas integrated models aim at achieving an equilibrium between
demand and supply. As the mode choice behavior represents the demand of agents
(shippers, carriers etc.), demand-side models shall be focused.
Winston (1983) states that there are many different approaches established in freight
transport literature to model the demand, as there is no one type of DM in freight
transportation. According to the purpose of the DM, the model can have different
characteristics such as profit maximization or inventory optimization. Winston (1983)
specifies that the econometric demand models are classified into aggregate and
disaggregate models to be able to model the choice behavior in freight transport.
Aggregate demand models focus on the systems at regional or national level instead of
individual one, considering an aggregate share of specific transportation mode. Meanwhile,
disaggregate demand models deal with an individual choice of a DM (Winston, 1983).
Despite their different purposes, Winston (1983) determines some advantages of
disaggregate models over aggregate ones followed as: (1) The disaggregate approach
addresses the realities of freight transport based on the behavior theory, whereas aggregate
approach may be focused on cost minimization behavior of institutions, (2) Capturing more
specific information on DMs in an empirical study is easier in disaggregate approach and
(3) The actual attributes of a particular transport mode can be integrated sufficiently into
the disaggregate models than aggregate ones. On the contrary, Winston (1983) states that
disaggregate models require a comprehensive set of data including not only the choices but
also the properties of modes, which can be challenging in practical terms. Although the
disaggregate approach may not be beneficial for the system analyses at national level, it
seems more suitable for analyzing the choice behaviors at institutional level with more
detailed information and analyses. Therefore, disaggregate demand approach is regarded
as a sufficient method for exploring the mode choice behavior in freight transport literature.
Winston (1983) goes beyond in disaggregate demand models by classifying them as
behavioral and inventory models. The behavioral models aim at inferring the mode choice
behaviors of agents by maximizing the utility of a chosen mode, whereas inventory models
incorporate the mode choice decision with relevant production and inventory decisions as
defined by Winston (1983, cited in Abdelwahab and Sargious, 1992). For the purpose of
this research, behavioral models are more suitable to analyze the transport mode choice
behavior. The assumptions and formulation of behavioral model theory will be introduced
in Chapter 3.1. A particular type of behavioral choice model will be presented afterwards
to be used in the empirical study.
A summary of literature review on the classification of freight transport analysis is
presented in Figure 2-3.
13
Supply-side
models
Aggregate
models
Econometric Demand-side Behavioral
model models models
Disaggregate
models
Predictive Spatial price
Integrated
analysis of freight equilibrium Inventory models
models
transport model
Freight network
equilibrium
model
Figure 2-3. The classification of freight transport analysis models, based on Harker (1985) & Winston (1983)
14
Chapter 3: Methodology
3 Methodology
The objective of this research is to determine an appropriate Multi-criteria Decision Aiding
(MCDA) method as an alternative to the choice modeling techniques while modeling the
choice behavior. Since both MCDA and choice modeling have numerous variants with
different characteristics considering different theories and assumptions, both methods are
briefly explained in this chapter. At first, the choice modeling approach is presented. The
specific type of discrete choice models, which is selected for a case study in Chapter 4, is
introduced. Then, the MCDA literature is discussed and the classification of MCDA
methods is presented based on the main theories. Each sub-class is shortly explored.
Afterwards, the selected approach and its relevant MCDA methods are discussed
extensively.
3.1 Behavioral choice models

Behavioral demand choice models are constructed for several purposes such as answering
the yes-or-no choices of agents or determining particular decisions on quantitative choices.
This division leads to the classification of demand choice models which are discrete and
continuous, as presented in Figure 3-1. Hanemann (1984) defines the difference between
discrete and continuous choices with examples, such as a consumer decides whether to buy
an electric appliance or not using a discrete model, meanwhile he/she decides the electricity
consumption level using a continuous model. In general terms, the yes-or-no decisions such
as to buy or not, or to invest or not, as well as the choices on type of appliances and mode
of transport are determined using discrete models. Continuous models mostly focus on the
empirical data on the quantitative decisions. Derakhshan et al. (2015) state that the
outcomes of discrete and continuous models are partly interconnected, such that several
discrete/continuous models are also introduced in literature. Considering this case from
freight transport perspective, it can be considered that the mode choice behavior is defined
as a discrete one while the decisions on shipment size, etc. can be defined as continuous
ones. Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985, p. 2) point out that discrete factors are suitable to
express the individual and institutional behaviors at disaggregate level. Therefore, discrete
choice models are appropriate to analyze the mode choice behavior of agents.
Supply-side Discrete choice

models models
Aggregate
models
Econometric Demand-side Behavioral Continuous
model models models choice models
Disaggregate
models
Predictive Spatial price Discrete/
Integrated
analysis of freight equilibrium Inventory models continuous
models
transport model choice models
Freight network
equilibrium
model
Figure 3-1. The division of behavioral models
15
3.1.1 Discrete choice models

Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985, p. 31) state that although mostly the aggregate behavior of
a population is sought for analyzing the market dynamics, individual decisions create this
aggregate behavior. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how the individual choice
behavior theory works. The framework of discrete choice decision making process can be
defined in general as: “(1) definition of the choice problem, (2) generation of alternatives,
(3) evaluation of attributes of the alternatives, (4) choice, and (5) implementation” (Ben-
Akiva & Lerman, 1985, pp. 31-32). The discrete choice analysis assumes that a DM selects
the best alternative from a given set of alternatives based on a utility maximization
approach. As stated in Lancaster’s Activity Approach in consumer behavior (1966, as cited
in Harker, 1985) that the utility is extracted from the given attributes of a good. The discrete
choice models also comprise the utility of alternatives presented by the independent
variables of attributes and possibly socio-demographic characteristics, as well as unknown
parameters. The estimated utilities are derived from a sample of observations. Ben-Akiva
and Lerman (1985, p. 3) mention that determining the correct utility estimations and
choices for each individual separately in a given sample is not feasible. Therefore, the
random utility theory is employed for considering the actual utility of alternatives as
random variables.
The information to the analyst is limited, so the DM’s choice can be expressed in
probabilistic terms. The probability of a chosen alternative is presented as:
•••• ! = ••••"# ! $ #%! &''''() * +! ; , - )
In which #%! represents the utility of each alternative ) in choice set +! . Considering the
limited information, the equation can be converted into:
•••• ! = ••••[./ ! 0 1 ! 2 $ "/%! 0 1%! &]''''() * +! ; , - )
As described by Hensher et al. (2005, p. 83), /%! involves the available measurable
information, whereas 1%! represents non-measurable impacts of attributes. In that sense, the
random utility theory is revealed to deal with the sources of uncertainty. Manski (1973, as
cited in Ben-Akiva and Herman, 1985, p. 56) determines the sources of random variables
as: “(1) unobserved attributes, (2) unobserved taste variations, (3) measurement errors
and imperfect information, and (4) instrumental (or proxy) variables”. There are various
types of discrete choice models derived to handle the source of randomness in a different
way, which are logit, generalized extreme value, probit and mixed logit models. According
to Train (2003, p. 41), the logit model is the simplest and the most widely applied model
in discrete choice because it provides easily interpretable choice probability function. Since
logit model helps modeling and analyzing the mode choice behavior in a simpler way as
well as the mostly preferred model in discrete choice literature, it fits the research purpose
and will be utilized in this thesis.
Multinominal logit (MNL) model
The general utility function of each alternative in a choice set is defined as • ! = " ! +
# ! , considering the deterministic and random components (Hensher, 2005, p. 83). The
16
deterministic part of the utility is represented as a linear form of the parameters and
measured attribute functions (Hensher, 2005, p. 310):
• ! = "# + "$ %&'$ ! ( + ") %&') ! ( + * + ", %&', ! (----./ 0 1!
where "# is the alternative-specific constant, not related with any of attributes, and ", is
the parameter expressing the impact of attribute (', ! represents the attribute value and 2
is the number of attributes) on the utility. It is not necessary to include the alternative-
specific constant value in every utility function, but Hensher (2005, p. 310) adds that if it
is included it represents the mean of unobserved utility sources. Moreover, the ", values
are estimated during the model estimation phase.
After estimating • ! , MNL model determines the choice probability of alternatives as

follows:
5 678
34! = 6
9:0;8 5 :8
in which the probabilities are between 0 and 1 for all alternatives, and the sum of all
probabilities of all alternatives is 1. The MNL model is generated under the assumptions
that every ••• is independently identically distributed (iid) and fit Gumbel distribution
(Train, 2003, pp. 41-42). Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985, p. 104) refer to Gumbel
distribution as “an approximation to the normal density” and add that iid error terms
provide a restriction implying non-correlation and equal variances of random components
in utility functions. Train (2003, p. 23) points out that despite this restriction, the
assumptions still give a convenient choice probability function.
MNL model also holds the property of independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) which
refers if alternative is preferred to !, including any other alternative to the choice set does
not affect the relation between and !. On one hand, Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985, p.
108) explain this property for MNL as the choice probability ratio of two alternatives does
not change with any utility or probability of other alternatives. On the other hand, it is
mentioned that the assumption of independence may not be held in some cases. Train
(2003, p. 23) states that a correlation among random components of different alternatives
can be observed in reality. This is one of the limitations of MNL model. For the purpose
of simplicity, yet MNL estimation will be conducted in Chapter 4, and the way of
eliminating the possibility of correlation with a choice experiment setup will be explained
in Chapter 4.1.
The logit curve which indicates the relation between the choice probability of an alternative
and its relevant utility is S-shaped (see Figure 3-2). It means that if the utility of an
alternative is very low or very high compared to the other alternatives’ utility, the small or
extreme increase in the utility will have a very small impact on the choice probability. Train
(2003, p. 45) states that when an alternative is chosen against the others, with a probability
around 0.5, then any increase in the relevant alternative’s utility has the most effect on the
choice probability. Train (2003, p. 45) also adds that most of the discrete choice models
have S-shaped probabilities, which implies significant information to policy makers.
17
•!
"!
Figure 3-2. The logit curve (Retrieved from: Train, 2003, p. 46)
Moreover, MNL model utilizes the maximum likelihood estimation approach, but not the
least squares one as it is not widely applied for disaggregate data (Ben-Akiva & Lerman,
1985, pp. 118-120). For the maximum likelihood estimation, it is firstly assumed that the
data is collected randomly from the population. Secondly, according to Ben-Akiva and
Lerman (1985, p. 118), an indicator variable is defined as:
1#####$%#&#'()$*$+,#-&.(/#,#)0++*(*#&23(/,&3$4(#$
•! ="
5#######################################################################+30(/6$*(
where 7 denotes the number of observations.
The likelihood from the whole sample is derived by the product of individuals’ likelihoods,
which provides:
%
• = !*
$+, !#()' "#$
&'
, in which "#$ is expressed by a function of - values.
3.2 Multi-criteria decision aiding

Multi-criteria decision aiding (MCDA) is one of the sub-parts of operations research, on
which numerous extensive theoretical and applicable researches have been conducted in a
few decades. It was emerged in the need of an approach to deal with semi structured and
multidimensional real world decision problems. Doumpos and Zopouidis (2002, pp. 39-
40) state that other decision/choice theories may also consider the aggregation of multiple
factors in a decision making process. However, MCDA has an advantage of providing a
decision support or aid in the process instead of providing a decision model only. In other
words, MCDA researchers focus on the problem structure, criteria generation and modeling
phase as well as the uncertainty issues in the decision process (Korhonen, 2005). Therefore,
MCDA approaches contribute to the decision process with a model and aid tool
incorporating the decision-makers’ preferences, values and judgment policy (Doumpos &
Zopouidis, 2002, p. 40).
Roy (1985), one of the pioneers in MCDA research, generates a general framework for
decision aiding processes as presented in Figure 3-3.
18
Decision•objective•with•the•definition•of•a•set•of•potential•alternatives•and•
the•determination•of•a•decision•problematic
1
Criteria•development•and•modeling•assuming•the•criteria•are•non-
decreasing•value•functions,•exhaustive•and•non-redundant
2
53 Comprehensive•preference•modeling•by•aggregating•the•preferences•on•
the•criteria
Decision•aid•development•with•recommendations
4
Figure 3-3. General framework for a decision aiding process (Adapted from Roy, 1985; Jacquet-
Lagreze & Siskos, 2001)
The decision making problems can be categorized into two groups as mentioned by
Doumpos and Zopouidis (2002, pp. 1-2):
· Discrete decision making problems, in which the discrete alternatives are defined
in a set and each one is represented by levels of attributes.
· Continuous decision making problems, in which the possible alternatives are
infinite and they are represented in a feasible set.
Since the mode choice behavior is defined as discrete, this research considers the discrete
problems in MCDA. As shown in Figure 3-3, at the first level the decision problematic
should be determined after the definition of potential alternatives. Roy (1985, as cited in
Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos, 2001) introduces four decision problematics in a discrete
problem and the relevant one(s) to the problem should be employed:
1. •••••• !"#$%&: Selecting the best alternative from a given set '.
2. •••••• !"#$%(: Sorting the alternatives in predefined homogenous groups.
3. •••••• !"#$%): Ranking the alternatives on set ' from the best one to the worst one.
4. •••••• !"#$%*:Describing the alternatives based on their features and performances
on the criteria.
Doumpos and Zopouidis (2002, pp. 2-3) point out that for choice and ranking problematics
the relative judgments of alternatives are analyzed, meanwhile sorting problematic focuses
on the absolute judgments mostly. Chen (2006) also adds that different techniques are used
to handle different problems. For instance, screening (i.e. sequential elimination)
techniques are widely applied for choice and sorting problems as achieving a final choice
is challenging with limited information or many alternatives (Chen, 2006).
Since the type of problems and their purposes are varied, the MCDA approaches are
abundant. These different methods have different model formulations as well as different
model development processes. To categorize the MCDA methods, several groups are
introduced by different researchers. This thesis follows the classification by Pardalos et al.
(1995), which is introduced as the modern theoretical streams of MCDA. The proposed
four streams with their interactions with the decision problems are presented in Figure 3-4:
19
Decision making
problems
Continuous Discrete
Multi-objective Value systems Disaggregation –

Outranking relations
optimization approach aggregation approach
Figure 3-4. Four main streams in MCDA (Adapted from Doumpos & Zopouidis, 2002, p. 44)
Doumpos and Zopouidis (2002, p. 44) state that each solid line represents a direct
interaction while each dashed line shows an indirect interaction. Because the mode choice
problem is discrete and all streams have direct or indirect relation with discrete problems,
they are all briefly explored to select the most appropriate one to model the transport mode
choice problem.
As presented in Chapter 1.2, the conventional choice models follow a specific overarching
framework (see Figure 1-1) to analyze the mode choice behavior. Since this thesis aimed
to find a suitable MCDA approach that can follow the same framework and employ the
same input data with discrete choice models, the model development processes and input
requirements of given MCDA streams shall be explored. In this regard, for comparing the
MCDA streams and choosing the suitable one, the selection criteria were determined as
follows:
1. The type of decision problem (i.e. discrete or continuous problem)
2. The nature of the input data
3. The type of model development process (i.e. forward or backward structure and
interactive procedure or not)
4. The expected outcome
The discussions on the given MCDA streams are provided below including their
performances on the selection criteria. After the introduction of four streams, a summary
table will be presented to compare their performances on the criteria and the selection will
be made.
3.2.1 Multi-objective optimization approach

The multi-objective mathematical programming (MMP) theory and its algorithms were
developed in 1970s, based on the mathematical programming theory. In 1980s, during
which the number of researches on MCDA was increasing, multi-objective programming
was started to be applied in MCDA to model behavioral decisions and aid the process
(Korhonen, 2005). As a part of the mathematical programming, MMP is applied to the
20
cases in which multiple and conflicting objective functions shall be optimized for a feasible
decision set, defined by Ehrgott and Wiecek (2005). The general framework of this
approach is presented in Figure 3-5.
Multi-objective
DM’s satisfaction Multi-objective
mathematical
levels and/or optimization Decision
programming
utility model techniques
formulation
Interactive procedure
Figure 3-5. The multi-objective optimization approach (Source: Siskos & Spyridakos, 1999)
As seen from the framework, firstly a mathematical formulation is provided as:
•••/• !"""{#$ (•), #% (•), … , #& (•)}

s.t. •" ' *
in which • represents the decision variable vectors, #& (•) is the objective function for
given variables and * is the feasible set of solutions (Doumpos & Zopouidis, 2002, p. 45).
An important remark is that there is no discrete alternative in MMP, although some

exceptions exist such as discrete MMPs but rarely applied. The discrete MMPs may have
finite feasible set considering only integer values in the scope of multi-objective integer
programs (MOIP). Yet their practical solutions are still limited as existing solution methods
are not sufficient enough (Ehrgott & Wiecek, 2005). Therefore, the feasible set of
alternatives is taken as continuous for MMP in general, which means the type of decision
problem is continuous. Due to the nature of the problem and since the objectives are
conflicting, the model aims to find a proper “compromise” solution instead of an optimal
one as an expected outcome. This is because there is no feasible optimal solution found to
satisfy the optimization of all objectives, as stated by Doumpos and Zopouidis (2002, pp.
45-46). Moreover, the efficient set is sufficient to be observed while searching for a
compromise solution instead of the whole feasible set, considering the Pareto efficiency in
which the Pareto efficient solutions are not dominated by any other solutions in a given set
(Doumpos & Zopouidis, 2002, p. 46).
It is also stated that the characteristics of a feasible set are not necessarily fit into linear
curves, such that the objective functions may not be in linear forms only. Doumpos and
Zopouidis (2002, p. 46) mention that MMP utilizes interactive and iterative procedures to
facilitate the search of the whole efficient set without a linear form. As shown in Figure
3-5, Korhonen (2005) introduces the interactive procedure as it consists of the dialogue
and computation steps iteratively until finding the final solution. In other words, the initial
solution obtained with MMP is shown to the DM. The satisfaction level and/or the
preference information of the DM based on a utility model is evaluated. If necessary,
possible improvements could be achieved with new solutions and these steps are repeated
iteratively until the desired final solution is obtained. It can be said that the preference
information asked from a DM includes the weighting vectors of attributes based on their
importance and reference points for all criteria implying the satisfaction levels as input data
21
(Vanderpooten, 1989). Moreover, such models follow a forward modeling structure since
the actual decisions of DMs are unknown and the models try to find a compromise solution
based on the satisfaction levels.
Stewart et al. (2008) provide a range of case studies in which a multi-objective optimization
has been applied. To illustrate, the application areas are aerodynamic design (Obayashi et
al., 2000; Olhofer et al., 2000; Hasenjager et al., 2005), medical decision making (Stewart
et al., 2008), multi-location optimization in supply network planning, production planning,
detailed scheduling, land use planning (Stewart et al., 2004) and engineering design
problems.
3.2.2 Value systems approach

The purpose of the value systems approach is to generate a value system in which the DM’s
preferences are aggregated to the given criteria. This value system has assumptions that the
preference relations between alternatives are complete and transitive, and the estimation of
the system aims to provide a final decision in a quantitative way (Siskos & Spyridakos,
1999). The general framework of this approach is presented in Figure 3-6.
DM’s
preferences
Aggregation of Value or utility

Decision
DM’s preferences system
Problem
Figure 3-6. The value systems approach (Source: Siskos & Spyridakos, 1999)
There are many MCDA methods developed in the literature which follow this approach,
but have different modeling and/or estimation characteristics in the value system. The most
widely known and applied ones are briefly introduced as follows:
MAUT – Multi-attribute utility theory: This method aims to represent the DM’s
preferences in terms of a utility function •( ), in which indicates the criteria vector. It
helps a DM to analyze the trade-offs among different attributes. There are several versions
of MAUT. The ordinal additive multi-attribute preference model represents the utility
function as in an additive form (Doumpos & Zopouidis, 2002, pp. 48-49):
•( ) = !" #" ( ") + !$ #$ ( $) + % + !& #& ( &)
in which #& ( & ) is the marginal utility function of relevant criterion & showing its value
and !& is a parameter value showing the trade-off of relevant criterion, which is also called
as the weight of a criterion. Moreover, the sum of weights is equal to one, which provides
a DM with an opportunity of direct comparison of attributes as they are expressed in
quantitative terms with rescaling. The additive utility preference model has an assumption
22
of mutual preferential independence and is widely applied when the uncertainty level is
low (Dyer, 2005).
Toloie-Eshlaghy and Homayonfar (2011) provide the application areas of MCDA methods
and present that MAUT has been applied in environmental management, water
management, business, financial management, manufacturing and assembly, agriculture
and managerial and strategic planning. Linkov et al. (2006) also review an application of
MAUT in environmental risk assessment and adaptive management. Other areas are
health-care (Torrance et al., 1982), sustainable energy planning (Pohekar &
Ramachandran, 2004) and supplier selection and order allocation (Sanayei et al., 2008).
AHP – The Analytic hierarchy process: This method is descriptive and provides a
relative measurement of both tangible and intangible criteria according to both the
available measurement information and the judgments of DMs (Saaty, 2005). According
to Doumpos and Zopouidis (2002, p. 56), the procedure follows four steps which are:
1. Hierarchical problem structure, in which the problem objective, criteria, sub-
criteria and objects to be measured are ordered respectively in a hierarchical
structure.
2. Data input, where the pairwise comparisons of elements at each hierarchical level
are done based on a 9-point scale defined by Saaty (2005).
3. Relative weight estimation of the criteria, where the weight of each criterion is
calculated based on pairwise comparisons utilizing a matrix.
4. Alternative evaluations based on relative weights of criteria, in which the relative
weights are combined and the criteria is aggregated to find each alternative’s total
value.
As seen from the procedure, AHP provides the prioritization of criteria to evaluate the
alternative utilities based on that. It is designed for the cases including benefits, costs,
opportunities and risks (Saaty, 2005). AHP has many applications in various research areas.
For instance, Subramanian and Ramanathan (2012) provide a review of AHP applications
in operations management area, more specifically in operations strategy, product and
process design, planning and scheduling resources, project management and supply chain
management. Ho (2008) reviews AHP applications in various areas such as business,
manufacturing, environment, education, agriculture, military, government, health-care and
logistics. According to the paper, in logistics, the main focus is on supplier, location and
route selection problems.
BWM – Best-worst multi-criteria decision making method: BWM is a novel

MCDA method which introduces a new structured way for pairwise comparisons.
According to Rezaei (2015), the inconsistent pairwise comparison matrices are frequently
observed in empirical studies. The paper adds that the direction and strength are the two
elements that a DM considers while making pairwise comparisons of criteria, in which the
direction could be more easily expressed but the strength is difficult to decide and mostly
the source of inconsistency. To deal with this problem, BWM proposes the following
procedure (Rezaei, 2015; Rezaei, 2016):
1. The evaluation criteria determination
23
2. The determination of the best (i.e. most desirable) and the worst (i.e. least desirable)
criteria
3. The pairwise comparisons of the best criteria over all other criteria based on a 9-
point scale
4. The pairwise comparisons of all criteria over the worst criteria based on a 9-point
scale
5. Optimal criteria weight estimation with a non-linear minmax problem formulation
6. Criteria aggregation to find the final value of each alternative
This method provides more consistent pairwise comparisons of criteria with less
comparison data, and presents the criteria weights in a more reliable way with respect to
consistency ratio compared to the conventional matrix-based MCDA methods (Rezaei,
2015; Rezaei, 2016). BWM has been applied in broad research areas although it is a new
method. To illustrate, supplier development and segmentation activities (Rezaei et al.,
2015), supplier selection process (Rezaei et al., 2016b), air freight transportation and
logistics chain (Rezaei et al., 2016a), risk assessment in business continuity management
(Torabi et al., 2016), innovation for micro-small and medium enterprises (Gupta & Barua,
2016) and supply chain sustainability in oil and gas industry (Sadaghiani et al., 2015) are
some application areas.
As seen from the examples, the methods in value systems approach vary in terms of their
characteristics. Yet, general conclusions can be derived for the selection criteria
considering the general framework of this stream. The methods of this family deal with
discrete decision problems, as the discrete alternatives are provided to DMs. The required
input data on DM’s preferences varies depending on the selected method, but it can be
inferred that the information on pairwise comparisons of attributes or the best and worst
criteria might be needed. Moreover, the model development process is forward because the
preferences of DM are aggregated according to the given criteria to select the best decision.
Lastly, the available data is expected to be sufficient to find the optimal solution. Therefore,
the interactive process with the DM is not needed.
3.2.3 Outranking relation approach

Outranking relation theory (ORT) presents a binary relation of alternatives indicating
which alternative is preferred to another one at what level. The outranking relation
approach follows two steps in its procedure, which are (1) the outranking relations are
developed based on the aggregation of DM’s preferences and (2) the constructed
outranking relations are utilized in evaluating the alternatives based on the decision
objective. The general framework of this approach is presented in Figure 3-7.
24
DM’s
preferences
Aggregation of
Exploitation of the
DM’s preferences Aid the DM to
constructed
and construction take a
outranking
of the outranking “good”decision
relations
relations
Problem
Figure 3-7. The outranking relation approach (Source: Siskos & Spyridakos, 1999)
As Siskos and Spyridakos (1999) state that ORT performs more than a mathematical
modeling by the utilization of outranking relations, such that the outcome is not bounded
by a model but is called as “good” decision providing aid to the decision process.
Furthermore, as explained by Doumpos and Zopouidis (2002, pp. 50-51), ORT holds two
main assumptions different than MAUT, which are:
· The outranking relations of alternatives are not transitive, which means if
alternative • is preferred to alternative •, and alternative • is preferred to , it is not
necessarily that alternative ! is preferred to alternative . Luce (1956, as cited in
Doumpos & Zopouidis 2002, p. 50) proves there are some situations in which
transitivity is not valid.
· ORT allows the incomparability relation between alternatives where their
comparison is almost impossible or difficult, meanwhile MAUT takes into account
only the preferential or indifferent relations.
ORT requires some specific information from the DM such as the significance levels of
the criteria, and the preference, indifference and veto thresholds. After the outranking
relations are developed through the available information, they are exploited to evaluate
alternatives with some heuristic approaches (Doumpos & Zopouidis, 2002, p. 52). The
most widely applied ORT methods are presented as follows:
ELECTRE methods: These methods follow two aforementioned steps in their procedure.
In order to apply ELECTRE, there should be at least three criteria but actually the method
works better for cases with more than five criteria. Figueira et al. (2005) point out that
ELECTRE works in cases the criteria aggregation becomes difficult due to the significant
heterogeneity among criteria or a DM prefers a non-compensatory aggregation of the
criteria. The paper also states that importance coefficients and veto thresholds express the
relative importance of criteria. However, the importance coefficients, which are also
referred to as “weights”, are not accepted as the substitution rates of attributes, such as in
value systems methods. This is because in ELECTRE non-compensatory aggregation is
done. Moreover, the veto threshold indicates the power of an attribute not supporting the
claim of ! is preferred over •, where the difference between the values of ! and • on the
criterion is larger than the threshold (Figueira et al., 2005). Govindan and Jepsen (2016)
review the literature to study the application areas of ELECTRE methods. According to
the paper, the main areas of ELECTRE are natural resources and environmental
management, business, energy management, design and manufacturing systems,
construction and transportation engineering, logistics, supply chain management,
25
information technology, finance, policy and social issues, chemical engineering,

agriculture, health-care and safety.
PROMETHEE methods: PROMETHEE methods also follow the general procedure of

outranking relation approach. However, these methods require specific type of information
from a DM which are: (1) information between the criteria and (2) information within each
criterion. Brans and Mareschal (2005) explain the former one as any information that
includes the perception of the DM with priorities. In other words, the DM provides the
weights of criteria based on his/her priorities. The paper introduces the latter one as the
pairwise comparisons of alternatives on each criterion provide the required information.
Brans and Mareschal (2005) add that the deviation between differences of alternatives
provides the preference and/or indifference information. Behzadian et al. (2010) present a
review on the application areas of PROMETHEE, which are environmental management,
water management, business, financial management, manufacturing, logistics and
transportation, energy management, chemistry and social issues. Particularly,
PROMETHEE has been used for location, routing, outsourcing and supplier selection
problems in logistics.
The methods in ORT provide aid for discrete decision problems. As seen from the example
methods, the input data requires different kind of information such as the weights of
criteria, veto threshold values, as well as preference and indifference relations. The
modeling process has a forward structure since the preferences are aggregated to aid the
decision process integrating the outranking relations. Moreover, the process does not have
any interactive and iterative procedure.
3.2.4 Disaggregation – aggregation approach

Aggregation methods assume that the criteria aggregation model is provided beforehand
whereas the global preference of DMs is not known. However, the disaggregation methods
incorporate the criteria with given global preferences to predict the preference behavior
(Jacquet-Lagreze & Siskos, 2001). In this regard, it can be inferred that preference
disaggregation – aggregation (PDA) approach is very different from the conventional
MCDA techniques, such as MAUT and ORT. As Siskos and Spyridakos (1999) state, the
purpose of PDA is to provide a decision aid to improve the understanding of the DM on
the problem and his/her preferences to come up with a consistent decision, and analyze this
behavioral and cognitive process. To explain further, the general framework of PDA is
presented as in Figure 3-8.
As depicted in Figure 3-8, PDA provides with a preference model based on the given
criteria and the global judgment of the DM (i.e. the actual decisions of the DM) which
analyze the system of preferences as consistent as possible to the actual decisions. On one
hand, Doumpos and Zopouidis (2002, p. 52) point out that in MAUT and ORT, the DM
provides any required specific information on the decision process by communicating with
the analyst frequently and the criteria are aggregated with a modeling to determine the best
decision. On the other hand, they add that the process of PDA is backward compared to
MAUT and ORT, in which the actual decision of the DM is used to observe its relationship
with the given criteria. After the preference model is built, the DM’s decision is reproduced
as consistent as possible with the actual decision and the criteria weights are found
26
(Doumpos & Zopouidis, 2002, p. 52). The paper also mentions that the framework of
regression analysis in statistics and econometrics looks similar to the PDA approach.
Decision data - DM’s

Criteria modeling global judgment
policy
Problem
Consistency of the
Preference model
preference model and
construction
DM’s judgment policy
Decision
Figure 3-8. The disaggregation-aggregation approach (Source: Siskos & Spyridakos, 1999)
To reflect the performance of PDA on the selection criteria, PDA deals with discrete
decision problems, employs the actual decisions (i.e. the global judgment policy) of DM
based on the given criteria as an input data and has a backward structure. It is because PDA
compares the preference model outcomes with the actual decisions of DM to the
consistency in decisions. Therefore, the expected outcome is the consistency between the
model prediction and the DM’s global judgments. Moreover, the data is enough to provide
decision aiding, so no interactive process with the DM is needed. Siskos et al. (2005)
mention some application areas of PDA methods, which are portfolio selection and
management, venture capital evaluation, business failure prediction, business financing,
country risk assessment, consumer behavior, customer satisfaction, marketing and sales
strategies, project evaluation and environmental management.
Comparison of given MCDA approaches

Considering all of the aforementioned MCDA approaches, their performances on the
selection criteria are summarized and presented in Table 3-1 for comparison purposes. This
research aims to find the most suitable MCDA method as an alternative method to the
discrete choice model, specifically to the MNL model. Thus, the expected performances
on the selection criteria can be specified in such a way that the discrete mode choice
problem will be modeled, the DM’s choices based on the given choice sets will be used as
an input data and the consistency of the predicted behavior with an observed behavior will
be checked to describe the choice behavior. Since the available choice data is sufficient, no
interactive process and/or frequent communication with a DM is needed.
27
Table 3-1. The performances of the given MCDA approaches on the selection criteria
Type of Nature of the input data Type of the model Expected outcome
decision development
problem process
Multi-objective Continuous DM’s preferences: weighting · Forward Compromise
optimization vectors of attributes & DM’s · Interactive & solution
approach satisfaction levels on iterative
attributes
Value systems Discrete DM’s preferences: pairwise · Forward Optimal decision
approach comparisons of attributes or · Not interactive based on value
the best and worst criteria & iterative system
Outranking Discrete Preference and indifference · Forward Decision aid for a
relation relations, weights of criteria · Not interactive good decision
approach & veto thresholds & iterative
Disaggregation Discrete DM’s global judgment policy · Backward Consistency of the
– aggregation (i.e. actual decisions) based · Not interactive model prediction
approach on a given criteria & iterative with actual
decisions
According to the expected performances on the selection criteria and the summary table,
the PDA approach seems the most appropriate and the efficient one to model the mode
choice behavior. The reasoning of this choice on each criterion can be explained more
specifically as follows:
1. The type of decision problem & the type of the model development process: The
transportation mode choice behavior is formulated as a discrete problem, since there
is a set of discrete alternatives and it is expected to make a choice among the given set.
Among four MCDA approaches, MMP is widely applied to the continuous problems
because the given feasible dataset is continuous. Meanwhile, MAUT, ORT and PDA
work well with discrete problems because they require a discrete set of alternatives to
be analyzed. Thus, MMP is eliminated in the first step. In fact, there is also a discrete
MMP applied rarely. Even if there is a possibility of using MMP for discrete problems,
it still requires an interactive procedure to check the DM’s satisfaction level with
iterative solution rounds. With the choice datasets, the given information is fixed and
sufficient. Therefore interactive procedures do not fit for this research.
Additionally, the framework of PDA is backward because the actual decisions of the
DM are known beforehand and the model predictions are compared to the observed
actual decisions to analyze the behavioral and cognitive process. It fits to the
overarching framework of choice models as explained in Chapter 1.2. However, in
other approaches this process has a forward structure, since the actual decisions are
not known and the best or a good decision based on the available information is sought.
This is also because the choice models and PDA methods are disaggregate while other
MCDA approaches are aggregate. The disaggregate characteristic of the PDA also
contributes to its descriptive value for behavioral studies.
28
2. The nature of the input data: The same data will be applied to the MNL model and
the selected MCDA approach in an empirical study. Therefore, the required data type
should be the same or at least similar to both methods. In MNL model, the choice data
on possible alternatives is gathered by choice sets. In this way, the MCDA method
should be able to utilize the actual decision dataset as well. It is observed that MAUT
and ORT determine the best and good decisions at the end of the decision making
process, respectively, and are not able to process the given actual decisions in their
procedures. However, PDA is able to process the actual decision dataset integrated
with criteria.
Moreover, in most methods of MAUT and ORT, the analyst requests a specific
information from the DM on the decision process such as the significance of criteria
(i.e. criteria weights or ranking), the pairwise comparison of criteria, information
within each criterion or a set of priorities, etc. The choice sets of discrete choice model
do not include these specific information but only the choices. Among MCDA
approaches, PDA can work with the given actual decisions of the DM without any
other additional aforementioned information. Some PDA methods can also integrate
these specific information (see Cook & Kress, 1991), however it is not a requirement.
Therefore, PDA seems more appropriate than other options.
3. The expected outcome: The discrete choice MNL model analyzes the consistency of
the DM’s choices with the suggested alternative by model simulation. Therefore, the
information on the consistency of choices (or actual decisions) and model prediction
results would be useful for validation purposes and also for comparison of the MNL
and selected MCDA model. In this regard, the PDA approach, which provides the
consistency of the preference model and the DM’s global judgment, seems the efficient
one.
The next step was to select one method from PDA approach to be used in comparative
analyses with the MNL model. Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos (2001) indicate that the goal
programming techniques were the beginning of the use of PDA approach for multi-criteria
analysis, which utilize a linear programming. The paper adds that several versions were
developed in PDA approach: At first, the idea of ordinal regression model was proposed
by Srinivasan and Shoker (1973) including the disaggregation of pairwise comparisons in
value functions. Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos (1978, 1982) involve the use of an additive
utility function in an ordinal multi-criteria regression analysis. The consistency of the DM’s
given global judgment and preference model is ensured optimally in UTA method
proposed by Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos (1978). Thus, as it is a practical method with an
additive utility function and conditions for ensuring the optimality, UTA-type methods are
selected for further exploration.
3.2.4.1 UTA methods

UTA method is one of the widely applied and representative examples of the
disaggregation – aggregation approach. It possesses the axiomatic properties of MAUT in
a basis, considering the use of additive utility function. However, it employs multiple
additive utility function while MAUT derives a single one (Jacquet-Lagreze & Siskos,
1982). UTA follows an ordinal regression technique in order to infer a set of additive value
29
functions with the help of a DM’s given global ranking of alternatives. A linear
programming (LP) approach is applied to assess the additive value functions such that the
parameters of these functions are optimally derived, and the model prediction is as
consistent as possible with the given ranking of alternatives (Jacquet-Lagreze & Siskos,
1982; Jacquet-Lagreze & Siskos, 2001).
The additive utility function is defined by Keeney and Raiffa (1976, as cited in Jacquet-
Lagreze & Siskos, 2001):
%
•( ) = ! "# $# ( # )
#&'
subject to normalization constraints:
*
$# ( #* ) = 0, $# ( #) = 1+++-. = 1, 2, … /
%
! "# = 1
#&'
in which the alternatives are given in a reference set 3, evaluated based on the criteria =
( ' , 4 , … , % ), $# indicates the non-decreasing marginal utility functions of each criterion
level, and "# represents the weight. However, the UTA method derives the unweighted
value function, which also represents the criteria aggregation model, as follows (Jacquet-
Lagreze & Siskos, 2001):
%
•( ) = ! $# ( # )
#&'
subject to normalization constraints:
$# ( #* ) = 0+
%
*
! $# ( #) = 1 ++++-. = 1, 2, … /
#&'
The paper also adds that the marginal utility functions hold the monotonicity property, as
well as the global utility functions. Therefore, if alternative • is preferred to 6, the global
value of • is larger than that of 6. If both alternatives are indifferent to each other, their
global values are equal to each other. Moreover, this method holds the assumption of
mutual preferential independence like the other additive utility preference models.
UTA uses an input data of a reference set 3 with the weak order preferences of the DM on
alternatives (i.e. ranking) 7 = (8, 9). The preferences are given based on the level of the
given criteria = ( ' , 4 , … , % ). UTA applies a linear interpolation with piecewise linear
functions for each criterion in estimating the marginal utility of each criterion level. For
this purpose, the interval between the lower and upper levels of each criterion is divided
<
into (:# ; 1) equal pieces, and the last points # are found as follows (Siskos et al., 2005):
< ?;1 *
# = #* > ( # ; # * )++++-? = 1, … , :#
:# ; 1
The linear interpolation provides the marginal utility, such as the following:
30
$
$ ! (") & ! $'* $
• [! (")] = • #! % + $'* $
[• #! % & • #! %]
! &!
Furthermore, the UTA method defines a possible error term in estimating the global utility
of an alternative " , -:
4
/ [!(")]
. = 0 • [! (")] + 1(")2223" , -
5*
To be able to formulate the linear programming problem using the available information,
UTA firstly looks at the pairwise comparison of the given alternatives by utilizing the given
ranking. The 6 alternatives are ordered from the best to worst according to the weak order
preferences. Then, the following relations are determined for each consecutive alternative:
. / [!("7 )] & . / [!("7'* )] 8 92222:;;22"7 <"7'*
. / [!("7 )] & . / [!("7'* )] = >2222:;;22"7 ?"7'*
where < refers to a preference, ? refers to an indifferent relation and 9 is a small positive
number indicating the utility difference of two consecutive alternatives. Using all of the
information, UTA formulates the following LP and aims to minimize the total sum of error
terms (Siskos et al., 2005):
min @ = 0 1(")
A,B
s.t.
. / [!("7 )] & . / [!("7'* )] 8 92222:;22"7 <"7'*
. / [!("7 )] & . / [!("7'* )] = >2222:;22"7 ?"7'*
$'* $
• #! % & • #! % 8 >222223:C D
4
0 • (!E ) = F
5*
$
• (! E ) = >C • #! % 8 >C 1(") 8 >22223:C D2"GH23" , -
In fact, to satisfy the monotonicity of preferences the marginal values are defined as (Siskos
$'* $
et al., 2005): • #! % & • #! % 8 I 222223:C D , where I is a non-negative indifference
threshold for each criterion. However, Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos (1982) emphasize that
this threshold is not required for UTA model, so this thesis also assumes that I = >.
The optimal solution @ E is found by the LP, yet there is a possibility of having multiple
optimal solutions which means that the polyhedron of feasible solutions is not empty,
satisfying the given J = (<C ?). In this case, the post-optimality analysis is applied as a
stability analysis. Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos (1978) propose a new constraint to the
model:
0 1(") K @ E + L
A,B
in which L is a small positive number. The paper states that the partial exploration of each
criterion can be conducted and the extreme optimal functions can be found for each
criterion with a sensitivity analysis. The average of these extreme value functions is
considered as the final solution. Siskos et al. (2005) add that if there is a large variation
31
between the extreme values of the criteria, the average value function represents the DM
less. Yet, it provides an information on the significance of the criteria. Therefore, Jacquet-
Lagreze and Siskos (1982) present the following LPs to be solved for each criterion (as
cited in Siskos et al., 2005):
min !" (#"$ ) max !" (#"$ )
s.t. and s.t.
%&& '*+,-.%/+-, *0 123 %&& '*+,-.%/+-, *0 123
Several variants of UTA method have been improved with different developments.
Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos (1982) propose an extension in case the subjective preference
inferred from pairwise comparisons is not transitive. The paper also mentions how to
handle a case with antisymmetric subjective preference by minimizing the number of
violated relations in 4 . The UTASTAR method introduces double error terms for
overestimation and underestimation and improves the expression of marginal values with
a new variable to satisfy monotonicity conditions well (Siskos & Yannacopoulos, 1985).
This new variable also helps to express the weights of criteria in additive value function.
Despotis and Zopounidis (1993) claim that the real-world problems may not hold the
monotonicity conditions, so they developed an extension of UTASTAR for non-monotonic
marginal utility functions. Siskos et al. (2005) mention that one version of UTA considers
the intensity of preferences if the DM specifies the intensity between different ranks. Siskos
(1982) combines the fuzzy outranking relations with the additive value functions by UTA.
A stochastic UTA is also developed by Siskos (1983) for stochastic systems.
Some meta-UTA methods are also developed such as UTAMP, UTAMIME, UTADIS and
ACUTA. Beuthe and Scannella (2001) propose UTAMP methods to find the optimal
values of 5 and ," , since these parameters are arbitrary in UTA model. Despotis et al.
(1990, as cited in Beuthe & Scannella, 2001) propose UTAMIME method, which
minimizes the difference between the maximum and minimum error terms if the initial
solution gives non-zero error terms. UTADIS method and its variants are developed for
classification problems instead of ranking (Devaud et al., 1980; Jacquet-Lagreze, 1995;
Zopounidis & Doumpos, 2001; Doumpos & Zopounidis, 2002). Lastly, the ACUTA
method is derived to find the analytic center of a polyhedron as an alternative approach
since the average function of UTA in post-optimality analysis may not provide the nearest
optimal solution (Bous et al., 2010).
The UTASTAR and ACUTA methods will be applied to the empirical study in Chapter 4
to compare their outcomes with the MNL model. UTASTAR is selected since it improves
the error term expression and provides the criteria weights explicitly compared to UTA.
Moreover, ACUTA is selected since it introduces a novel way to be able to find the nearest
optimal solution in case of multiple optimal solutions. The results of UTASTAR and
ACUTA will also be compared and explained with a case study in Chapter 4. Before
implementing a case study, the brief explanations of UTASTAR and ACUTA are
presented.
UTASTAR model algorithm

UTASTAR is an improved version of the UTA method, which holds the same assumptions
and properties. Firstly, in UTASTAR, double error terms for overestimation and
32
underestimation are introduced and employed, instead of using a single error term. Siskos
and Yannacopoulos (1985) claim that the single error term may not work well in
minimization of all points at the monotone curve. Therefore, the double error terms are
proposed in estimation of the global utilities of alternatives:
1
• [!(")] = • $% [!% (")] & ' * (") + ' , (")---." / 0

%23
The graphical representation of these error terms is provided in Figure 3-9.
Ranking
Global value
Figure 3-9. Ordinal regression curve (Retrieved from Siskos et al., 2005)
The second improvement in UTASTAR is the transformation of the monotonicity

constraints into a new variable (Siskos et al., 2005):
5*3 5
4%5 = $% 6!% 7 & $% 6!% 7 8 9-----.: = ;< … < >-">?-@ = ;< … < A% & ;
The input data of UTASTAR method is the same as the input for UTA, in which the weak
order preferences of alternatives based on the given criteria set are provided. In order to
infer the additive utility functions and the criteria weights, UTASTAR follows the given
steps (Siskos et al., 2005):
1. Definition of marginal values and then the global values in terms of the variables:
• (!" ) = 0
$9"
$
• #! % = & ' *+ ++++++,- = 1. … /+2/3+4 = 5.6. … . 7 8 1
*:"
2. Expression of the pairwise utility comparisons of consecutive alternatives based on
the given ranking, considering the double error terms:
•(2< . 2<>" ) = ?[!(2< )] 8 @ > (2< ) A @ 9 (2< ) 8 ?[!(2<>" )] A @ > (2<>" )
8 @ 9 (2<>" )
3. Formulation of an LP according to the available information:
"
min = ![ & ' ()# * + & , ()# *]

#$%
33
s.t.
•( ! , !"# ) $ %&&&&'*&& ! + !"# &&&&&&-.
•( !, )
!"# = 0&&&&'*&& ! / !"# &&&&&&&-.
: 67 8#
1 1 234 = 5
39# 49#
234 $ 0, ; " ( !) $ 0, ; 8 ( !) $ 0&&&&-', <, .
4. Post-optimality analysis is conducted in case of multiple optimal solutions by
adding a new constraint to the LP problem as in UTA: > ? > @ A B, where B is a
small positive number. The new LP is solved for each criterion separately by
maximizing the marginal utility of the relevant criterion:
67 8#
max C3 (D3@ ) = 1 234 &&&-' = 5, … , E

49#
The average of these additive value functions provides the nearest optimal solution
in the polyhedron, which is a final solution.
ACUTA model algorithm

Analytic Center UTA (ACUTA) is a meta-UTA method proposed by Bous et al. (2010),
which introduces a new way of finding a central solution in the polyhedron of feasible
additive value functions in case of multiple optimal solutions. Other meta-UTA techniques
and different variants of UTA propose different default rules of handling the multiple
optimal solutions, since DM could ask the most representative additive utility function. For
instance, UTASTAR model applies the post-optimality analysis by finding the extreme
solutions for each criterion and takes the mean of extreme values to find the final solution.
X2
0 1 X1
1
Figure 3-10. A graphical representation of the multiple optimal solutions
An example of graphical representation of the multiple optimal solutions is provided in

Figure 3-10, in which the constraints bound the polyhedron and the shaded region indicates
the feasible solutions. By considering the points on |PQ| provide the optimal results, the
1The graph is retrieved from a lecture on Linear Programming Graphical Method – Multiple Optimal
Solutions, which can be found at the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtGYv4kei4o
34
default rule of UTASTAR states that the mean value within |PQ| provides the central
solution as a nearest optimal one. However, due to lack of information it is unknown
whether the actual nearest optimal solution is closer to P or Q, despite the assumption of
the UTASTAR. To solve the issue, ACUTA employs a different approach to find the
central solution. Bous et al. (2010) point out that centrality cannot be inferred easily with
linear objective functions and LP, so they propose utilizing a non-linear objective function
to extract the centrality. Moreover, this model provides the final solution with one step
without requiring an additional analysis, such as post-optimality analysis.
In this regard, the mathematical formulation of ACUTA is presented as follows (Bous et

al., 2010):
$%& - *, %&
max • !"# + • • !"()

#'& ('& )'&
s.t.
./0# 1 2 ./0#3& 1 2 4 = "# 55556750# 80#3&
./0# 1 2 ./0#3& 1 = 955556750# :0#3&
)3& )
"() = ;( <>( ? 2 ;( <>( ? 2 @
-
• ;( />(A 1 = B
('&
)
"# C 9D "() C 9D ;( />( A 1 = 9D ;( <>( ? C 95555E6D FD G
where "# and "() refer to the slack variables, 4 is a positive small number and @ is a non-
negative indifference threshold parameter. ACUTA aims to maximize the sum of slacks,
in other words tries to maximize the difference between global values of alternatives based
on a given ranking. In UTA and UTASTAR, 4 parameter is rather an arbitrary one and it
forces the LP to fix the difference of global values at least to the 4 value. Meanwhile, 4
can be omitted in ACUTA since the objective function tries to maximize this difference
already.
Bous et al. (2010) also state that ACUTA provides a central and unique solution that
satisfies the monotonicity and normalization constraints. The paper however emphasizes
that the unique and central solution does not necessarily imply a better representation of
the given preferences than other multi-optimal ones. However, it is argued that analytic
center solution creates a smaller variation than the ones on the boundary of the polyhedron
in representation. Bous et al. (2010) add that UTASTAR also aims to find the mean
function by going far from the polyhedron boundaries, which makes the outcome of
UTASTAR to be at least as good as that of ACUTA. Moreover, Bous et al. (2010) prove
with an empirical example that ACUTA provides a robust and stable model outcome with
a high accuracy level of representation.
35
4 Empirical study: Preference model design and analysis

An empirical study is conducted in this chapter to compare the performances of the selected
methods, which are MNL model from a discrete choice approach, as well as UTASTAR
and ACUTA from a preference disaggregation – aggregation approach in MCDA. Firstly,
the data selection process is explained for a case study in Chapter 4.1. Then, the application
of UTASTAR and ACUTA methods are presented in Chapter 4.2 and 4.3, respectively,
while the MNL models are also implemented in each part separately based on the
UTASTAR and ACUTA applications for the comparison purposes.
4.1 Data selection for an empirical study

The analysis on choices is conducted to explore the variation among behaviors of
individuals from a sampled population (Hensher et al., 2005, p. 72). Therefore, a choice
dataset collected from a relevant sample shall be utilized to model the transport mode
choice behavior. Since the scope of this research was bounded for container shippers’ mode
choice behavior, a data collected by Wanders (2014) on the container shippers operating
in the Port of Rotterdam – Venlo hinterland corridor was selected for the empirical study.
Only the gathered choice dataset was extracted from Wanders’ study and the further
estimations and analyses for the selected methods of MNL, UTASTAR and ACUTA were
performed in this thesis. This section explains how the data collection was conducted by
Wanders and provides the data characteristics.
The selected data was collected in the form of discrete choice sets from the container
shippers in the agriculture & food sector and manufacturing industry. In choice analyses,
the data can be gathered as either revealed preferences or stated preferences. As Hensher
et al. (2005, pp. 92, 96) state, the revealed preference data is used to observe the choices
made in actual markets, while the stated preference data delineates the choices for non-
occurred (i.e. hypothetical) cases. Both approaches have their own advantages and
disadvantages, but the selected data consists of the stated preferences of respondents.
To analyze the mode choice behavior, the data employs four affecting factors as the
evaluation attributes which are transport cost, travel time, CO2 emission and on-time
reliability. As mentioned in Chapter 2.2, there are many factors which influence the
transport mode choice behavior. However, cost, travel time and on-time reliability are the
most commonly applied factors in literature. Moreover, the CO2 emission shall be studied
more as the environmental concerns increase globally even in transport sector. Therefore,
the data is suitable for the purpose of this research.
Moreover, the choice analysis provides with two options in representing the alternatives,
which are labeled and unlabeled alternatives. Unlabeled alternatives do not convey any
information more than its levels for given attributes, and can be called such as Alternative
1, Alternative 2, etc. Meanwhile the labeled alternatives provide more specific information
to the DM about the characteristics of an alternative with a more evident name such as
railway or barge transport. The selected data consists of the unlabeled alternatives. The
advantages of the use of unlabeled ones are stated by Hensher et al. (2005, pp. 112-113):
· Unlabeled alternatives represent the universal set of alternatives so that the attribute
levels can also be used as broad as possible to cover many transport modes.
36
Chapter 4: Empirical study: Preference model design and analysis
· The labeled alternatives may influence the perception of the DM, which may cause
a correlation between the alternative name and the choice. This situation harms the
assumption of independently and identically distribution of error terms. Thus,
unlabeled ones may be preferred in an experimental design.
· The use of labeled alternatives may let the DM consider more attributes than the
given ones because of the experiences or general knowledge. However, less
attributes are sufficient to judge the unlabeled ones, which means a given smaller
experiment design is adequate for the model.
The determination of attribute levels is another critical step in an experimental design, since
the attribute levels affect the analysis directly to some extent. Wanders (2014) states that
keeping the number of levels high involves more information in utility space, yet it makes
the choice sets larger and/or more. It may cause a lower response rate or reliability.
Therefore, considering the real transport modes used in Rotterdam – Venlo corridor, as
well as their characteristics and extreme values, the attribute levels presented in Table 4-1
were selected in the data.
Table 4-1. The attribute levels (Adapted from Wanders, 2014)
Transport cost (€) Travel time (h) CO2 emission (kg) On-time reliability (%)
Level 1 150 3 20 75
Level 2 300 10 70 85
Level 3 450 17 120 95
The next step is to combine the alternatives with determined attribute levels. If all attribute
levels are matched with each other, it makes 3 = 81 different alternatives. However, this
approach does not help to conduct an efficient experiment. Therefore, the choice sets were
generated with optimal orthogonal design. This approach provides an efficient analysis
since orthogonality satisfies the independency of attributes levels from each other and
eliminates the correlations of attributes (Hensher et al., 2005, p. 115). Moreover, each
attribute level is distributed to the alternatives at the same amount, which gives a balanced
design (Wanders, 2014). As a result, 9 choice sets were generated where each one
represents 3 unlabeled alternatives and their levels for 4 attributes. In total, a respondent
was asked to evaluate 27 unlabeled alternatives. All 9 choice sets are presented in Appendix
I. As an example, one choice set in a survey is presented in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. An example of a choice set used in the survey (Adapted from Wanders, 2014)
Choice set 1 Transport cost Travel time CO2 emission On-time Choice
(€) (h) (kg) reliability (%)
Alternative 1 150 17 120 85
The determined choice sets were distributed in a survey form to the container shippers
operating in the Rotterdam – Venlo corridor, mainly importing and/or exporting. As a
result, 51 respondents filled in the survey at a sufficient amount with a total of 455
observations. In the dataset, each row represents one choice set and the choice of the
37
respondents. The data will be employed for the application of the selected methods in the
coming sub-chapters.
4.2 Application of UTASTAR

This sub-chapter presents the UTASTAR preference model design, the model estimation
and its analysis. The validation of the model is provided afterwards. Moreover, an MNL
model was developed and estimated by employing the same data with UTASTAR for
comparison purposes.
4.2.1 UTASTAR preference model design

As mentioned in Chapter 4.1, the selected data consists of the transport mode choices of
51 shippers based on the transport cost, travel time, CO2 emission and on-time reliability
values of alternatives. In each choice set, which is shown in Table 4-2, a respondent
provides her choice among 3 unlabeled alternatives. On the contrary, UTASTAR employs
the given global preferences of respondents for a given set of alternatives and attributes. It
can be seen that UTASTAR utilizes the ranking information in a model instead of a choice.
Yet, this thesis adapts the UTASTAR model formulation in a way such that the choice
information can be utilized too.
Firstly, in order to illustrate the adaptation of UTASTAR LP constraints into the choice
information, consider the choice set 1 presented in Table 4-3. By assuming that the
respondent chooses Alternative 2 among three options and by considering the regular input
data of UTASTAR, the table should be filled as depicted in Table 4-4.
Table 4-3. An example of a choice set with the choice of respondent
Table 4-4. An example of the regular input data of UTASTAR
Choice set 1 Transport cost Travel time CO2 emission On-time Ranking
Alternative 1 150 17 120 85 2
Alternative 2 300 3 20 95 1
Alternative 3 450 10 70 75 3
Based on the input data in Table 4-4, the constraints which indicate the utility differences
of the alternatives according to the ranking are written as follows:
•( !"#$%&"')#*2,*** !"#$%&"')#*1+ - .
/( !"#$%&"')#*1,*** !"#$%&"')#*3+ - .
To be able to employ the choice information presented in Table 4-3, the relevant constraints
were arranged as follows:
/( !"#$%&"')#*2,*** !"#$%&"')#*1+ - .
/( !"#$%&"')#*2,*** !"#$%&"')#*3+ - .
38
With this adaptation, the information on the relation between Alternative 1 and Alternative
3 is lost. However, the constraints can still satisfy the relation between the chosen
alternative and the remaining ones. Therefore, the analysis could be continued to model the
choice behavior.
Firstly, the scales of each attribute were specified. Since the scales and their directions are
the same for all 9 choice sets, the following piecewise linear functions and the variables
were used in each choice set:
[ "
!" , ! ] = [450, 300, 150]
[ "
#" , # ] = [17, 10, 3]
[ "
$" , $ ] = [120, 70, 20]
[ "
%" , % ] = [75, 85, 95]
1 1
w12• w22•
u1(g1) u2(g2)
w11• w21•
0 0
150 300 450 3 10 17
Transport cost Travel time
1 1
w32• w42•
u3(g3) u4(g4)
w31• w41•
0 0
20 70 120 75 85 95
CO2 emission On-time reliability
Figure 4-1. Piecewise linear curves of attributes indicating the normalized marginal utility values
The piecewise linear curves in Figure 4-1 represent the normalized marginal utility values
of attribute levels. According to the procedure of UTASTAR, the marginal utilities are not
normalized at first. However, the sum of &'( values is set to one. After determining the
final solution, the normalized marginal utilities of attributes will be calculated. Moreover,
the break point of the piecewise linear functions is unknown. The model estimation will
provide these points for all attributes. Therefore, the marginal utility levels of attributes
were defined and transformed into the variables as follows:
•• (300) !• (450) = "••
!• (150) !• (300) = "•#
!# (10) !# (17) = "#•
39
• (3) ! • (10) = "

•# (70) ! •# (120) = "#$
•# (20) ! • (70) = "#
•% (85) ! •% (75) = "%$
•% (95) ! •% (85) = "%
where the normalization conditions are: •$ (450) = • (17) = •# (120) = •% (75) = 0.
The global value of each alternative was expressed using these variables based on their
attribute values. Then, the utility difference constraints were formulated according to the
given choice, also by adding the overestimation and underestimation error terms.
4.2.2 UTASTAR model estimation

The constraints for an LP model were formulated using the available information in the
model design part. The next step is to formulate the whole LP model, and estimate the
model variables. Since the choice data was collected from 51 respondents, a separate final
solution could be found for each individual. For this purpose, the 51 different LP models
were constructed and solved for 51 shippers. Each LP model was generated according to
the given choice information on 9 choice sets, which means that each LP model has 9 &
2 = 18 utility difference constraints.
The mathematical optimization function of the Maple software was employed for solving
the LP models. For the respondents who are consistent in their choices for all 9 sets, an
optimal solution could be found. It provides with an additive utility function with the
criteria weights. An example of the LP formulation and its solution in Maple are presented
in Appendix II.
However, if some choices of the respondent in 9 choice sets are inconsistent, no feasible
solution was found for the LP model. In order to determine which choices of these
respondents lead to inconsistency, the following approach was followed:
1. The LP model including the constraints of all 9 choice sets was split into smaller
LP models in which each smaller LP model represents one choice set. It means that
9 LP models were obtained for each inconsistent respondent.
2. These 9 LP models were solved for each inconsistent respondent in Maple.
3. As a result, 9 different solutions where 9 additive utility functions and 9 criteria
weight sets were obtained for each respondent. These 9 solutions were replicated
one-by-one for each choice set of the respondent. Using the additive utility
functions, the global values of alternatives were determined. Afterwards, the choice
of the respondent and the alternative with the highest value were compared with
each other to identify whether they are matched. This step was performed for each
choice set using 9 additive utility functions one-by-one.
4. Based on the comparison in the previous step, the inconsistencies between the
DM’s choice and the model’s suggested choice were identified. The number of
inconsistencies per choice set was computed. It was observed that some choice sets
present a very high number of inconsistencies compared to the remaining choice
sets. This indicates that the choice of DM on such choice sets is the source of
inconsistency.
5. Therefore, these choice sets were excluded from the analysis for a relevant
respondent only. In other words, a new LP model was formulated for these
40
respondents excluding their inconsistent choice data. For example, if Shipper 5

provides inconsistent choices in 2 choice sets among 9 sets, these 2 choice sets and
the relevant data were excluded and a new LP model was developed with the
remaining 7 choice sets.
6. With the consistent choice data, an optimal solution was found for these
respondents. The additive value functions and criteria weights were obtained.
To visualize the process of determining the inconsistencies with the 9 LP models’

replication, the analysis on Shipper 5 is illustrated in Figure 4-2. The choice of Shipper 5
on each choice set is presented under DM’s Choice. The blue colored histograms represent
the global utility of alternatives based on LP solutions. As can be seen from the yellow
marked cells, the DM’s choice and the alternative with highest utility estimated by the
model are not matched for given models. Choice set 1 and Choice set 8 have the highest
inconsistency as 8 out of 9 LP models do not provide a consistent choice. Therefore, for
Shipper 5, these choice sets were excluded from the analysis.
In total, 10 out of the 51 respondents were found inconsistent in their choices and the
aforementioned approach was followed for all of them. 14 choice data rows were detected
as inconsistent out of 455 observations. Therefore, further analysis was executed for 441
observations. Once the UTASTAR algorithm was employed for all shippers and their
consistent choices, 51 criteria weight sets were obtained (See Appendix III for the whole
list). Moreover, the average weight was found for the whole sample, as presented in Table
4-5.
Table 4-5. The found criteria weights in UTASTAR
Shipper ID Transport cost Travel time CO2 emission On-time reliability

1 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
2 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
3 0.510 0.060 0.087 0.343
4 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
•
51 0.234 0.367 0.352 0.047
Average 0.402 0.265 0.126 0.207
The additive utility function for the whole sample could also be derived using the average
values of the attributes, which could be computed using the following equation:
(!) = 8948L"# (!# ) Q 89L;5"P (!P ) Q 891L;"% (!% ) Q 89L8M"& (!& )
The distribution of attribute weights will be provided and discussed in Chapter 5.1. Yet, it
could be noted here that according to the all criteria distributions, the average of weights
represents the sample quite well. Therefore, the average value was assumed to be an
additive utility function of the sample in this study.
41
Figure 4-2. The 9 LP models' replication on choice sets for Shipper 5
42
4.2.3 MNL model estimation based on UTASTAR application

The MNL model was formulated and estimated by employing the same data with
UTASTAR model for comparison purposes in this study. Biogeme software (Bierlaire,
2008) was used for solving the MNL model. The model variables and parameters were
defined in the mod-file of Biogeme. Moreover, the additive utility function of each
alternative in the choice set was formulated. The model was estimated according to the
maximum likelihood approach as discussed in Chapter 3.1.1.
Firstly, the whole data with 455 observations was employed as an input and the model
estimation was conducted. This estimation could be considered as a base MNL model.
Afterwards, the 14 inconsistent choice data rows found by UTASTAR model were
excluded also from the MNL dataset. The MNL model was also estimated for 441
observations including the consistent choices from respondents. Both estimations with the
Biogeme mod-file and output files are presented in Appendix IV. The estimated utility
parameters and the additive utility functions for the whole 455 observations and the
selected 441 observations are presented in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7, respectively.
Table 4-6. Estimated utility parameters of a base MNL model with 455 choice observations
Attribute parameters Value Rob. t-test Rob. p-value

• !"#$%&!'()&$' -0.00849 -13.73 0.00
• !"*+,('-.+ -0.0839 -8.34 0.00
•/01 (+.-$$-&# -0.00225 -1.39 0.16
•0#2'-.+(!+,-"3-,-'4 0.0610 6.90 0.00
Number of observations 455
Adjusted rho-square 0.412
Based on the outcomes presented in Table 4-6, the additive utility function estimated by a
base MNL model was formulated as:
56# = 78988:;<>?@ABCD?E(FDBE6# 7 898:G<>?@HIJ(EKLI6# 7 8988MMNOPQ ILKBBKDA6#
R 898ST8PA 7 EKLI(?IJK@UKJKEV6# R W6# ((((XY Z O#
Table 4-7. Estimated utility parameters of the MNL model with 441 consistent choice observations determined
by UTASTAR

• !"#$%&!'()&$' -0.00886 -13.10 0.00
• !"*+,('-.+ -0.0890 -8.57 0.00
•/01 (+.-$$-&# -0.00276 -1.65 0.10
•0#2'-.+(!+,-"3-,-'4 0.0696 7.38 0.00
Similarly, from the estimated utility parameters shown in Table 4-7, the additive utility
function estimated with the consistent choice observations was developed as follows:
56# = 78988::;<>?@ABC>D(ECAD6# 7 898:F8<>?GHI(DJKH6# 7 8988LM;NOP HKJAAJC@6#
Q 898;F;O@ 7 DJKH(>HIJ?RJIJDS6# Q T6# ((((UV W N#
43
The results indicate that both models have a sufficient model fit due to the adjusted rho-
square values. Hensher (2005, pp. 338-339) states that the rho-square in a discrete choice
model is not comparable with the rho-square of a linear regression model in statistics. The
paper adds that “the rho-square values between 0.3 and 0.4 can be translated as a rho-
square of between 0.6 and 0.8 for the linear model equivalent”.
As seen, the MNL models estimated only four attribute parameters, but not an alternative
specific constant. The first reason is that, at the beginning, a constant was included in MNL
models to check the mean of unobserved utility sources, but constant parameter value was
very low (i.e. ;933 ! 019), so it was omitted. Secondly, this study focused on the effects
of attributes on the utility, so in fact a constant was not needed. The utility parameter values
represent the magnitude of the relevant attribute’s influence on the total utility. Meanwhile,
the signs of these parameters indicate the direction of the influence. It implies that the
increasing transport cost, travel time and CO2 emission have a negative effect on the utility.
In contrast, the increasing on-time reliability has a positive effect. The outcomes were
anticipated because the DM prefers lower cost, shorter travel time, lower emissions, but
higher reliability according to the general knowledge. The estimated models also suggest
it. Moreover, the p-values of the parameters were also determined by the computation. It
was found that transport cost, travel time and on-time reliability are statistically significant
for the utility function. However, the effect of CO2 emission does not seem statistically
significant for calculating the utilities although the p-value of "#$% &'()**)+, is reduced
when the consistent choice observations are used in the model.
4.2.4 Validation of UTASTAR and MNL models

To this section, the UTASTAR and MNL models were estimated, and the criteria weights
and utility parameters were identified, respectively. The next step was to analyze whether
these weights and parameters represent the whole sample.
At first, the additive utility function derived by the average weights of 51 final solutions
was employed for calculating the utility of alternatives. The utility of each alternative on
all choice sets was computed per respondent. The preference model proposes a ranking of
alternatives for each choice set from the highest utility to the lowest one. Then, the choice
of the respondent was compared with the suggested alternative with the highest utility by
UTASTAR model. If the DM’s choice and the preference model prediction provide with
the same alternative, it is called as a consistency. However, if they indicate a different
alternative, it is referred to as a violation of consistency. When the additive utility function:
•( ) = 0.402!" ( ") + 0.265!# ( #) + 0.126!$ ( $) + 0.207!% ( %)
was replicated for 441 observations, 116 choices were found inconsistent with the
preference model prediction. It indicates that the additive utility function represents 73.7&
of the sample, whereas 26.3& of the data violates the consistency in UTASTAR model.
Secondly, the utility parameters found by the MNL model were utilized in MNL model
simulation. At first, the simulation was performed for a base MNL model with 455
observations. The parameters of the base model were employed for simulating the model
for the whole sample, and it was determined that 159 choices were inconsistent with the
MNL model simulation results among 455 observations. This shows that a base MNL
model represents 63.3& of the sample and 36.7& of the data leads to the violation.
44
Thirdly, the simulation was performed for the MNL model that was run for 441
observations excluding the inconsistent choices from the data. When the relevant utility
parameters were employed for the simulation on 441 observations, 147 choices were found
inconsistent with the simulation results. Thus, 66.7% of the sample is represented, and
33.3% is violated when the inconsistent choices are also excluded in MNL model.
Additionally, the additive utility function of UTASTAR model estimated from the 441
consistent observations was utilized to evaluate the whole sample with 455 observations.
In this case, 126 choices were found as inconsistent with the model prediction. It means
that 27.7% of the data violates the consistency. However, the amount of violation was
reduced to 26.3% when evaluating only the consistent choices. This indicates that the
model was improved by excluding the inconsistent data rows. This validation was also
repeated for the MNL model. The utility parameters estimated from 441 consistent
observations were used to simulate the entire sample. The 163 choices were inconsistent
with the simulation result, which suggests that 35.8% of the data is not represented in the
whole sample. When the parameters were utilized to evaluate only the consistent
observations, the portion of the unrepresented data was 33.3%. This also shows that the
model can also be improved by filtering the inconsistent observations from the MNL
model.
Based on the outcomes, it can be concluded that:

1. The UTASTAR model works better than the MNL model in representing the given
sample.
2. When the inconsistent choices detected by the UTASTAR are also excluded in
MNL analysis, the MNL model improves its performance compared to the base
model.
3. Both UTASTAR and MNL models perform better in representing when the
inconsistent observations from respondents are excluded from the sample.
Cross validation technique

Cross validation is one of the model validation techniques, which enables one to assess
how the model estimation represents a different set of data instead of the entire dataset.
Schneider (1997) states that two datasets are required in this technique: (1) the training set,
from which a learner/analyst gets the estimation, and (2) the test set, in which a
learner/analyst is able to test the model estimation in order to assess how well the learning
performance is. As the aim of cross validation is to assess the accuracy of the model on
new data, it is commonly applied in statistics, data mining and machine learning.
In order to further evaluate the accuracies of UTASTAR and MNL models with different
datasets, cross validation was employed in this research. There are several methods in cross
validation. The widely known ones are briefly introduced as follows:
1. Holdout method: It is the simplest cross validation method, in which the entire
data is divided into two subsets with mostly 2 3 and 1 3 proportions for training
set and test set respectively (Kohavi, 1995).
45
2. •-fold cross validation: As Kim (2009) describes, the entire sample is divided into
• subsets with approximately equal sizes, which are also called as folds. Each time
one fold is left out and used as a test set, and the remaining • 1!folds generate
the training set. The process is replicated • times until all subsets are used in both
training and test sets. The average of • runs provides the overall result.
3. Leave-one-out cross validation: It is the extreme case of •-fold analysis where
• = ". Each observation is left out once to be used a test sample, while " 1
observations are used for estimation (Kim, 2009).
4. Monte Carlo cross validation: This method randomly divides the data into two
subsets as training and test sets. All possible random divisions of the data into two
subsets are infinite. However, since it is not feasible to replicate the model infinitely,
as much as possible replications are done depending on the model. The average of
the runs provides the result (Schneider, 1997).
Kohavi (1995) points out that holdout method is highly dependent on the division of dataset
and leads to inefficiency. The paper also states that low bias and low variation are sought
in model estimation. Efron (1983, as cited in Kohavi, 1995) indicates that the bias is very
low in leave-one-out but the variance is very high. This is because the training sets overlap
many times and the correlation between model estimations gets higher. # -fold cross
validation reduces the variance compared to leave-one-out as the overlap between training
sets is less. This method also has the advantage of employing the observations in training
and test sets at an equal amount. Monte Carlo cross validation may be better than •-fold as
it has a lower variance, but it requires many replications. Moreover, since the splits are
randomly generated in Monte Carlo, some observations may not be selected in test set at
all. Therefore, it might not generate reliable results.
By considering the advantages and disadvantages of all of the described validation

methods, •-fold cross validation was selected for this case study. Rodriguez et al. (2010)
prove with an empirical study that the lower • values (• = 2) give less variance but high
bias. The extreme •-fold (i.e. leave-one-out) method provides the lowest bias but higher
variance. Thus, the paper recommends • = 5 or • = 10. Kohavi (1995) also points out
that 10-fold cross validation provides almost the best result with a balanced bias and
variance. Therefore, • was selected as 10. Moreover, Rodriguez et al. (2010) indicate that
the variance can be even reduced more with repeating the •-fold cross validation several
times with different partitions. Thus, in order to reduce the variance and also eliminate the
effect of how data is split, 10-fold cross validation was repeated by 5 times with different
splits. Because there were 51 respondents in the dataset, and they were split into 10 folds,
assuming that 5 repetitions with different splits were sufficient to observe accuracy.
The dataset of 441 observations were divided into 10 subsets for both UTASTAR and MNL
models. The weights and parameters were estimated for given training sets, and were used
for evaluating the test sets. This process was repeated 5 times with a new division. The rate
of violation of consistency for each run is presented in Appendix V. The average of 50 runs
for UTASTAR and MNL models are found as 26.3% and 34.6%, respectively. These
results are very similar to the ones when UTASTAR and MNL models were replicated on
the entire sample with an additive value function and utility parameters, respectively.
46
Therefore, it could be concluded that the repeated 10-fold cross validation validates the
models.
Moreover, in order to see how UTASTAR and MNL models perform in 50 model runs, the
paired sample t-test was conducted. The test requirements were assessed before applying
the test (see Appendix VI for details). Consequently, the null and alternative hypotheses of
the paired sample t-test were formulated as:
H0: There is no significant difference between the performances of UTASTAR and MNL model.
H1: The UTASTAR model performs better than MNL model with a lower rate of violation of
consistency.
The results of the test according to the 50 model run observations are shown in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8. Paired sample t-test results for UTASTAR and MNL model runs
UTASTAR model results MNL model results

Mean 0.263 0.346
Variance 0.005 0.006
t value -7.558
Significance (one-tail) .000
Since the significance value is lower than .05 at the 95% confidence level, the result proves
that the UTASTAR model performs better than the MNL model with a lower rate of
violation of consistency.
4.3 Application of ACUTA

The ACUTA preference model design, model estimation and its analysis are presented in
this section. The MNL model was also estimated using the same data with ACUTA for
comparison purposes. In the end, the validation of both models is provided.
4.3.1 ACUTA preference model design

The input data for the ACUTA method was indifferent from that employed for the
UTASTAR method. Originally, the global preferences of respondents for a given set of
alternatives and attributes were employed in ACUTA model. Yet, the selected data from
51 shippers consists of their choice information based on four attributes. That is why, the
same adaptation in UTASTAR model design (see Chapter 4.2.1) also applies to the
ACUTA model formulation to be able to employ the choice data. This means that the
analysis on mode choice behavior could also be conducted by ACUTA model.
Since the same dataset with 455 observations was employed by ACUTA, the attribute
scales and their directions were taken as in the UTASTAR model. Moreover, the marginal
utilities of attributes are presented by piecewise linear functions for different attribute
levels. However, as mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4.1, in ACUTA model algorithm, ACUTA
model does not transform the marginal utilities into ••• variables, but remains • (!• )
variables. Instead ACUTA defines the slack variables "•• , as such:
# (150) $ # (300) = "#%
% (3) $ % (10) = "%%
47
• (20) ! •" (70) = # "

•$ (95) ! •$ (85) = #$"
where the normalization conditions were taken as: •% (450) = •" (17) = • (120) =
•$ (75) = 0. It was also assumed that •% (150) + •" (3) + • (20) + •$ (95) = 1.
The global value of each alternative was expressed using the •& ('& ) variables according to
the relevant attribute levels. Then, the utility differences of alternatives were expressed by
a slack variable #* as given in ACUTA model algorithm if there is a preferential relation
between the alternatives: ,(-* ) ! ,(-*/% ) ! 6 = #* ::::;<:-* >-*/% . Here 6 value is taken
as 0.05 as in UTASTAR model. The ACUTA model aims to maximize the sum of all slack
variables. In other words, it attempts to maximize the utility differences of alternatives
while satisfying all conditions.
4.3.2 ACUTA model estimation

After determining the model constraints and the objective function, the next step is to
formulate the whole NLP (non-linear programming) model, and estimate the model
variables. The objective function of ACUTA model is non-linear, despite having linear
constraints. Therefore, the NLP solver shall be employed for this model.
51 separate NLP models were formulated and solved for all respondents. The constraints
were formed based on the choice information of 9 choice sets in each NLP model, which
means that each model has 18 utility difference constraints. The GRG Nonlinear
Optimization function of Excel Solver was employed for solving the NLP models. For the
respondents who are consistent in their choices for all 9 sets, an optimal solution was found.
From the optimal solution, the criteria weights and an additive utility function could be
drawn. An example of the NLP formulation and its solution in Excel Solver is presented in
Appendix VII. On the contrary, for all respondents who possess some inconsistent choices
for some given sets, the NLP solver could not find any feasible solution. In order to detect
which choices cause inconsistency, the approach that had been used in UTASTAR model
estimation was also applied in this case (see Chapter 4.2.2 for details). The separate NLP
models were generated for each choice set of each inconsistent respondent, and were solved
using NLP solver. After replicating these 9 different solutions from 9 NLP models on the
dataset, the choices leading to inconsistency were determined. By eliminating the
inconsistent choices of relevant respondents, new NLP models were generated and an
optimal solution was found for these respondents.
In total, 36 out of 51 respondents were found inconsistent in their choices, and 50 choice
data rows were detected as a source of inconsistency. Thus, the further analysis of ACUTA
was conducted for 405 observations. When an optimal solution was found for all shippers
after excluding the inconsistent data rows, 51 criteria weight sets were obtained (See
Appendix VIII for the whole list). The average weights of 51 weight sets are presented in
Table 4-9.
48
Table 4-9. The found criteria weights in ACUTA

1 0.262 0.263 0.204 0.271
2 0.171 0.244 0.219 0.366
3 0.270 0.270 0.135 0.324
•
51 0.317 0.287 0.317 0.080
Average 0.343 0.237 0.170 0.251
The additive utility function for the whole sample could also be derived using the average
attribute weights as in UTASTAR. This is because the distribution of attribute weights over
the sample was also determined for ACUTA and it seems that the average values are
representative of the entire sample, as will be explained in Chapter 5.1.
•( ) = 0.343!" ( ") + 0.237!# ( #) + 0.170!$ ( $) + 0.251!% ( %)
4.3.3 MNL model estimation based on ACUTA application

The MNL model estimation was conducted using the same data with ACUTA model for
comparison purposes. The estimated MNL model in this sub-section is different than the
one in Chapter 4.2.3 in terms of the used dataset as different data were removed in each
section. In this section, the 50 inconsistent data rows which detected by ACUTA model,
were also excluded from the dataset of the MNL model. Then, the MNL model was
estimated for 405 observations using the Biogeme software. The Biogeme output file could
be seen in Appendix IV. The model estimation provides with the estimated utility
parameters of transport cost, travel time, CO2 emission and on-time reliability, which are
presented in Table 4-10.
Table 4-10. Estimated utility parameters of the MNL model with 405 consistent choice observations determined
by ACUTA

• !"#$%&!'()&$' -0.00926 -12.71 0.00
• !"*+,('-.+ -0.123 -9.74 0.00
•/01 (+.-$$-&# -0.0113 -5.55 0.00
•0#2'-.+(!+,-"3-,-'4 0.0780 7.60 0.00
Based on the outcomes presented in Table 4-10, the additive utility function estimated with
405 consistent choice observations was formulated as:
• ! = "0.00926#$%&'()$*+,)'* ! " 0.123#$%-/4+*57/ ! " 0.01138:; /75''5)& !
< 0.0>?0:& " *57/+$/45%@545*A ! < B ! ++++CD E 8!
This MNL model has a sufficient model fit because the adjusted rho-square is very high
equivalent to at least more than 0.8 for the linear regression model, as mentioned by
Hensher (2005, pp. 338-339). Moreover, it seems that all attributes are statistically
significant (p-values < .05) in calculating the utilities of alternatives.
49
4.3.4 Validation of ACUTA and MNL models

The additive utility functions were derived for both ACUTA and MNL models. In order to
evaluate their representativeness for the whole sample, they were replicated for the entire
sample. Firstly, the ACUTA additive utility function derived by the average weights of 51
optimal solutions was used for calculating the utility of all alternatives in the dataset. The
model prediction with the highest utility and the choice of the DM were compared with
each other in each data row. It was found that 92 choices of the DMs were inconsistent
with the model prediction among 405 observations. This fact suggests that the additive
utility function of ACUTA represents 77.3% of the sample, while 22.7% of the sample
leads to violation of consistency.
Secondly, the MNL utility parameters were used for simulating the 405 observations.
When the simulation results were compared with the DMs choices, it was observed that
140 choices cause inconsistency. Thus, the MNL model represents 65.4% of the sample
and 34.6% of the data leads to the violation. Thirdly, this result was compared with the
base MNL model. The MNL model estimation and simulation were conducted for all 455
observations, and it was found 36.7% of the data causes violation of consistency in a base
MNL model as shown in Chapter 4.2.4. Therefore, it can be concluded that the MNL model
performs better when the inconsistent choices detected by ACUTA model were also
excluded from the dataset of MNL analysis.
Moreover, for the purpose of an additional validation, the ACUTA additive value function
was also replicated for the entire dataset instead of only for 405 observations. In this case,
126 choices were found as inconsistent with the model prediction. In other words, 27.7%
of the data violates the consistency. When evaluating only the consistent choices of
respondents, the rate of violation of consistency was 22.7% . This indicates that the
elimination of 50 inconsistent choices enhances the performance of ACUTA model. The
same validation was also performed for the MNL model. The model estimation taken from
405 observations was employed for simulating the whole sample. The 164 choices were
determined as inconsistent with the MNL model prediction, which implies that 36% of the
data causes violation. It also shows that excluding the inconsistent choices from the MNL
model improves the model.
All in all, the results show that:

1. The ACUTA model performs better than the MNL model in representing the given
sample.
2. When the inconsistent choices detected by the ACUTA are also excluded in MNL
analysis, the MNL model improves its performance compared to the base model.
3. Both ACUTA and MNL models perform better in representing when the
inconsistent choices from respondents are excluded from the sample.
Cross validation technique

For further validating the ACUTA and MNL models, the cross validation technique was
also applied to the models. As the reasons are explicitly mentioned in Chapter 4.2.4 before,
the repeated 10 -fold cross validation was performed to both models. To keep the
possibility of comparing the ACUTA and UTASTAR models on hand, the randomly drawn
50
folds in UTASTAR 10-fold cross validation were used while validating the ACUTA model
as well. Therefore, the repetition was also executed for 5 times in this sub-section.
All of the 51 respondents were divided into 10 folds, the same method as described in
Chapter 4.2.4 for both ACUTA and MNL models. The criteria weights and utility
parameters were estimated for each training set using the models, and the test sets were
evaluated. The rate of violation of consistency was recorded for each run including the 5
iteration with different data splits (see Appendix V for the list). The average of 50 runs for
ACUTA and MNL models were found as 22.5% and 32.8%, respectively. These results
are very similar to the ones when ACUTA and MNL models are replicated on the entire
sample with the criteria weights and utility parameters, respectively. This indicates that the
repeated 10-fold cross validation validates the models.
Furthermore, to identify which model performs better in 50 model runs, a paired sample t-
test was conducted for ACUTA and MNL models (see Appendix VI for test conditions).
The hypotheses of the paired sample t-test can be defined as follows:
H0: There is no significant difference between the performances of ACUTA and MNL model.
H1: The ACUTA model performs better than MNL model with a lower rate of violation of
consistency.
The results of paired sample t-test according to the 50 model run observations are presented
in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11. Paired sample t-test results for ACUTA and MNL model runs
UTASTAR model results MNL model results

Mean 0.225 0.328
Variance 0.004 0.008
t value -9.738
Significance (one-tail) .000
Since the significance value is lower than .05 at a 95% confidence level, the result proves
that the ACUTA model performs better than the MNL model with a lower rate of violation
of consistency.
51
5 Discussion on preference models

In this research, as described in Chapter 4, an empirical study on the transport mode choice
behavior of container shippers operating in the Rotterdam – Venlo corridor was conducted.
In this chapter, the obtained results are discussed further. Firstly, the overall comparison of
the models is provided through their performances on the empirical study, as well as their
advantages and disadvantages. Afterwards, the findings on the attribute weights are briefly
discussed by considering the importance of determinants of mode choice decision.
5.1 Comparison of applied models: Advantages and disadvantages

The UTASTAR, ACUTA and MNL models were developed and estimated by utilizing the
same dataset in the previous chapter. In order to compare their overall performances for a
given mode choice problem and its relevant data, a summary of their analysis results are
presented in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2, respectively.
Table 5-1. Summary table of UTASTAR & MNL model results
Violation rate of consistency

Used dataset in estimation & UTASTAR model MNL model
evaluation
The whole sample – 455 Because of inconsistent choices, LP 36.7%
observations model cannot find feasible solutions.
Excluding inconsistent choices 26.3% 33.3%
– 441 observations
Excluding shippers with 28.2% 36.7%
inconsistent choices – 365
observations
Table 5-2. Summary table of ACUTA & MNL model results
Violation rate of consistency

Used dataset in estimation & ACUTA model MNL model
evaluation
The whole sample – 455 Because of inconsistent choices, NLP 36.7%
observations model cannot find feasible solutions.
Excluding inconsistent choices 22.7% 34.6%
– 405 observations
Excluding shippers with 24.4% 34.3%
inconsistent choices – 131
observations
The tabulated results indicate the following conclusions for the performances of the
models:
1. Both UTASTAR and ACUTA models perform better than the relevant MNL models
in representing the sample population. From the analysis outcomes, it is possible to
generalize this conclusion for a given population, since not only the consistent
observations were evaluated but also many different sample combinations of the
population were considered by cross validation analysis. As described in Chapter 4.2.4
and 4.3.4, UTA-type models perform better than the MNL model because the violation
52
Chapter 5: Discussion on preference models
rate of consistency was statistically tested and found significantly lower in UTA-type
models for cross validation replications.
An interesting point to note is that UTA-type models still perform at least as good as
MNL model despite utilizing the choice data. As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1 and 4.3.1,
UTASTAR and ACUTA are methodologically supposed to employ the ranking
information on preferences as inputs to their models. However, the constraints of these
models were adapted in a way such that the choice of DMs for a given choice set was
utilized for forming the utility constraints rather than using the given ranking between
alternatives. This leads to information loss on the relations between other alternatives
rather than the chosen one. In other words, the preference model only checks the
relation between the chosen alternative and the remaining ones one-by-one. Moreover,
the MNL model was supposed to have an advantage methodologically, since it has
been specifically developed for choice behavior studies employing the choice data.
Yet, UTA-type preference models are still able to represent the choice of respondents
better than the MNL model despite the information loss. It is an important outcome on
the methodological comparison of the UTA-type models and MNL discrete choice
model.
2. UTA-type models help to improve the performance of the MNL model by detecting
the inconsistent choices of respondents. If there is any inconsistent choice in the dataset,
UTA-type models are not capable of finding a feasible or optimal solution as they
utilize linear or nonlinear programming methodology. Therefore, the inconsistent
behavior shall be eliminated to find an optimal solution. When these determined
choices are excluded from the dataset of an MNL model, it also improves its
performance in representing the sample. This is shown in the first two rows of MNL
model violation rates displayed in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. The first row indicates the
base MNL model result, while the second row shows the improved MNL model by
eliminating the inconsistency.
3. Considering the inconsistent choices of respondents, an interesting question comes to

mind that what would happen if the ones with inconsistent choices are completely
excluded from the analysis, instead of only excluding their inconsistent replies. This is
because there is a possibility that such respondents may not be reliable on their choices.
That is why further analysis was conducted. For all UTASTAR, ACUTA and MNL
models, such respondents were thoroughly excluded while estimating the additive
value function and evaluating the sample. The last rows of Table 5-1 and Table 5-2
indicate the results. All models provide worse results when these shippers are excluded
from the analysis, except for the MNL model compared to ACUTA. The reason might
be the lower number of observations (i.e. 131 observations) used for an MNL model.
This is because the MNL model requires a large enough sample to conduct an accurate
analysis. Reducing the sample data at a large extent from 405 to 131 could lead to a
lower model fit.
Apart from that, other models perform worse when such respondents are thoroughly
excluded from the analysis because most probably they provide good choices except
53
for the detected inconsistent ones, such that the analysis for a given population can
lead to a better result only by excluding the inconsistent choices. This can also be
caused by the numbers of inconsistent choices and shippers as the UTASTAR model
determines 14 inconsistent choices from 10 shippers, and the ACUTA model
determines 50 inconsistent choices from 36 shippers. In other words, each of them has
about 1 to 2 inconsistent choices on average out of 9. This indicates that excluding
these respondents from the analysis could also cause the elimination of some good
choices of them in the given sample. However, it may not be valid for different datasets
if the respondents are not reliable on their choices. In such cases, inconsistent
respondents may be thoroughly excluded from the data.
4. ACUTA model performs better than the UTASTAR model in representing the choices
of respondents in a given sample. The results indicate that the violation rate of the
consistency between the model prediction and the DM’s choice is lower in ACUTA
model. Not only the evaluations of the consistent observations presented in Table 5-1
and Table 5-2 support this claim, but also the cross validation results show that
violation rate in ACUTA is lower in many repetitions (i.e. the average violation rates
are 22.5% and 26.3% in the ACUTA and UTASTAR models, respectively, for 50
replications).
The reason of such a difference between the models can be explained

methodologically. As mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4.1, UTASTAR algorithm is an
improved version of UTA model and ACUTA algorithm is one of the meta-UTA type
methods. UTASTAR takes into account the overestimation and underestimation error
terms in estimating the utilities of alternatives. Therefore, the objective of the model
is to minimize the sum of error terms. Methodologically, a threshold value • is
assigned by the analyst to express the minimum difference of the alternative utilities
in case of a preferential relationship. Since the model constraints and objective are not
as stringently defined as in ACUTA, UTASTAR model can provide multi-optimal
solutions. In case of multiple optimal solutions, a post-optimality analysis is conducted
by maximizing the utility of each attribute one-by-one. This analysis helps to find the
attribute weights when they contribute to the choice at their maximum level while
satisfying the preferential relationships of alternatives at the same time. Thus, a
separate solution is found for each LP model by maximizing one attribute utility.
Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos (1978) state that the average of post-optimality results
may be the nearest optimal solution. Therefore, the average of each w ! variable is
found, and so does the additive value function.
Conversely, the ACUTA algorithm aims to find the optimal solution in one step
without requiring any post-optimality analysis. For this purpose, the model attempts
to maximize the utility differences of alternatives if one alternative is preferred over
the others, while the utility constraints are satisfied. The use of threshold value • is
somehow arbitrary in utility constraints because the model already tries to maximize
the utility distances. Therefore, the model objective is a nonlinear function, which
provides a stringent model formulation. As a result, an optimal solution for the DM is
obtained. The model estimation results found in Chapter 4 also indicate that the
54
ACUTA model is more stringent but better than the UTASTAR methodologically.
ACUTA model found 50 inconsistent choices among 455 observations, whereas the
UTASTAR one could find only 14. It is probably because taking the average of post-
optimality LP models results may overlook any potential inconsistency, while
ACUTA reaches the analytic center of the feasible solutions as being the closest to the
optimal solution. Therefore, by eliminating the inconsistent choices in an appropriate
way, the ACUTA model prediction represents the choices of respondents better.
Additionally, regarding the post-optimality analysis of UTASTAR, one concern can

be about the ranges of w ! variables in separate LP solutions. Since each LP in this step
tries to maximize one attribute’s utility, mostly the relevant attribute’s w ! values will
be higher. This situation may lead to a wide range of variables. An example of the
post-optimality analysis outcomes are presented in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. An example of a post-optimality analysis results
w11 w12 w21 w22 w31 w32 w41 w42

••• !" (#"$ ) 0.917 0.017 0.033 0.033 0 0 0 0
••• !% (#%$ ) 0 0.033 0.917 0.017 0 0 0 0.033
••• !& (#&$ ) 0 0.21 0.033 0.193 0.177 0.177 0 0.21
••• !' (#'$ ) 0 0.05 0 0.475 0 0 0 0.475
Average 0.229 0.077 0.246 0.18 0.044 0.044 0 0.18
As can be seen from Table 5-3, while maximizing the u• (g•• ) and u (g • ), a higher
value (0.917) is given to their relevant variables and other variables are almost zero.
However, the distribution of utilities is more balanced for maximizing the u! (g •! ). The
wide range of variables also affects the average values and subsequently the final
solution. If the distribution of utilities is imbalanced for all LP solutions by giving very
high values to their relevant variables, the average of variables may provide a less
reliable result in finding the nearest optimal solution.
In addition to the performances of the applied models, their advantages and disadvantages
shall be explored.
The size of the input choice data

The UTA-type methods have been generated as being MCDA methods such that they can
be employed by individual DMs with even small amount of data. To illustrate, the choice
behavior of an individual can be modeled with a UTA-type method, although the data
consists only 5 observations. Moreover, the population choice behavior could be modeled
with such methods as indicated in this thesis, although the data would be in a smaller scale.
On the contrary, discrete choice models require at least some amount of observations to
provide reliable estimations. It is possible to model an individual behavior with an MNL
model, yet the repeated observations of this individual are needed to some extent. For
instance, the data with 5 observations would not be sufficient to provide reliable MNL
model estimations. Therefore, it can be concluded that UTA-type models are expected to
55
have an advantage over MNL model for analyzing smaller size data in terms of a reliable
performance in representing the choices.
The distribution of the criteria weights

Since the UTASTAR and ACUTA methods allow one to obtain the criteria weights for
each respondent individually, it is possible to see the descriptive statistics of the found
solutions. Moreover, the distribution of the attribute weight frequencies over the sample
can be determined as UTA-type models can preliminarily find the individual based
solutions. It is one of the advantages of the applied UTA-type models over the MNL model.
This is because MNL models are restricted to explain the random taste variation over the
given sample, which is introduced as one of the limitations of logit model by Train (2003,
p. 50). Therefore, probit or mixed logit model can be applied for analyzing the random
taste variation of choice behavior. Although such models would likely to have a cost since
they require a larger amount of data, Wanders (2014) state that the data with 455
observations used in this research is not sufficient for utilizing other discrete choice
models. The applied MNL model on the other hand cannot indicate the distribution of
criteria weights. At this point, UTA-type models come into sight.
The descriptive statistics of • = 51 solutions of the UTASTAR models are presented in

Table 5-4, while the distribution of the attribute weights over the sample is presented in
Figure 5-1.
Table 5-4. Descriptive statistics of the attributes found by UTASTAR method
Attributes Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation Variance

Transport cost .071 .644 .402 .190 .036
Travel time .060 .644 .265 .159 .025
CO2 emission .044 .454 .126 .065 .004
On-time reliability .000 .644 .207 .134 .018
As can be seen from Figure 5-1, the weights of transport cost and travel time are
heterogeneously distributed, while the CO2 emission and on-time reliability have a
homogeneous distribution. It means that the shippers in the given sample attach a similar
importance to CO2 emission and on-time reliability. However, the variation of transport
cost and travel time weights are quite high among the shippers. It seems that two groups
can be identified for both transport cost and travel time in the sample, indicating similar
attribute weights. Moreover, a closer inspection of Figure 5-1 found that these groups seem
to have a mirror image of each other. Thus, one interesting question can be whether there
is any relation between the preferences on transport cost and travel time. This means that
the shippers who prefer a lower transport cost may have a longer travel time, while the
ones who prefer a shorter travel time could have higher transport cost. In order to analyze
any correlation between transport cost and travel time, a graphical representation of the
attribute values, which is presented in Figure 5-2, is analyzed.
56
Figure 5-1. The distribution of attribute values over the sample in UTASTAR
Figure 5-2. The graph of transport cost vs travel time
57
There is a reverse relation between the transport cost and travel time. The scales in the
graph represent the number of observations, and it can be concluded that shippers, who
attach a high importance to cost, pay less attention to the travel time on mode choice
decision. Moreover, in order to see if there is any statistically significant correlation
between any of the attributes, Pearson’s correlation test was conducted. Before the test was
executed, an examination whether the conditions for the test are satisfied were performed.
According to Heijnen (2013), the requirements for the test are:
1. The expected relation between the attributes is linear.
2. The box plots of all variables are checked, and 5 cases are found as outliers in
emissions and on-time reliability. They are excluded from the test data.
3. All variables are of interval level of measurement.
Since the conditions are satisfied for • = 46, the test was conducted and the outcomes of
the analysis are summarized in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5. The Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the attributes – UTASTAR
Transport Travel time CO2

cost emission
Travel time Pearson Correlation -.839
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
CO2 emission Pearson Correlation .047 -.249
Sig. (2-tailed) .755 .095
On-time Pearson Correlation -.524 .007 .005
reliability Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .965 .972
The coefficient of correlation between transport cost and travel time is quite high and the
correlation is statistically significant. Moreover, it was found that there is a negative
correlation between transport cost and on-time reliability but with a lower coefficient. The
significance of cost and other qualitative attributes are also discussed in Feo et al. (2011),
which finds that low value businesses may prefer cost-based competition in transportation,
while high value businesses attach their strategy to the qualitative factors such as time and
reliability of transport. Danielis et al. (2005) also state that firms which prefer shorter travel
times give more relative significance to the time and reliability rather than cost. Thus, the
negative correlation of cost with time and reliability is an anticipated result.
The results obtained by ACUTA model are also analyzed in the same way as presented in
Table 5-6.
Table 5-6. Descriptive statistics of the attributes found by ACUTA method
Attributes Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation Variance

Transport cost .150 .531 .343 .134 .018
Travel time .002 .324 .237 .067 .005
CO2 emission .000 .392 .169 .116 .013
On-time reliability .000 .525 .251 .122 .015
After excluding more inconsistent choices in ACUTA, it gives a different distribution on

attribute significance than UTASTAR as presented in Figure 5-3. In this case, transport
58
cost and CO2 emissions have heterogeneous distribution whereas travel time and on-time
reliability reveal almost homogeneous distribution. It seems that there may be a correlation
between the significance of cost and emissions, since they indicate two groups in their
variations. Not only the relation between these attributes, but also to check all variables,
the Pearson’s correlation coefficient test was applied. The test conditions stated by Heijnen
(2013) were examined and 2 extreme values were identified. After their elimination, the
test was performed and the outcomes are presented in Table 5-7.
Figure 5-3. The distribution of attribute values over the sample in ACUTA
59
Table 5-7. The Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the attributes – ACUTA
Transport Travel time CO2

cost emission
Travel time Pearson Correlation -.490
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
CO2 emission Pearson Correlation -.529 .156
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .284
On-time Pearson Correlation -.452 -.001 -.448
reliability Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .994 .001
As shown in Table 5-7, there is a statistically significant negative correlation between the
cost and other qualitative factors which are: travel time, CO2 emission and on-time
reliability. Yet, the correlations are not very high. But still the directions of the correlations
support the aforementioned claims that firms tend to attach importance to either the cost or
other qualitative factors depending on their strategy in business. Furthermore, the negative
correlation between the significance of on-time reliability and CO2 emissions is statistically
significant. This makes sense as firms, which are sensitive to reliable delivery times, may
prefer road transport over rail or barge, as it may lead to faster transportation, although the
road transport has the highest amount of emissions. Thus, the preference on reliability and
being environmental friendly can be negatively correlated. But, a further research is needed
to support this claim.
Several studies on freight transport literature have attempted to explain the reasons of taste
variations among attributes (i.e. the heterogeneous distribution of criteria values). One of
the main reasons is commodity/product type as claimed by Danielis and Marcucci (2007).
Arunotayanun and Polak (2011) present that different sectors according to the commodity
categorization have different preferences on determinants such that food and agricultural
sectors give importance to the cost and time, while textile sector is only sensitive towards
the travel time, and electronics sector is not sensitive to the cost and time. Feo et al. (2011)
also state that travel time is more significant for the firms transporting perishable goods, as
their shelf life is shorter. Moreover, Norojono and Young (2003) point out that the cost
might have lower significance nowadays as shipping companies may transfer the cost to
the consumer on freight industry. Danielis et al. (2005) also state that implementing the
just-in-time (JIT) inventory system may affect the preferences on on-time reliability, since
the tolerance to time schedule changes is very limited in JIT and the significance of on-
time reliability gets higher. Lastly, the characteristics of the shipping company,
organizational conditions or socioeconomic factors can affect the significance level of
attributes in mode choice decision (Arunotayanun & Polak, 2011; Feo et al., 2011).
The selected data of this research was collected from shippers operating in agricultural and
manufacturing sectors. It is likely that some variations of the significance levels occur due
to different product types and sector characteristics. However, the details of the data and
the characteristics of the shippers were not available to the author of this thesis, and the
shipper identities in choice data were anonymous. Therefore, detailed information is
needed to conduct a further analysis on taste variation.
60
Willingness to pay (WTP): Value of time and reliability

Freight value of time (FVOT) is commonly utilized in freight transport and infrastructure
projects as an input to the cost – benefit analysis (CBA), as well as it helps to explain the
relationship between time and cost in traffic forecasting models (de Jong, 2008). FVOT
indicates the willingness to pay of the DM in case of a time saving of transport per unit. It
also applies to the on-time reliability such that freight value of reliability (FVOR) shows
the marginal value of a change in delivery time reliability. de Jong et al. (2014) state that
both FVOT and FVOR contribute to the CBA of transport projects by monetizing the effect
of time and reliability. Two different approaches are mainly used to find these values,
which are the factor cost approach and the transport demand models. Feo-Valero et al.
(2011a) point out that when the linear effects of attributes in behavioral models specify the
additive utility function, the ratio of the attribute coefficient to the cost coefficient provides
the value of the relevant attribute. In this regard, FVOT and FVOR can be defined as
follows:
!"# !"#
% $$ '(( % ,$- '.(/
•••• = !"#
"#
=
'()
, *•••+ = !"#
"#
=
'()
% $& % $&
"# "#
Therefore, the estimated criteria weights and parameters in UTA-type models and MNL
models were used to find the willingness to pay of shippers for savings in time and
reliability, respectively. By considering the obtained additive utility functions of models
and the unit of attributes in data collection, the FVOT and FVOR were computed and the
outcomes are presented in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8. The values of time and reliability for freight transport as estimated from the sample
FVOT (€ per hour and FVOR (€ per 1% increase in

tonne2) reliability)
UTASTAR model 0.04 0.51
The relevant MNL model 0.67 7.85
ACUTA model 0.05 0.73
The relevant MNL model 0.88 8.42
Several studies from freight transport literature were reviewed to compare the obtained
values with the relevant studies. The literature on FVOR is still quite limited as stated by
de Jong et al. (2014), while the studies on FVOT are higher in quantity and variability.
FVOT are determined for many product types, sectors, transport modes, shipment
characteristics etc. in various locations. For comparison purposes, the focus is on container
shipments and/or national scale transport. Feo-Valero et al. (2011a) and de Jong (2008)
present a review of value of time values from several studies. Moreover, de Jong et al.
(2004) and Beltran et al. (2012) provide both FVOT and FVOR values in the Netherlands.
Feo et al. (2011) also present the values by modeling the road and maritime transport mode
choices of Spanish shippers. The overall values from review papers and mentioned studies
are summarized in Table 5-9.
2
In FVOT calculations, it is assumed that the average shipment size is 15 tonnes. FVOT is taken as € per
hour and tonne instead of € per hour to compare the values with literature, and per hour-tonne is widely used
in other studies.
61
Table 5-9. Freight value of time and reliability found in reviewed literature
FVOT (€ per hour and FVOR (€ per 1% increase in

tonne) reliability)
Jiang & Calzada (1997) Containers: 3.28
Bergantino & Bolis (2004) 0.65
Kurri et al. (2000) Road: 0.98, Rail: 1.09
de Jong et al. (2000) Road: 2.42
de Jong et al. (2004) Road, Containers: 3.57
Beuthe & Bouffioux (2008) 13
Vellay & de Jong (2003) Rail: 1.77
Russo & Chila (2007) Rail: 0.13
de Jong et al. (2004) Containers: 2.84, Road: Road, Containers: 0.29
5.28, Rail: 0.96, Inland
waterways: 0.05
de Jong et al. (2014) Road, Containers: 3.93 Road, Containers: 0.26
Beltran et al. (2012) 0.395 3.6
Feo et al. (2011) 0.43 9
As shown in Table 5-9, the variation among values are high even if similar studies are
selected. The characteristics of the region and shipping or carrier firms may have an impact
on the variation. When the estimated results of this study are compared with the reviewed
papers, it can be seen that the values of MNL models are similar to the literature. However,
FVOT in UTA-type models are significantly lower, except for the value of time found by
de Jong et al. (2004) for inland waterways. On the contrary, the FVOR also has a large
variation in the reviewed papers. By considering the works of de Jong et al. (2004; 2014)
and Beltran et al. (2012), which have modeled the behavior of Dutch shippers in hinterland
transport, their results may be more relevant with this research. In that sense, UTA-type
models provide a reasonable FVOR outcome.
It is difficult to claim which model is better in terms of representing the willingness to pay
of shippers. Yet, UTA-type models provide significantly very low values of time compared
to the literature, whereas the value of reliability given by MNL models is still in acceptable
range considering the literature. Therefore, it can be deduced that for FVOT and FVOR,
MNL models may have an advantage in representing the sample, and the UTA-type
outcomes would not be very suitable for WTP analysis. In order to further support this
claim, more research is needed on UTA-type models.
5.2 Important attributes on mode choice behavior

The freight transport literature indicates that the transport cost and travel time are the two
of the most significant determinants of the mode choice behavior, as stated in Chapter 2.2.
Although the qualitative factors have increased their importance on the mode decision
against the cost lately (Norojono & Young, 2003), the cost of transport modes may have a
3
This study provides FVOT as €0.005 per hour and tonne-km for short distance trips. It is assumed that the
distance between Venlo – Rotterdam is 200 km, which makes it €1 per hour and tonne.
4
The average container shipment size is assumed as 15 tonnes.
5
Beltran et al. (2012) specify the FVOT as €46.6 per day. Assuming the working time is 8-hours per day,
and shipment size is 15 tonnes, it is found as €0.39 /hour-tonne.
62
wide variation, which directly influences the decision making process. For instance, Feo-
Valero et al. (2011b) present how cost affects the mode choice between rail and road
transport for containers. UTASTAR and ACUTA models also support the tendency of
shippers to the cost in mode choice, since the highest weight belongs to the cost in both
models.
Moreover, the predicted UTA-type models in this research also identify the significance of
travel time and on-time reliability. Their significances are relatively lower compared to
cost as anticipated from the literature. The CO2 emissions has the lowest significance in
predicted models, which is also a good reflection of the previous studies (Fries, 2009;
Beltran et al., 2012). The environmental concerns and the studies on the sustainable
transport have been increasing in the last decade in literature. Yet, the transport cost and
other non-cost factors other than environmental effects still have higher impact on the
decisions. The UTA-type model results also support this claim according to the given
sample data. Therefore, it can be concluded that the UTA-type preference models present
the criteria weights and the additive value function in line with the findings in freight
transport literature.
63
6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Applied preference models on freight transport mode choice behavior
In this study, the container shippers’ mode choice behavior was analyzed based on the
effects of important transport attributes. The data collected from the shippers operating in
the Venlo – Port of Rotterdam corridor from agricultural – food and manufacturing sectors
was employed in the case study. As described in the literature review on mode choice
decisions (see Chapter 2.3 & 3.1), the discrete choice models are the widely applied
methods in mode choice. Therefore, this research aimed to fill in the gap of the
methodological research on MCDA methods to observe if they can be employed to model
the mode choice behavior. More specifically, it was investigated whether there is any
MCDA method that can utilize the choice dataset as same as discrete choice models, and
if so how the performances of both models differentiate. Thus, the following main research
question was answered throughout the study:
In this regard, the UTASTAR and ACUTA methods were selected from the disaggregation
– aggregation approaches of MCDA according to the extensive methodological review of
MCDA methods. The applications of UTASTAR, ACUTA and MNL preference models
on the same data reveal that ACUTA outperforms the others in representing the choice of
respondents in a given sample. Moreover, UTASTAR model provides better results than
MNL model on choice prediction of a given sample. Therefore, it can be concluded that
UTA-type models are better representative of choices as they outperform the MNL discrete
choice model. This is an interesting finding, since the UTA-type models generally utilize
the ranking information of preferences rather than choice data. Yet, this research adapts
their model formulation to the choice data despite information loss on the relationship of
some alternatives and UTA-type models’ performance is still better than the MNL model.
UTA-type models also allow the performance development of the MNL model by
identifying the inconsistent choices of respondents in a given sample. In this way, the
inconsistent choice data can be excluded from the dataset of MNL model by improving the
model performance on representing the choices of respondents.
Additionally, UTA-type models are able to obtain the individual-based criteria weights and
additive value functions, as well as finding the results for the entire sample. On one hand,
it enables one to observe the distribution of criteria weights over the sample, which helps
to explain the taste variation on attribute preferences. On the other hand, the MNL model
is not sufficient for explaining the random taste variations. According to the analyses,
UTASTAR model finds a heterogeneous distribution of transport cost and travel time
weights with a negative correlation among each other. It is an anticipated outcome as
shippers who tend to attach more importance to cost may disregard the significance of
shorter travel times, because cheaper transport modes have longer travel times in general.
Moreover, ACUTA model finds a variation on cost and CO2 emissions. The product type
and the characteristics of the shipping companies likely create the variations over the
64
Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations
sample as stated in the literature. However, further research might still be needed as the
given data does not include the specific required information.
One disadvantage of the UTA-type models would be about analyzing the willingness to
pay of shippers in case of a change on qualitative attributes. The FVOT and FVOR are
found using the predicted additive value functions. Yet, the UTA-type model results do not
seem very suitable for explaining the value of time because the values are significantly
lower compared to literature findings. On the contrary, the results of MNL model are in
line with literature findings, which may imply that MNL model performs better in WTP
analysis. Yet, different results also lead to questioning in practical terms that which values
could be used in cost-benefit analysis. Further research is suggested on this issue. Although
transport policy makers and construction companies are still recommended to be aware of
these different FVOT and FVOR as the consequences on policies and infrastructure
projects could be very significantly affected by the values. Despite this limitation, UTA-
type models perform sufficiently well to model the attribute preferences of shippers. The
results are in line with the literature findings, which indicate that transport cost has the
highest weight while CO2 emission has the lowest significance in mode choice decision.
Moreover, it can be still concluded that UTASTAR and ACUTA models are applicable to
model the transport mode choice behavior. This research indicates that even if the UTA-
type models are methodologically generated for ordinal regression analysis, they can also
sufficiently perform with a choice data with plenty of advantages. Thus, this research has
made an important scientific contribution by identifying a possible adaptation of UTA-type
models into the choice analysis methodologically and recognizing the better performance
of these MCDA methods as compared to that of the classical MNL choice model for the
same sample data by means of comparison. Moreover, MCDA methods are also less
difficult to understand methodologically compared to the discrete choice models with
simple computations and assumptions. They are also user friendly and easy to apply.
Therefore, shippers and policy analysts in freight transport sector can apply the UTA-type
models with less difficulty. Consequently, this research also has practical contributions to
the transport sector in modeling the mode choice decision.
6.2 Policy implications and recommendations for transport mode choice

This research provides intriguing results on mode choice behavior by applying UTA-type
models in a different way rather than their conventional use methodologically. The
obtained outcomes could also be used to generate implications on and recommendations
for transport policy making, particularly in mode selection processes, as presented below:
1. This thesis indicates that shippers and logistics service providers can employ UTA-
type methods in their transport mode choices as these methods are originally generated
for an individual use as MCDA methods. They may reveal a sufficient performance for
institute-based strategy and policy making.
2. UTA-type models can also be used for general policy making purposes for larger
populations. It is because the representativeness of these models is found at least as
good as that of discrete choice models. Therefore, transport policy makers can apply
UTA-type methods to observe the attribute preferences of shippers. Moreover, the
advantage of these methods is to provide the distribution of attribute weights over the
65
population, while choice models may require larger sample data to be able to provide
variations. Especially for local regions or smaller markets, in which collecting a large
data is challenging, using UTA-type models may be beneficial for policy makers to
evaluate the variations.
3. The empirical study shows that transport cost is the most important factor in mode
choice for shippers in the Netherlands, followed by the on-time reliability, travel time
and CO2 emissions. In this regard, the shippers are suggested to pay more attention on
their efficiency in production or their services to compensate the cost of transportation.
Furthermore, the logistics service providers are recommended to work on their pricing
policy for transport services in order to create a competitive sector with competitive
prices.
4. The qualitative factors are also relatively significant in mode decision making. The
distribution of the significance of such variables vary between different shippers. This
might be contributed by the variation of different sectors and product types among the
analyzed shippers, although further research is needed to strengthen this claim. These
two markets, which are food/agriculture and manufacturing industry, can focus on their
relevant service quality demands to develop the performance of transport of goods.
5. The outcomes indicate a negative correlation between transport cost and travel time for
shippers’ preferences. The reason might be shippers’ varying interests in the modal
shift, as it is expected that the ones prefer intermodal transport value the cost more than
others, and vice versa. Therefore, the intermodal service providers are suggested to
utilize the pricing/cost as one of their policy measures in future studies on the modal
shift.
6. CO2 emission also seems to be an important factor in mode choice of Dutch shippers,
although the significance level is lower than other factors. However, it is still not
negligible. Therefore, transport policy makers in the Netherlands are suggested to work
on the environmental effects and consequences of different transport modes.
7. The freight value of time and reliability values found by UTA-type models are different
than the findings of existing literature. One of the reasons might be related to the use
of a different methodology than the conventional way, such as discrete choice model
or factor cost approach. Future study is recommended on this issue. Yet, it can be an
interesting insight for policy makers. They could be aware of different possible FVOT
and FVOR values because this situation may lead to potentially significant
consequences. Particularly, the low FVOT value implies that such shippers may pay
less attention to travel time, which means any improvement project to shorten the travel
time may not be as required as policy makers or construction companies perceive. The
attention might be on the other factors instead. Thus, there might be very significant
consequences on infrastructure projects as the investment for reducing travel time may
not be needed or the benefits would be lower. Therefore, policy makers and
construction companies are suggested to pay additional attention on the accuracy of
FVOT and FVOR when using them to calculate the costs and benefits of the projects.
6.3 Limitations of this research

The research has generated interesting findings and has significantly contributed to freight
transport literature. However, several limitations in the research scope and research
outcomes are found. These limitations are briefly summarized as follows:
66
Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations
1. The predicted models of this research reflect the transport mode choice behavior of
Dutch shippers for the selected case study and its region. However, as mentioned in
Chapter 2.1, there are various actors involved in transport activities. More specifically,
the logistics service providers may affect the mode choice decision if the shipping
company outsources these activities. Particularly, in case of intermodal transport or
implementing the milk run transport, it is possible to transfer the goods of several
shippers. Thus, the carrier likely decides the mode choice. Moreover, there may be
additional factors affecting the decision in such cases like distance etc. The selected
case study in this paper is a simpler form of transport activities in which a shipper
makes the mode decision, considering the most commonly used determinants of the
decision problem.
2. The selected data includes only four transport attributes, excluding other important
factors such as frequency and flexibility. The literature review in Chapter 2.2 indicates
that many studies have also considered frequency and flexibility in the mode choice
models. This research outcomes do not cover the relative significance of such attributes
against transport cost, travel time, emissions and on-time reliability.
3. This research utilizes the choice sets that require only one-choice of the respondent
among the given alternatives. However, as stated by Hensher (2005, pp. 175-176), the
use of dual-choice or non-choice alternative may be common in choice experiments.
The adaptation of UTA-type models could also be performed for other choice set
designs.
4. The applied case study of the research employed the data on one sample population
that consists of the Dutch shippers operating in Venlo – Port of Rotterdam hinterland
connection. Actually, the analyses were repeated with the cross validation technique
for various smaller samples of the given population, representing the sample 73.7% by
UTASTAR model and 77.5% by ACUTA model on average. Yet, the results are limited
to the one population.
5. The characteristics of the shippers are not available to the author of this study. The
choice data of respondents for nine choice sets are visible, yet the names of the shippers
on the data are anonymous. This situation limits the analysis on random taste variation
for the given sample.
6.4 Future research recommendations

This research reveals a sound contribution into the freight transport literature, especially
for mode choice decision problems, despite the aforementioned limitations of the study.
Nevertheless, these limitations shed light on the possible future research opportunities. In
this regard, several research recommendations for future study are provided as follows:
1. In order to enhance the claim that the UTA-type models perform at least as good as the
MNL discrete choice models, additional empirical studies are needed in this area.
UTASTAR and ACUTA models can be implemented by utilizing different choice data
with variability. The data on different sectors, geographical locations and actors could
be used to analyze the transport mode choice behavior with UTA-type models broadly.
It is suggested to replicate these models for more case studies and with the data which
has more observations. In this way, the claims on UTA-type models can be generalized.
2. The research on taste variation of attribute preferences can be conducted with sufficient
data. Since UTA-type models allow an observation of the distribution of criteria
67
weights over the sample, it is possible to analyze the reasons of taste variation by using
these models. This study is restricted to this analysis because of the availability of the
data. However, more detailed data including the characteristics of the decision-makers,
the socioeconomic factors and market characteristics shall be employed to predict
UTA-type preference models, and explore taste variations.
3. As stated in Chapter 6.3, some choice problems cover the experimental study design
with dual-choice or non-choice sets. This implies that the respondents may be asked to
select two choices among alternatives so as to model different choice scenarios by using
the same choice set or they may be allowed to select no-choice alternative additional
to the regular alternatives if they prefer not to choose (Hensher, 2005, pp. 175-176). It
should be investigated whether the UTA-type models can be adapted to such choice
sets or not. It is an important research opportunity to explore the applicability of the
UTA-type models in different type of choice experiments.
4. The UTA-type models could be replicated for the choice datasets with more than 3
alternatives. As mentioned in Chapter 4.2.1 and 4.3.1, the information loss occurs when
adapting the model formulations to the choice data, because the relationship between
the remaining alternatives rather than the chosen one is missing. This information loss
is somehow limited when 3 alternatives are modeled. However, when the number of
alternatives increases in choice sets, the reliability of UTA-type model results could
also be negatively affected. Therefore, additional studies that utilize data with more
than 3 alternatives are beneficial to explore whether these models can still outperform
the MNL model in that case.
5. UTA-type models have an information loss on the relationship of non-chosen
alternatives to adapt their model formulation to the choice data, as mentioned
previously. Yet, these models still reveal a good performance in representing the
choices. It could create a hypothesis that UTA-type models would even perform better
when using an appropriate/conventional data of such models which has the ranked
information of alternatives rather than choice. Future research is suggested to test this
hypothesis.
68
References
Abdelwahab, W., & Sargious, M. (1992). Modelling the demand for freight transport: A
new approach. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 26(1), 49–70.
Arunotayanun, K., & Polak, J. W. (2011). Taste heterogeneity and market segmentation in
freight shippers’ mode choice behaviour. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, 47(2), 138–148.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.09.003
Arvis, J.-F., Mustra, M. A., & Panzer, J. (2008). Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics
in the Global Economy. The Global Enabling Trade Report, World Economic Forum.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2011). A multi-criteria decision making
approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53, 98-109.
Behrends, S., Lindholm, M., & Woxenius, J. (2008). The Impact of Urban Freight
Transport: A Definition of Sustainability from an Actor’s Perspective.
Transportation Planning and Technology, 31(6), 693–713.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03081060802493247
Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A., & Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE:
A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European
Journal of Operational Research, 200, 198-215.
Beltran, M., Chorus, C., Tavasszy, L., & van Wee, B. (2012). Preferences relating to
container transportation from the port of Rotterdam to the hinterland: Results from
a choice experiment. Delft: TU Delft.
Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis. The USA: MIT Press.
Bergantino, A. S., & Bolis, S. (2004). An Analysis of Maritime Ro-Ro Freight Transport
Service Attributes through Adaptive Stated Preference: an Application to a Sample
of Freight Forwarders. European Transport, 25-26, 33–51.
Bergantino, A. S., & Bolis, S. (2008). Monetary values of transport service attributes: land
versus maritime ro-ro transport. An application using adaptive stated preferences.
Maritime Policy & Management, 35(2), 159–174.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03088830801956821
Beuthe, M., & Bouffioux, C. (2008). Analysing Qualitative Attributes of Freight Transport
from Stated Orders of Preference Experiment. Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy, 42(1), 105–128.
69
Beuthe, M., Bouffioux, C., De Maeyer, J., Santamaria, G., Vandresse, M., & Vandaele, E.
(2003). A multi-criteria analysis of stated preferences among freight transport
alternatives. In ERSA 2003 Congress University of Jyvaskyla.
Beuthe, M., & Scannella, G. (2001). Comparative analysis of UTA multicriteria methods.
European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 246–262.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00042-4
Bierlaire, M. (2008). BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice
models. In Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference.
Ascona, Switzerland.
Blauwens, G., Vandaele, N., Van de Voorde, E., Vernimmen, B., & Witlox, F. (2006).
Towards a Modal Shift in Freight Transport? A Business Logistics Analysis of Some
Policy Measures. Transport Reviews, 26, 239-251.
Bous, G., Fortemps, P., Glineur, F., & Pirlot, M. (2010). ACUTA: A novel method for
eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements.
European Journal of Operational Research, 206(2), 435–444.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.009
Bowersox, D. J., Closs, D. J., & Cooper, M. B. (2007). Supply Chain Logistics
Management. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Brans, J.-P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE Methods. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, &
M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (1st
ed., pp. 163–196). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Bristow, A. L., & Zanni, A. M. (2006). Decision Factors Underlying Transport Mode
Choice in European Freight Transport. Association for European Transport and
contributors.
Brooks, M. R., Puckett, S. M., Hensher, D. A., & Sammons, A. (2012). Understanding
mode choice decisions: A study of Australian freight shippers. Maritime Economics
& Logistics, 14(3), 274–299. http://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2012.8
Bolis, S., & Maggi, R. (2003). Logistics strategy and transport service choices: an adaptive
stated preferences experiment. Growth and Change, 34(4), 490-504.
Cascetta, E. (2009). Transportation Systems Analysis: Models and Applications. New

York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Chen, Y. (2006). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: Classification Problems and

Solutions. University of Waterloo.
70
Cheng, Y.-H. (2010). Exploring the Intermodal Passenger Transfer of a High Speed Rail
System. In 12th World Conference for Transportation Research.
Chiang, Y. S., Roberts, P. O., & Ben-Akiva, M. (1980). Development of a Policy-Sensitive

Model for Forecasting Freight Demand, report DOT-P-30-81-04. U.S. Department
of Transportation.
Chiara, B., Deflorio, F. P., & Spione, D. (2008). The rolling road between the Italian and
French Alps: Modeling the modal split. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, 44(6), 1162–1174.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2007.10.001
Chou, C. C. (2005). A comparative study of models for port choice. The 6th biannual
EASTS conference 2005 (Vol. 5, pp. 608-616). Eastern Asia Society for Transport
Studies.
Chou, C. C. (2010). AHP model for the container port choice in the multiple-ports
region. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 18(2), 221-232.
Cook, W. D., & Kress, M. (1991). A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal
preference data. European Journal of Operational Research, 54, 191-198.
Coyle, J., Bardi, E., & Novack, R. (2006). Transportation. Mason, OH: Thomson South-
Western.
Crainic, T. G., Ricciardi, N., & Storchi, G. (2004). Advanced freight transportation systems
for congested urban areas. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 12(2), 119-137.
Cullinane, K., & Toy, N. (2000). Identifying influential attributes in freight route/mode
choice decisions: A content analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 36(1), 41–53. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-5545(99)00016-
2
Cunningham, W. H. J. (1982). Freight modal choice and competition in transportation: a

critique and categorization of analysis techniques. Transportation Journal, 21(4), 66-
75.
Danielis, R., & Marcucci, E. (2007). Attribute cut-offs in freight service selection.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 43(5), 506–
515. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2005.10.002
Danielis, R., Marcucci, E., & Rotaris, L. (2005). Logistics managers’ stated preferences
for freight service attributes. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 41(3), 201–215. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2004.04.003
71
de Jong, G. (2008). Value of Freight Travel-Time Savings. In D. A. Hensher & K. J. Button
(Eds.), Handbook of Transport Modelling (2nd ed., pp. 649–663).
de Jong, G. (2014). 6 - Mode Choice Models. In L. Tavasszy & G. de Jong (Eds.),

Modelling Freight Transport (1st ed., pp. 117–141). Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410400-6.00006-9
de Jong, G. C., Bakker, S., & Pieters, M. (2004). Main survey into the value of time in
freight transport by road. Technical report prepared for the AVV Transport Research
Centre.
de Jong, G. C., Gommers, M. A., & Klooster, J. P. G. (2000). Time valuation in freight
transport: methods and results. In J. de D. Ortuzar (Ed.), Stated Preferences
Modelling Techniques (pp. 231-242). London: PTRC.
de Jong, G., Kouwenhoven, M., Bates, J., Koster, P., Verhoef, E., Tavasszy, L., &
Warffemius, P. (2014 ). New SP-values of time and reliability for freight transport in
the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 64, 71–87. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.01.008
Derakhshan, A., Khademi, A., Khademi, S., Yusof, N. M., & Lee, M. H. (2015). Review
of discrete-continuous models in energy and transportation. Procedia CIRP, 26, 281–
286. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.053
Despotis, D. K., & Zopounidis, C. (1993). Building additive utilities in the presence of
non-monotonic preference. In P. M. Pardalos, Y. Siskos & C. Zopounidis (Eds.),
Advances in multicriteria analysis (pp. 101-114). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publisher.
Despotis, D. K., Yannacopoulos, D., & Zopounidis, C. (1990). A review of the UTA
multicriteria method and some improvements. Foundations of Computing and
Decision Sciences, 15, 63-76.
Devaud, J. M., Groussaud, G., & Jacquet-Lagreze, E. (1980). UTADIS: Une methode de
construction de fonctions d’utilite additives rendant compte de jugements globaux.
European Working Group on Multicriteria Decision Aid, Bochum.
Doumpos, M., & Zopounidis, C. (2002). Multicriteria Decision Aid Classification

Methods (1st ed., Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Dyer, J. S. (2005). MAUT - Multiattribute Utility Theory. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M.

Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (1st ed.,
pp. 265–296). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
72
Efron, B. (1983). Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: improvement on cross-
validation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(382), 316-330.
Ehrgott, M., & Wiecek, M.M. (2005). Multiobjective Programming. In J. Figueira, S.

Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art
Surveys (1st ed., pp. 641–666). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
European Commission. (2007). The EU•f freight transport agenda: Boosting the efficiency,
integration and sustainability of freight transport in Europe.
European Commission. (2011). Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards

a competitive and resource efficient transport system.
Feo, M., Espino, R., & Garcia, L. (2011). An stated preference analysis of Spanish freight
forwarders modal choice on the south-west Europe Motorway of the Sea. Transport
Policy, 18(1), 60–67. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.05.009
Feo-Valero, M., García-Menéndez, L., & Garrido-hidalgo, R. (2011a). Valuing Freight

Transport Time using Transport Demand Modelling: A Bibliographical Review.
Transport Reviews, 31(5), 625–651. http://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.564330
Feo-Valero, M., Garcia-Menendez, L., Saez-Carramolino, L., & Furio-Prunonosa, S.

(2011b). The importance of the inland leg of containerised maritime shipments: An
analysis of modal choice determinants in Spain. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(4), 446–460.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.11.011
Figueira, J., Mousseau, V., & Roy, B. (2005). ELECTRE Methods. In J. Figueira, S. Greco,
& M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys
(1st ed., pp. 133–162). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Fries, H. T. N. (2009). Market Potential and Value of Sustainable Freight Transport

Chains. Technical University of Dresden.
García-Menéndez, L., Martínez-Zarzoso, I., Piñero De Miguel, D., Garc, L., Mart, I., &
Pinero De Miguel, D. (2004). Determinants of Mode Choice between Road and
Shipping for Freight Transport: Evidence for Four Spanish Exporting Sectors.
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38(3), 447–466.
Govindan, K., & Jepsen, M. B. (2016). ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on

methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 250, 1-
29.
73
Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2016). Identifying enablers of technological innovation for
Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 107, 69-79.
Hall, R. W. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of Transportation Science. New York, NY: Springer
Science + Business Media.
Hanaoka, S., & Kunadhamraks, P. (2009). Multiple criteria and fuzzy based evaluation of
logistics performance for intermodal transportation. Journal of Advanced
Transportation, 43(2), 123-153.
Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand.

Econometrica, 52(3), 541–561. http://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA6727
Harker, P. T. (1985). The state of the art in the predictive analysis of freight transport
systems. Transport Reviews, 5(2), 143–164.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01441648508716591
Hasenjager, M., Sendhoff, B., Sonoda, T., & Arima, T. (2005). Three dimensional
evolutionary aerodynamic design optimization using single and multi-objective
approaches. In R. Schilling, W. Haase, J. Periaux, H. Baier, & G. Bugeda (Eds.)
Evolutionary and Deterministic Methods for Design, Optimization and Control with
Applications to Industrial and Societal Problems EUROGEN 2005. Munich: FLM.
Heijnen, P.W. (2013). Lecture on Statistical Modelling. Personal Collection of P.W.

Heijnen, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis (1st ed.).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Herath, G., & Prato, T. (2006). Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Natural
Resource Management. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – A literature
review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186, 211-228.
Jacquet-Lagreze, E. (1995). An application of the UTA discriminant model for the

evaluation of R&D projects. In P. M. Pardalos, Y. Siskos & C. Zopounidis (Eds.),
Advances in multicriteria analysis (pp. 203-211). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publisher.
Jacquet-Lagreze, E., & Siskos, J. (1978). Une methode de construction de fonctions d’

utilite additives explicatives d’ une preference globale. Cahier du LAMSADE, 16.
74
Jacquet-Lagreze, E., & Siskos, J. (1982). Assessing a set of additive utility functions for
multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. European Journal of Operational
Research, 10(2), 151–164. http://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(82)90155-2
Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., & Siskos, Y. (2001). Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA

experience. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 233–245.
Jiang, F., & Calzada, C. (1997). Modeling the influence of the characteristics of freight
transport on the value of time and the mode choice. In Proceedings of Seminar E
Held at PRTC European Transport Forum, Brubel University, England, 1-5
September 1997. Wokingham: PTRC Education and Research Services Limited.
Kayikci, Y. (2010). A conceptual model for intermodal freight logistics centre location
decisions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 6297-6311.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and
Value Tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
Kim, J.-H. (2009). Estimating classification error rate: Repeated cross-validation, repeated
hold-out and bootstrap. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 53(11), 3735–
3745. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2009.04.009
Kohavi, R. (1995). A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation

and Model Selection. In the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Korhonen, P. (2005). Interactive Methods. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.),

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (1st ed., pp. 641–666).
Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Kurri, J., Sirkia, A., & Mikola, J. (2000). Value of time in freight transport in Finland.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1725, 26–30. http://doi.org/10.3141/1725-04
Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political

Economy, 7, 132-157.
Li, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2011). Selection of logistics center location using Axiomatic
Fuzzy Set and TOPSIS methodology in logistics management. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(6), 7901-7908.
Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F. K., Kiker, G., Batchelor, C., Bridges, T., & Ferguson, E. (2006).
From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive
management: Recent developments and applications. Environment International,
32(8), 1072-1093.
75
Lirn, T.-C., Thanopoulou, H., & Beresford, A. K. C. (2003). Transhipment port selection
and decision-making behaviour: Analysing the Taiwanese case. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 6(4), 229-244.
Luce, D. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica, 24.
Manski, C. F. (1973). Structure of Random Utility Models (Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge,

Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics).
Meixell, M. J., & Norbis, M. (2008). A review of the transportation mode choice and carrier
selection literature. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 19(2), 183–
211. http://doi.org/10.1108/09574090810895951
Norojono, O., & Young, W. (2003). A Stated Preference Freight Mode Choice Model.
Transportation Planning and Technology, 26(2), 195–212.
http://doi.org/10.1080/715020600
Obayashi, S., Sasaki, D., Takaguchi, Y., & Hirose, N. (2000). Multi-objective evolutionary
computation for supersonic wing-shape optimization. IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation, 4(2), 182–187.
Olhofer, M., Arima, T., Sonoda, T., & Sendhoff, B. (2000). Optimization of a stator blade
used in a transonic compressor cascade with evolution strategies. In I. Parmee (Ed.),
Adaptive Computing in Design and Manufacture (pp. 45–54). Heidelberg: Springer.
Ortúzar, J. de D., & Willumsen, L. G. (2011). Modal Split and Direct Demand Models. In
Modelling Transport (4th ed., pp. 207–225). Chicester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Pardalos, P. M., Siskos, Y., & Zopounidis, C. (1995). Advances in Multicriteria Analysis.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Patterson, Z., Ewing, G. O., & Haider, M. (2007). Mode and Carrier Choice in the Quebec
City - Windsor Corridor: A Random Parameters Approach. In The 6th Triennal
Symphosium on Transportation Analysis (TRISTAN VI). Phuket Island.
Patterson, Z., Ewing, G. O., & Haider, M. (2008). The potential for premium-intermodal
services to reduce freight CO2 emissions in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 13(1), 1–9.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2007.10.001
Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making

to sustainable energy planning—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 8, 365-381.
76
Regan, A. C., & Garrido, R. A. (2002). Modeling Freight Demand and Shipper Behaviour:
State of the Art, Future Directions. Irvine.
Reis, V. (2014). Analysis of mode choice variables in short-distance intermodal freight

transport using an agent-based model. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 61, 100–120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.002
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and

a linear model. Omega, 64, 126-130.
Rezaei, J., Hemmes, A., & Tavasszy, L. (2016a). Multi-criteria decision-making for
complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight. Journal of
Air Transport Management.
Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2016b). A supplier selection life cycle
approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst
method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 577-588.
Rezaei, J., Wang, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2015). Linking supplier development to supplier
segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Systems With Applications, 42(23),
9152-9164.
Rodríguez, J. D., Pérez, A., & Lozano, J. A. (2010). Sensitivity Analysis of k-Fold Cross
Validation in Prediction Error Estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis
and Machine Intelligence, 32(3), 569–575. Retrieved from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=5342427&tag=1#article
Roy, B. (1985). Methodologie Multicritere d’Aide a la Decision. Paris: Economica.
Russo, F., & Chila, G. (2007). A mode choice model to analyze high speed potentiality in
the motor-way of the sea. Paper presented at the 11th World Conference on Transport
Research, Berkeley, CA, USA, 24-28 June 2007.
Saaty, T.L. (2005). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network processes for the
Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision-Making. In J. Figueira, S.
Surveys (1st ed., pp. 345–408). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Sadaghiani, S., Ahmad, K. W., Rezaei, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2015, April). Evaluation of
external forces affecting supply chain sustainability in oil and gas industry using Best
Worst Method. In Gas and Oil Conference (MedGO), 2015 International
Mediterranean (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
77
Samimi, A., Kawamura, K., & Mohammadian, A. (2011). A behavioral analysis of freight
mode choice decisions. Transportation Planning and Technology, 34 (September
2014), 857–869. http://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2011.600092
Sanayei, A., Mousavi, S. F., Abdi, M. R., & Mohaghar, A. (2008). An integrated group
decision-making process for supplier selection and order allocation using multi-
attribute utility theory and linear programming. Journal of the Franklin Institute,
345, 731-747.
Schneider, J. (1997). Cross Validation. In J. Schneider, & A. W. Moore (Eds.), A Locally

Weighted Learning Tutorial using Vizier 1.0. Retrieved from
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~schneide/tut5/tut5.html
Shafabakhsh, G. A., Hadjihoseinlou, M., & Taghizadeh, S. A. (2014). Selecting the

appropriate public transportation system to access the Sari International Airport by
fuzzy decision making. European Transport Research Review, 6(3), 277-285.
Siskos, J. (1982). A way to deal with fuzzy preferences in multicriteria decision problems.
European Journal of Operational Research, 10(3), 314-324.
Siskos, J. (1983). Analyse de systemes de decision multicritere en univers aleatoire.

Foundations of Control Enginerring, 10(3-4), 193-212.
Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., & Matsatsinis, N. F. (2005). UTA Methods. In J. Figueira, S.
Surveys (1st ed., pp. 297-343). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Siskos, Y., & Spyridakos, A. (1999). Intelligent multicriteria decision support: Overview
and perspectives. European Journal of Operational Research, 113(2), 236–246.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00213-6
Siskos, Y., & Yannacopoulos, D. (1985). UTASTAR: An ordinal regression method for
building additive value functions. Investigacao Operacional, 5(1), 39-53.
Srinivasan, V., & Shocker, A. D. (1973). Linear programming techniques for

multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika, 38(3), 337-396.
Stewart, T., Bandte, O., Braun, H., Chakraborti, N., Ehrgott, M., Gobelt, M., . . . Di Stefano,
D. (2008). Real-World Applications of Multiobjective Optimization. In J. Branke, K.
Deb, K. Miettinen, & R. Slowinski (Eds.), Multiobjective Optimization: Interactive
and Evolutionary Approaches (1st ed., pp. 285-327). Heidelberg: Springer Science
+ Business Media, Inc.
78
Stewart, T.J., Janssen, R., & van Herwijnen, M. (2004). A genetic algorithm approach to
multiobjective land use planning. Computers and Operations Research, 32, 2293-
2313.
Strong, C. K., Harrison, R., & Mahmassani, H. S. (1996). A methodology for determining
the freight border transportation impact of the North American free trade agreement.
University of Texas, Center for Transportation Research Report, 1319-4.
Subramanian, N., & Ramanathan, R. (2012). A review of applications of Analytic

Hierarchy Process in operations management. International Journal of Production
Economics, 138, 215-241.
Surmeli, G., Kaya, I., & Erdogan, M. (2015). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
approach for choosing a logistics center location in Turkey. In 6th International
Conference on Modeling, Simulation, and Applied Optimization, ICMSAO 2015 -
Dedicated to the Memory of Late Ibrahim El-Sadek. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Inc.
Taniguchia, E., Thompsonb, R. G., & Yamadaa, T. (2016). New opportunities and
challenges for city logistics. Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 5 – 13.
Tavasszy, L. (2006). Freight Modeling: An Overview of International Experiences. In

Transport Research Board Conference Proceedings 40 (pp. 47-55). Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Tavasszy, L., & de Jong, G. (2014). 1 - Introduction. In L. Tavasszy & G. de Jong (Eds.),
Modelling Freight Transport (1st ed., pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410400-6.00001-X
Tersine, R.J. & Hummingbird, E.A. (1995). Lead-time reduction: the search for
competitive advantage. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 15, 8-18.
Toloie-Eshlaghy, A., & Homayonfar, M. (2011). MCDM Methodologies and Applications

: A Literature Review from 1999 to 2009. Research Journal of International Studies,
21(21), 86-137.
Torabi, S. A., Giahi, R., & Sahebjamnia, N. (2016). An enhanced risk assessment
framework for business continuity management systems. Safety science, 89, 201-
218.
Torbianelli, V. A. (2009). Road Congestion Generated by Distribution Centres in European

Port Regions: Risks and Opportunities of the Development of Hybrid Logistics.
Pomorstvo, 23(1), 21-39.
79
Torrance, G. W., Boyle, M. H., & Horwood, S. P. (1982). Application of multi-attribute
utility theory to measure social preferences for Health States. Operations Research,
30(6), 1043- 1069.
Train, K. E. (2002). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (1st ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Vanderpooten, D. (1989). The interactive approach in MCDA: A technical framework and

some basic conceptions. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 12(10-11), 1213-
1220.
Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56-66.
Vellay, C., & de Jong, G. (2003). Analyse Conjointe SP/RP du Choix du Mode de Transport
de Marchandises dans la Region Nord-Pas de Calais.
Wanders, G. (2014). Determining shippers’ attribute preference for container transport on

the Rotterdam – Venlo corridor (Master’s thesis, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands).
Watson, P. L., & Westin, R. B. (1975). Transferability of Disaggregate Mode Choice

Models. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 5, 227-249.
Wei, L., Wenshun, L., & Wendy, H. (2006). Analysis of the dynamic relation between
logistics development and GDP growth in China. In 2006 IEEE International
Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, SOLI 2006, 153-
157.
Winston, C. (1983). The demand for freight transportation: Models and applications.
Transportation Research Part A: General, 17A(6), 419–427.
http://doi.org/10.1016/0191-2607(83)90162-0
Woxenius, J. & Bärthel, F. (2008). Intermodal road-rail transport in the European Union.
In: Konings, R., Priemus, H. & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), The Future of Intermodal Freight
Transport, Concepts, Design and Implementation. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Witlox, F., & Vandaele, E. (2005). Determining the monetary value of quality attributes in
freight transportation using a stated preference approach. Transportation Planning
and Technology, 28(2), 77–92. http://doi.org/10.1080/03081060500053301
Zografos, K. G., & Regan, A. (2004). Current challenges for intermodal freight transport
and logistics in Europe and the US. Transportation Research Record, 19.
80
Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2001). A preference disaggregation decision support
system for financial classification problems. European Journal of Operational
Research, 130(2), 402-413.
Zotti, J., & Danielis, R. (2004). Freight transport demand in the mechanics’ sector of Friuli
Venezia Giulia: the choice between intermodal and road transport. European
Transport, 25-26, 9–20.
81
Appendix I – Choice sets in an experimental design
82
83
Appendix II – An example of UTASTAR model application
To determine the optimal utility functions of all shippers, 51 different LP models are
formulated and solved separately by employing the Maple software tool. One shipper’s
preference model estimation is presented in this section as an example.
The choice data of the Shipper 2 is as follows:
84
The marginal utilities of the attributes are formulated and transformed into ••• variables.
Then, the global utilities of the alternatives are written with these variables, also including
the error terms. The choice data of Shipper 2 is used to create the utility difference
constraints. As a result, the initial LP formulation of the Shipper 2 is presented below:
w11 w12 w21 w22 w31 w32 w41 w42 e1+ e1- e2+ e2- e3+ e3- RHS
0 -1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 -1 -1 1 0 0 • 0.05
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 -1 1 1 -1 • 0.05
1 1 0 -1 0 -1 0 1 -1 1 0 0 1 -1 • 0.05
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 • 0.05
0 1 0 1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 • 0.05
1 1 1 1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 1 0 0 1 -1 • 0.05
0 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 1 1 -1 -1 1 0 0 • 0.05
1 0 0 1 -1 -1 1 1 0 0 -1 1 1 -1 • 0.05
1 1 0 -1 1 1 0 1 -1 1 0 0 1 -1 • 0.05
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 • 0.05
0 1 0 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 • 0.05
1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 0 1 -1 • 0.05
0 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 1 1 -1 -1 1 0 0 • 0.05
1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 -1 1 1 -1 • 0.05
0 1 -1 0 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 • 0.05
1 1 0 -1 -1 0 0 1 -1 1 0 0 1 -1 • 0.05
0 1 0 1 0 1 -1 0 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 • 0.05
1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 0 1 -1 • 0.05
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 •••
85
The LP model is solved in Maple where the model formulation and the solution can be
seen as:
>
>
86
>
As seen from the solution, • = 0 while !"# = 0.05, !## = 0.475, and !$# = 0.475.
Since the solution is not unique, but there are multiple optimal solutions; the post-
optimality analysis needs to be conducted by maximizing the utility of each attribute one-
by-one. Because the error terms are found as 0,%they can be directly excluded from LPs.
The new LP formulation in a tabular form is provided as:
w11 w12 w21 w22 w31 w32 w41 w42 RHS

0 -1 1 1 1 1 0 1 • 0.05
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 • 0.05
1 1 0 -1 0 -1 0 1 • 0.05
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 • 0.05
0 1 0 1 -1 -1 -1 0 • 0.05
1 1 1 1 -1 0 -1 -1 • 0.05
0 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 1 • 0.05
1 0 0 1 -1 -1 1 1 • 0.05
1 1 0 -1 1 1 0 1 • 0.05
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 • 0.05
0 1 0 1 1 0 -1 0 • 0.05
1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 • 0.05
0 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 1 • 0.05
1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 • 0.05
0 1 -1 0 -1 -1 1 1 • 0.05
1 1 0 -1 -1 0 0 1 • 0.05
0 1 0 1 0 1 -1 0 • 0.05
1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 • 0.05
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 1
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ••• !" ( "! )
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 #$%&'* (+*" )
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 #$%&', (+," )
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 #$%&'- (+-" )
The 4 LP models are typed in Maple with the constraints and solved as shown in the
previous page, using the Optimization[Maximize](obj, constraints) command. The results
of the post-optimality analysis are the following:
87
w11 w12 w21 w22 w31 w32 w41 w42
••• !" (#$" ) 0.917 0.017 0.033 0.033 0 0 0 0
••• !% (#$% ) 0 0.033 0.917 0.017 0 0 0 0.033
••• !& (#$& ) 0 0.21 0.033 0.193 0.177 0.177 0 0.21
••• !' (#$' ) 0 0.05 0 0.475 0 0 0 0.475
Average 0.229 0.077 0.246 0.18 0.044 0.044 0 0.18
The average values provide with the final solutions of ••• variables. From these values, the
normalized marginal utilities of attributes and the global values of alternatives can be
calculated. The additive utility function can be written as:
(!) = 8938;"# (!# ) Q 894L;"P (!P ) Q 89088"% (!% ) Q 8918"& (!& )
The normalized marginal utilities of attributes can be shown as:
1 1 1 1
0.748
u1(g1) 0.577
u2(g2)
0 0 0 0
150 300 450 3 10 17
1 1 1 1
u3(g3) 0.5 u4(g4)
0 0 0 0 0
20 70 120 75 85 95
88
Appendix III – UTASTAR model estimation results
The UTASTAR model estimations are conducted for all shippers individually for their
consistent choices. The optimal solutions with the additive utility function and criteria
weights are found. The whole list of the 51 criteria weight sets are presented as follows:

1 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
2 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
3 0.510 0.060 0.087 0.343
4 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
5 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
6 0.573 0.140 0.165 0.123
7 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
8 0.285 0.285 0.087 0.343
9 0.119 0.644 0.119 0.119
10 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
11 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
12 0.306 0.318 0.152 0.224
13 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
14 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
15 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
16 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
17 0.181 0.427 0.183 0.209
18 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
19 0.306 0.318 0.152 0.224
20 0.071 0.447 0.044 0.437
21 0.318 0.116 0.167 0.399
22 0.119 0.644 0.119 0.119
23 0.415 0.071 0.454 0.061
24 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
25 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
26 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
27 0.285 0.285 0.087 0.343
28 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
29 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
30 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
31 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
32 0.408 0.525 0.067 0.000
33 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
34 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
35 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.644
36 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
37 0.285 0.285 0.087 0.343
38 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
39 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
40 0.307 0.425 0.088 0.180
41 0.230 0.355 0.160 0.255
42 0.573 0.140 0.165 0.123
43 0.644 0.119 0.119 0.119
89
44 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.644
45 0.285 0.285 0.087 0.343
46 0.285 0.285 0.087 0.343
47 0.181 0.427 0.183 0.209
48 0.318 0.116 0.167 0.399
49 0.285 0.285 0.087 0.343
50 0.316 0.314 0.166 0.204
51 0.234 0.367 0.352 0.047
Average 0.402 0.265 0.126 0.207
90
Appendix IV – Biogeme input and output files of MNL model
The Biogeme mod-file is presented as follows:
91
The output file of a base MNL model which was estimated for the entire sample
considering all 455 observations are presented below:
92
The output file of the MNL model which was estimated for 441 observations by excluding
the inconsistent choices detected by the UTASTAR model is presented as follows:
93
The output file of the MNL model which was estimated for 405 observations by excluding
the inconsistent choices detected by the ACUTA model is presented as follows:
94
Appendix V – Cross validation results of UTASTAR and
ACUTA models
The 10-fold cross validation technique is applied for both UTASTAR and MNL models.
The 51 respondents are divided into 10 folds randomly. Every time 1 fold is left out and
taken as a test set. Then weights and parameters are estimated by UTASTAR and MNL
models respectively for each 9 training tests. The model estimations are employed on test
sets to assess the model accuracy. In order to reduce the variance in model estimation and
the effect of data partitions, the process is replicated 5 times employing the different data
splits. Therefore, the total number of runs is 50. The rate of violation of consistency for
each run are presented below:
Model run no. Violation of consistency rate in Violation of consistency rate in

UTASTAR model MNL model
1 0.122 0.390
2 0.244 0.178
3 0.289 0.333
4 0.205 0.409
5 0.378 0.489
6 0.262 0.262
7 0.244 0.311
8 0.262 0.381
9 0.286 0.429
10 0.320 0.420
11 0.395 0.419
12 0.233 0.209
13 0.273 0.409
14 0.295 0.295
15 0.175 0.275
16 0.372 0.465
17 0.178 0.289
18 0.227 0.455
19 0.311 0.333
20 0.180 0.380
21 0.178 0.200
22 0.209 0.302
23 0.289 0.222
24 0.159 0.364
25 0.356 0.378
26 0.279 0.349
27 0.333 0.429
28 0.273 0.250
29 0.326 0.419
30 0.234 0.298
31 0.302 0.372
32 0.238 0.286
33 0.250 0.455
34 0.267 0.400
35 0.222 0.333
95
36 0.200 0.222
37 0.205 0.273
38 0.350 0.425
39 0.233 0.326
40 0.360 0.320
41 0.356 0.378
42 0.111 0.178
43 0.119 0.333
44 0.386 0.409
45 0.368 0.500
46 0.227 0.409
47 0.209 0.372
48 0.295 0.273
49 0.262 0.333
50 0.296 0.389
This validation technique is also applied to the ACUTA and MNL models excluding the
50 inconsistent choices detected by the ACUTA model from the dataset. The 51
respondents are divided into 10 folds as such the folds will be the same in UTASTAR 10-
fold cross validation. However, since this time 405 observations are taken into account and
different method is used in estimation, the weights and parameters are found differently.
Then, they are used to evaluate the test sets. After 5 iterations are conducted, the rate of
violation of consistency for each run are found as follows:
Model run no. Violation of consistency rate in Violation of consistency rate in

ACUTA model MNL model
1 0.083 0.222
2 0.220 0.244
3 0.220 0.439
4 0.214 0.357
5 0.317 0.390
6 0.189 0.297
7 0.211 0.289
8 0.231 0.487
9 0.225 0.325
10 0.320 0.340
11 0.341 0.561
12 0.150 0.150
13 0.231 0.436
14 0.256 0.282
15 0.162 0.270
16 0.333 0.452
17 0.175 0.250
18 0.154 0.282
19 0.279 0.302
20 0.178 0.289
21 0.167 0.310
22 0.211 0.263
23 0.220 0.366
24 0.154 0.205
96
25 0.310 0.452
26 0.250 0.325
27 0.250 0.300
28 0.211 0.289
29 0.250 0.425
30 0.244 0.311
31 0.225 0.425
32 0.195 0.317
33 0.190 0.333
34 0.279 0.279
35 0.205 0.282
36 0.179 0.179
37 0.162 0.243
38 0.289 0.395
39 0.184 0.158
40 0.333 0.396
41 0.326 0.186
42 0.122 0.244
43 0.105 0.263
44 0.325 0.450
45 0.278 0.444
46 0.200 0.425
47 0.179 0.385
48 0.256 0.436
49 0.200 0.275
50 0.265 0.388
97
Appendix VI – Conditions of paired sample t-test
In order to conduct a paired sample t-test for comparing the performances of UTASTAR
and MNL models in 50 simulation runs, firstly the following conditions, which are essential
for conducting the test effectively (Heijnen, 2013), were assessed:
1. The fold samples are randomly taken from the entire sample population.
2. The fold samples are dependent as the results are derived on the same entities.
3. The violation of consistency rates are normally distributed in both UTASTAR and
MNL runs. This condition was checked by Kolmogorov – Smirnov normality test.
The results of the test are summarized in below:
H0 (Null hypothesis) Significance Decision

The results of UTASTAR are normally distributed. .200 Retain the null hypothesis.
The results of MNL are normally distributed. .200 Retain the null hypothesis.
The outcome suggests that the conditions of paired sample t-test are satisfied. Therefore,
the test could be performed.
Moreover, to conduct a paired sample t-test in comparison of the performances of ACUTA

and MNL models in simulation runs, the aforementioned conditions stated by Heijnen
(2013) were assessed. The table presented below summarizes the outcome of the
Kolmogorov – Smirnov test applied to assess the normality of both models. From the
presented significance values, it can be concluded that the given rate variables of ACUTA
and MNL runs are normally distributed.
H0 (Null hypothesis) Significance Decision

The results of ACUTA are normally distributed. .200 Retain the null hypothesis.
The results of MNL are normally distributed. .200 Retain the null hypothesis.
As a result, all conditions were found satisfied and the test could be performed.
98
Appendix VII – An example of ACUTA model application
The optimal criteria weights and additive value functions are found for all shippers by
solving 51 NLP models individually. In order to solve the NLP ACUTA models, the GRG
Nonlinear Optimization function is used. One shipper’s ACUTA preference model
estimation is presented below as an example.
The choice information of the Shipper 6 is as follows:
Choice set no. The choice of Shipper 6 among three alternatives

1 Alternative 2
2 Alternative 1
3 Alternative 1
4 Alternative 1
5 Alternative 1
6 Alternative 1
7 Alternative 1
8 Alternative 1
9 Alternative 1
The marginal utilities of the attributes are formulated and the slack variables are defined.
The global utilities of the alternatives are written, and the choice information of the shipper
is used to formulate the utility difference constraints. slack variables are defined between
the preferential relations of the alternatives. is taken as 0.05. As a result, the NLP
formulation of the Shipper 6 is presented below:
max + + + +
s.t.
300 − 150 + 3 + 20 − 85 + 95 − 0.05 =
300 − 10 + 3 + 70 − 20 + 95 − 0.05 =
150 − 300 + 10 + 70 + 95 − 0.05 =
150 + 10 − 3 + 70 − 20 − 85 + 95 − 0.05 =
150 − 300 − 10 + 3 − 20 − 85 − 0.05 = !
150 + 3 − 70 − 95 − 0.05 = "
150 − 300 − 3 + 70 + 85 − 95 − 0.05 = #
150 − 10 + 70 − 20 + 85 − 0.05 =
150 − 300 + 10 − 70 + 20 + 95 − 0.05 = $
150 + 10 − 3 + 20 − 85 + 95 − 0.05 =
150 − 300 − 10 + 3 + 70 − 85 − 0.05 =
150 + 3 + 70 − 20 − 95 − 0.05 =
150 − 300 − 3 − 70 + 20 + 85 − 95 − 0.05 =
150 − 10 + 20 + 85 − 0.05 =
150 − 300 + 10 − 70 − 85 + 95 − 0.05 = !
150 + 10 − 3 − 85 + 95 − 0.05 = "
150 − 300 − 10 + 3 − 70 + 20 − 85 − 0.05 = #
150 + 3 + 20 − 95 − 0.05 =
99
150 − 300 =
3 − 10 =
20 − 70 =
95 − 85 =
150 + 3 + 20 + 95 = 1
450 = 17 = 120 = 75 = 0
&' ( ≥ 0, ≥ 0, ≥ 0, ∀-, ., /
The NLP model is solved in Excel Solver. The unique optimal solution is found as follows:
0 ∗ = −∞
300 = 0.061
150 = 0.314
10 = 0.088
3 = 0.241
70 = 0.127
20 = 0.329
85 = 0.026
95 = 0.116
These values provide with the marginal utilities of attributes. The global values of
alternatives can also be calculated. The additive utility function is as follows:
4 ' = 0.314 ' + 0.241 ' + 0.329 ' + 0.116 '
The normalized marginal utilities of attributes can be shown as:
1 1 1 1
u1(g1) u2(g2)
0.365
0.194
0 0 0 0
150 300 450 3 10 17
1 1 1 1
u3(g3) u4(g4)
0.386
0.224
0 0 0 0
20 70 120 75 85 95
100
Appendix VIII – ACUTA model estimation results
The ACUTA model estimations are done for all shippers individually considering their
consistent choice information. The optimal solutions with the additive utility function and
criteria weights are found. The whole list of the 51 criteria weight sets are presented as
follows:

1 0.262 0.263 0.204 0.271
2 0.171 0.244 0.219 0.366
3 0.270 0.270 0.135 0.324
4 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
5 0.343 0.269 0.229 0.160
6 0.314 0.241 0.329 0.116
7 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
8 0.243 0.320 0.039 0.398
9 0.308 0.298 0.291 0.103
10 0.171 0.244 0.219 0.366
11 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
12 0.231 0.174 0.256 0.339
13 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
14 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
15 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
16 0.171 0.244 0.219 0.366
17 0.202 0.319 0.319 0.160
18 0.344 0.244 0.210 0.202
19 0.231 0.174 0.256 0.339
20 0.150 0.324 0.052 0.474
21 0.287 0.151 0.256 0.306
22 0.308 0.298 0.291 0.103
23 0.265 0.215 0.392 0.127
24 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
25 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
26 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
27 0.265 0.266 0.135 0.334
28 0.344 0.228 0.344 0.083
29 0.171 0.244 0.219 0.366
30 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
31 0.171 0.244 0.219 0.366
32 0.297 0.304 0.344 0.054
33 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
34 0.171 0.244 0.219 0.366
35 0.473 0.002 0.000 0.525
36 0.367 0.317 0.317 0.000
37 0.243 0.320 0.039 0.398
38 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
39 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
40 0.262 0.263 0.204 0.271
41 0.325 0.285 0.260 0.129
42 0.314 0.241 0.329 0.116
101
43 0.531 0.207 0.058 0.204
44 0.473 0.002 0.000 0.525
45 0.313 0.243 0.062 0.382
46 0.243 0.320 0.039 0.398
47 0.202 0.319 0.319 0.160
48 0.287 0.151 0.256 0.306
49 0.243 0.320 0.039 0.398
50 0.288 0.287 0.256 0.169
51 0.317 0.287 0.317 0.080
Average 0.343 0.237 0.170 0.251
102

Buse Tali - MSC Thesis - TU Delft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buse Tali - MSC Thesis - TU Delft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

by

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

at Delft University of Technology

An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/.

Anneci•im, babac•••m ve ablac•••m, bu günlere gelmemde bana en büyük destek olan

ACUTA Analytic Center UTA

1.2 Research problem

MCDA method Discrete choice

Figure 1-1. Overarching framework to provide descriptive analysis on choice behavior

Although discrete choice modeling is a widely accepted technique on mode choice

1.3 Research objective and research questions

1.4 Research methods

1.5 Research framework and thesis outline

Chapter 2 provides an introduction to the decision problems in freight transport by

Figure 1-2. Research flow diagram

2 Literature review on freight transport

2.1 The decisions and involved stakeholders in freight transport

2.2 Mode choice behavior and its determinants

2.3 Predictive analysis of freight transport

3.1 Behavioral choice models

Supply-side Discrete choice

Figure 3-1. The division of behavioral models

3.1.1 Discrete choice models

•••• ! = ••••"# ! $ #%! &''''() * +! ; , - )

•••• ! = ••••[./ ! 0 1 ! 2 $ "/%! 0 1%! &]''''() * +! ; , - )

• ! = "# + "$ %&'$ ! ( + ") %&') ! ( + * + ", %&', ! (----./ 0 1!

After estimating • ! , MNL model determines the choice probability of alternatives as

where 7 denotes the number of observations.

3.2 Multi-criteria decision aiding

Multi-objective Value systems Disaggregation –

3.2.1 Multi-objective optimization approach

As seen from the framework, firstly a mathematical formulation is provided as:

•••/• !"""{#$ (•), #% (•), … , #& (•)}

An important remark is that there is no discrete alternative in MMP, although some

3.2.2 Value systems approach

Aggregation of Value or utility

•( ) = !" #" ( ") + !$ #$ ( $) + % + !& #& ( &)

BWM – Best-worst multi-criteria decision making method: BWM is a novel

3.2.3 Outranking relation approach

information technology, finance, policy and social issues, chemical engineering,

PROMETHEE methods: PROMETHEE methods also follow the general procedure of

3.2.4 Disaggregation – aggregation approach

Decision data - DM’s

Comparison of given MCDA approaches

3.2.4.1 UTA methods

UTASTAR model algorithm

• [!(")] = • $% [!% (")] & ' * (") + ' , (")---." / 0

The second improvement in UTASTAR is the transformation of the monotonicity

min = ![ & ' ()# * + & , ()# *]

max C3 (D3@ ) = 1 234 &&&-' = 5, … , E

ACUTA model algorithm

An example of graphical representation of the multiple optimal solutions is provided in

In this regard, the mathematical formulation of ACUTA is presented as follows (Bous et

max • !"# + • • !"()

4 Empirical study: Preference model design and analysis

4.1 Data selection for an empirical study

Table 4-1. The attribute levels (Adapted from Wanders, 2014)

4.2 Application of UTASTAR

4.2.1 UTASTAR preference model design

Table 4-3. An example of a choice set with the choice of respondent

Table 4-4. An example of the regular input data of UTASTAR

• (3) ! • (10) = "