1 Introduction
2 Literature review
3 Research method
4 Model
4.1 Creating the hierarchy of criteria and alternatives
4.2 Preparing the questionnaires and performing paired comparison
Number | Criteria | Criteria | Importance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Easy access to system | □ | Reliability | ■ | B |
2 | Easy access to system | □ | Access cost | ■ | D |
3 | Easy access to system | □ | Access time | ■ | D |
4 | Easy access to system | □ | Comfort | ■ | C |
5 | Easy access to system | ■ | Construction and operation cost | □ | D |
6 | Easy access to system | □ | Safety | ■ | D |
7 | Easy access to system | ■ | Interest to system | □ | C |
8 | Easy access to system | □ | Time headway | □ | B |
9 | Reliability | ■ | Access cost | □ | B |
10 | Reliability | □ | Access time | ■ | B |
… | ….. | □ | ….. | □ | … |
36 | Interest to system | □ | Time headway | ■ | B |
Importance | Verbal scales for stating the degree of importance | Triangle fuzzy numbers | Reverse triangle fuzzy numbers |
---|---|---|---|
A | Equivalent important (EI) | (1/2, 1, 3/2) | (2/3, 1, 2) |
B | Weak more important (WMI) | (1, 3/2, 2) | (1/2, 2/3, 1) |
C | Strong more important (SMI) | (3/2, 2, 5/2) | (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) |
D | Very strong more important (VSMI) | (2, 5/2, 3) | (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) |
E | Absolute more important (AMI) | (5/2, 3, 7/2) | (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) |
Easy access to system | Reliability | Access cost | Access time | Comfort | Construction cost | Safety | Interest to system | Time headway | |||||||||||||||||||
Easy access to system | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 |
Reliability | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.333 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 |
Access cost | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 0.333 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 3.5 |
Access time | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 |
Comfort | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 |
Construction cost | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 3.5 |
Safety | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 |
Interest to system | 0.333 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.333 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.333 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.667 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 1 |
University professor at transportation engineering | 5 |
Ph.D. student at transportation engineering | 4 |
MSc on transportation engineering | 11 |
Airport specialists and authorities | 13 |
Employees and passengers inhabited in city of Sari that have used Sari International Airport as a point of their travel at least 5 times | 28 |
4.3 Calculation the weight of criteria
4.4 Calculation of the compatibility of questionnaires
α | λ | α | λ |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 1.0118442 | 0.6 | 0.9955634 |
0.1 | 1.0090460 | 0.7 | 0.9929570 |
0.2 | 1.0062838 | 0.8 | 0.9903769 |
0.3 | 1.0035564 | 0.9 | 0.9978222 |
0.4 | 1.0008616 | 1 | 0.9949676 |
0.5 | 0.9981976 |
4.5 Final prioritizing of the systems based on TOPSIS method
System/Criteria | Train | Bus | Van Shuttle |
---|---|---|---|
Easy access to system | 50 | 60 | 70 |
Reliability | 90 | 60 | 70 |
Access cost | 20 | 40 | 65 |
Access time | 40 | 70 | 50 |
Comfort | 40 | 60 | 80 |
Construction and operating costs | 40 | 15 | 10 |
Safety | 90 | 50 | 30 |
Interest to system | 45 | 60 | 70 |
Time headway | 90 | 55 | 35 |
4.6 Performing TOPSIS method
Alternative | Relative closeness to the right ideal solution | Relative closeness to the right ideal solution |
---|---|---|
Train | d
1
+
= 0.025709 | d
1
−
= 0.069037 |
Bus | d
2
+
= 0.051321 | d
2
−
= 0.032903 |
Van Shuttle | d
3
+
= 0.060811 | d
3
−
= 0.038327 |
Priority | Alternative | Relative closeness value |
---|---|---|
1 | Train | 0.728653 |
2 | Bus | 0.390661 |
3 | Van shuttle | 0.386606 |
5 Conclusion
Number | Criteria | Weight |
---|---|---|
1 | Safety | 0.18928 |
2 | Reliability | 0.12735 |
3 | Access time | 0.11851 |
4 | Access cost | 0.11459 |
5 | Easy access to system | 0.10862 |
6 | Comfort | 0.10689 |
7 | Time headway | 0.07951 |
8 | Interest to system | 0.07830 |
9 | Construction costs | 0.07690 |