Integrating multicriteria evaluation and data visualization as a problem structuring approach to support territorial transformation projects

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-014-0033-xGet rights and content

Abstract

Large freight or passenger transport projects are problematic and controversial because many financial, technical, environmental and social aspects need to be considered. Indeed, the interface between the transport project and territorial planning domains is generally the focus of considerable heated debates, which often develop into conflicting decision contexts characterized by a high level of complexity. This paper presents a possible response to these difficulties through an innovative approach that integrates the analytic network process and the interactive visualization tool. The approach is intended to be deployed as problem structuring method, with a view to creating a common language for the actors involved and a shared basis for generating fruitful discussions. The proposed approach was applied in the context of the German section of the Genoa–Rotterdam railway corridor within the Interreg IVB NWE Project “Code24”. The reported application shows how the combination of visualization and real-time interaction with spatial data provided effective decision support to a multinational stakeholder group. More generally, the application presented in this paper aims to demonstrate the potential of the approach for the selection of a transport improvement strategy within the content of territorial transformation.

Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that transport projects can increase the accessibility of an area, generally bringing economic benefits (Secchi 2013). However, they require significant financial investments (which are often absent), leave indelible marks on the territories and pose (short- and long-term) environmental and social risks (Cascetta 2009). Every alteration in this subset causes a change in the conditions of accessibility of an area. In turn, the change in accessibility brings an alteration in the attractiveness of an area, which results in a transformation of the physical and functional conditions of a territory. Finally, if the activities of an area are varied, a change in the demand of transport follows.

The controversy and the difficulties of a public transport project, whether of freight or passenger, arise because many different elements need to be considered, including technical aspects related to the capacity of the convoys, environmental aspects related to the pollutant emissions and social aspects associated with the use of transport. Indeed, the interface between the transport project and territorial planning domain is commonly the focus of considerable debates that often develop into conflicting decision contexts which are characterized by a high level of complexity. In the past, transport investments in cities were possible through debate on the basis of growth allocation and were the main means to promote economic development and revitalization of depressed areas (Marshall and Banister 2007). This topic has now been broadened to embrace new aspects, such as the growing awareness and concern about sustainability (Hickman and Banister 2014; Whitehead et al. 2006), for which a balance between social, ethical, environmental, financial and operational criteria is needed with both short- and long-term considerations (Bond et al. 2008, 2010; Hahn 2014). Moreover, the presence of many actors with different backgrounds has limited the information-sharing process (Kiker et al. 2005; Huang et al. 2011).

The above contextual characteristics exhibit many similarities with those for which problem structuring methods (PSMs) have been developed (Ackermann 2012; Rosenhead and Minger 2001; Mingers and Rosenhead 2004). PSMs are flexible mechanisms for addressing complex problems by representing the situation in a structured manner to develop innovative solutions (Mingers and Rosenhead 2004). They are particularly useful when it is necessary to address complex issues characterized by “the presence of multiple actors often with different perspectives and objectives, conflicting interests and uncertainties” (Mingers and Rosenhead 2004; Rosenhead and Mingers 2001; Rosenhead 1996). PSMs support participants’ learning about their own and others’ perspectives, as well as the problematic situation of concern (Checkland and Poulter 2006). The intention of PSMs is to assist people, who might initially have different perspectives on an issue, by means of clarifying and developing collective understandings and accommodations and identifying appropriate actions (Jackson and Keys 1984; Jackson 2003). To do this a PSM must (Mingers and Rosenhead 2004): (1) enable several alternative perspectives to be brought into conjunction; (2) be cognitively accessible to actors with different backgrounds; (3) develop a participative process of problem structuring; and, (4) operate iteratively permitting partial or local improvements to be identified.

The features of PSMs described above seem to be adaptable at making constructive improvements on the representation of alternative scenarios for decision problems concerning transport infrastructure. Indeed, the need for decision support tools that are able to consider all the different aspects of transport planning projects is becoming increasingly more evident. Additionally, overcoming the logic of simply applying the cost–benefit analysis approach that has been, until recently, almost the sole assessment tool within the field of transport, is also needed (Næss 2006). We argue that a PSM-based approach can provide a potentially useful response in this context. Specifically, we propose multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) (Belton and Stewart 2002, 2010), deployed in ‘facilitated modelling’ mode (Franco and Montibeller 2010) and supported by appropriate visualization tools, as a potentially useful PSM-based approach in the context of territorial transformations connected to transport projects. By using MCDA together with other interactive software (e.g. ranging from Excel to Grasshopper and Rhinoceros), it becomes possible to visualize the perceived influences affecting the decision context, resulting in an increase of transparency of the model and thereby and increased understanding and confidence in the model itself.

The integration of MCDA and data visualization creates a tendency toward a shared understanding among the actors involved in the decision process (Andrienko et al. 2007; MacEachren 2004). The use of an interactive visualization tool can support the deployment of MCDA in terms of showing results, exploring alternative options and evaluating the differences in the localization of the expected positive and negative effects, all of which are conducted ‘on the spot’ (Franco and Montibeller 2010, 2011). In this paper, we report on the application of an innovative PSM-based approach that integrates the analytic network process (ANP) (Saaty 2005; Saaty and Vargas 2006) and the interactive visualization tool (InViTo) (Pensa 2013), in the context of the Corridor 24 railway corridor, Genoa-Rotterdam. This is part of a Interreg IVB NWE Project called Code24 which involves 17 partners from five European countries over 5 years (2010–2014) and aims to define a single shared strategy. The paper will describe how the approach was introduced into the decision context, how it informed the design and realization of the transport planning process, the definition of the alternative solutions to the decision problem, who the participants were, whose preferences were used in the analysis and finally how the criteria weights were elicited.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we introduce the approach and its components. Next, we describe its application, including the decision context, evaluation process, model structure and model results. We end the paper by offering some conclusions, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed approach.

Section snippets

ANP/InViTO approach

The literature reports a variety of problem structuring methods (PSMs) (Mingers and Rosenhead 2004; Rosenhead and Mingers 2001) including, for example, strategic options development and analysis (SODA) (Ackermann and Eden 2010), soft systems methodology (SSM) (Checkland 1981) and strategic choice approach (SCA) (Friend and Hickling 2005). In all these approaches, visual representation is fundamental to support the process. For example, SODA uses visual maps using the cognitive mapping technique

Context and objectives

The trans-European railway axis from the port of Rotterdam to the port of Genoa is a freight and passenger axis, which includes conventional and high-speed rail. Crossing the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy, this European north–south transport axis has a length of 1.200 km and a catchment area of 70 million inhabitants. The European Union’s objective is to double the capacity of the rail transport on the axis by 2020, to encourage a modal shift of freight by rail: the main projects

Discussion and conclusions

The approach presented here involved the integration of a multicriteria evaluation approach and a visualization tool intended to support the evaluation of complex decision alternatives, while considering the different aspects of the decision problem from the perspective of a wide range of stakeholders. In this context, the role of the approach as a problem structuring method was “to provide a representation of a problematic situation in order to enable effective multicriteria analysis” (Belton

References (96)

  • I.M. Lami et al.

    Decision making for urban solid waste treatment in the context of territorial conflict: can the analytic network process help?

    Land Use Policy

    (2014)
  • M. Landry et al.

    Model validation in operations research

    Eur J Oper Res

    (1983)
  • Y. Lee et al.

    Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach

    Decis Support Syst

    (2006)
  • A.S. Milani et al.

    An application of the analytic network process in multiple criteria material selection

    Mater Des

    (2013)
  • J. Mingers et al.

    Problem structuring methods in action

    Eur J Oper Res

    (2004)
  • K.M. Neaupane et al.

    Analytic network process model for landslide hazard zonation

    Eng Geol

    (2006)
  • M.A.B. Promentilla et al.

    Evaluation of remedial countermeasures using the analytic network process

    Waste Manage

    (2006)
  • B. Roy et al.

    Question guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method

    EURO J Decis Process

    (2013)
  • B.H. Ulutas

    Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey

    Energy

    (2005)
  • D. von Winterfeldt

    Providing a decision focus for global systems analysis

    EURO J Decis Process

    (2013)
  • T. Whitehead et al.

    The effect of urban quality improvements on economic activity

    J Environ Manage

    (2006)
  • Abastante F, Lami IM (2012) A complex analytic network process (ANP) network for analyzing Corridor24 alternative...
  • F. Abastante et al.

    An analytical model to evaluate a large scale urban design competition

    GEAM. Geoingegneria ambientale mineraria

    (2013)
  • F. Abastante et al.

    Analytic network process, interactive maps and strategic assessment: the evaluation of Corridor24 alternative development strategies

  • F. Ackermann et al.

    Strategic options development and analysis

  • J. Aczèl et al.

    On the possible merging functions

    Math Soc Sci

    (1988)
  • D.F. Andersen et al.

    Scripts for group model building

    Syst Dyn Interview

    (1997)
  • G. Andrienko et al.

    Geovisual analytics for spatial decision support: setting the research agenda

    Int J Geogr Inf Sci

    (2007)
  • S. Asch
  • Batty M (2007) Planning support system: progress, predictions, and spectaculations on the shape of things to come....
  • V. Belton et al.
  • Belton V, Stewart T (2010) Problem structuring and multi criteria decision analysis. In: Hergot et al (eds) Trends in...
  • P. Bennett et al.

    ‘Drama theory and confrontation analysis

  • L.J. Black et al.

    Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches

    Syst Res Behav Sci

    (2012)
  • S.D. Bond et al.

    Generating objectives: can decision makers articulate what they want?

    Mgt Sci

    (2008)
  • S.D. Bond et al.

    Improving the generation of decision objectives

    Decis Anal

    (2010)
  • M. Bottero et al.

    Analytic network process and sustainable mobility: an application for the assessment of different scenario

    J Urban

    (2010)
  • J.M. Bryson et al.
  • E. Cascetta
  • P. Checkland
  • P. Checkland et al.
  • P. Checkland et al.
  • Dodge M (2005) Information Maps: Tools for Document Exploration. CASA, working paper series 94. University College...
  • C. Eden

    The unfolding nature of group decision support: two dimensions of skill

  • C. Eden et al.

    decision making in groups: theory and practice

  • European Commission (2008) Guide to cost benefit analysis of investment project, Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy,...
  • D. Forsyth
  • L.A. Franco

    Rethinking Soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects

    Eur J Oper Res

    (2013)
  • Cited by (35)

    • A multi-methodological combination of the strategic choice approach and the analytic network process: From facts to values and vice versa

      2023, European Journal of Operational Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      The questionnaires then proceeded to pairwise comparisons at the node level. After evaluating the five questionnaires and the 60 comparisons, the individual answers for each question were aggregated to determine which alternative was preferred overall, through a “majoritarian” aggregation method (Lami, Abastante, Bottero, Masala & Pensa, 2014), giving the priority vectors. The set of priority vectors from each comparison composes the initial unweighted supermatrix; then, through the weighted supermatrix, priorities that emerged from the pairwise comparison at the cluster level were considered.

    • Multi-criteria analysis

      2020, Advances in Transport Policy and Planning
      Citation Excerpt :

      When combined with MCA methods, deliberative procedures can enhance even more the transparency of the appraisal exercise (Cornet et al., 2018a; Lami et al., 2011; Macharis et al., 2012). Finally, the involvement of different stakeholders in the appraisal exercise is expected to promote mutual learning and build trust among the interested parties (Barfod, 2018; Cornet et al., 2018b; Lami et al., 2014). It also supposed to increase the likelihood of acceptance of the results of the analysis by stakeholders themselves, as group decision-making participants are much more likely to take ownership of the decisions that emerge from the process (Macharis et al., 2009, 2010; Macharis and Nijkamp, 2013).

    • On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops

      2019, European Journal of Operational Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Especially, when addressing the problem situation requires the involvement of indirectly interested parties (e.g. investors), that need to be convinced to make large investments, more expressive and sophisticated (in terms of expressions, information richness, aesthetics and comprehensibility) artefacts should be used for transmitting information (about the problem situation and possible solutions) to stakeholders beyond the developers of the outcomes. As suggested by the architect (one of our stakeholders) PSM practitioners could, similar to the computer support adopted by some group decision scholars (e.g. Ackermann & Eden, 1994, 2005; Ackermann, Franco, Gallupe, & Parent, 2005), consider the use of multimedia software to visually support the workshop process (Lami, Abastante, Bottero, Masala, & Pensa, 2014; Pensa, Masala, & Lami, 2013) and enhance the graphic appeal of the outcomes. Besides, the stakeholders emphasized that the outcomes lacked the inclusion of a strategic vision, as well as the opportunity to envision alternatives (that are not included in the graphical illustrations) and enhance stakeholders’ creativity during long-term decision making processes (as in the case of long-term urban renewal) that go beyond model building (during the workshop) and its immediate use.

    • Choice architecture for architecture choices: Evaluating social housing initiatives putting together a parsimonious AHP methodology and the Choquet integral

      2018, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The criteria on which the alternatives need to be evaluated are in the middle of the hierarchy, between the overall goal and the alternatives themselves; AHP uses a system of pairwise comparisons to measure the weights of the structure components and to rank the alternatives. There is a wide literature on AHP (Ishizaka and Labib, 2011) together with applications in housing policies realm (Petrini et al., 2016), land evaluation (Cay and Uyan, 2013; Thapa and Murayama, 2008; Sklenicka, 2006), territorial and environmental assessment (Qureshi and Harrison, 2016; Campeol et al., 2016; Abastante and Lami, 2013; Aragonés-Beltrán et al., 2010) and transport issues (Lami, 2014; Lami and Abastante, 2014; Lami et al., 2014; Bottero and Lami, 2010; Pensa et al., 2014, 2013). The basic idea of the methodology is the transformation of an objective numerical evaluation on a considered criterion in a subjective measure of attractiveness.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text