The Open Transportation Journal




ISSN: 1874-4478 ― Volume 14, 2020
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Application of Various Multiple Criteria Analysis Methods for the Evaluation of Rural Road Projects



Sahadev Bahadur Bhandari1, *, Dimitrios Nalmpantis2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Pulchowk Campus, Lalitpur, Nepal
2 School of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract

Introduction:

Ex-ante evaluation of rural road projects is important for proper utilisation of scarce financial resources. In recent years, several multiple criteria analysis methods have been applied for the evaluation of transportation projects.

Methods:

Here we compare three multi-criteria methods (i.e. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE) in ranking rural roads. The criteria and weightage were identified with an expert questionnaire survey and the decision matrix was obtained from a field survey of four rural roads of Nepal. These data demonstrate the successful application of various multi-criteria analysis methods for the evaluation of rural road projects with sustainable indicators.

Results:

The results of multi-criteria methods depend upon the value of performance measures, weightage, normalization, and aggregation procedures.

Conclusion:

We also concluded that the multi-criteria methods used (i.e. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE), in which weightage is derived using robust methods (e.g. AHP) and precise measurement of criteria of rural roads, in general return similar rankings.

Keywords: MOORA, Multiple criteria analysis methods, PROMETHEE, Rural roads, TOPSIS, Analytic hierarchy Process (AHP).


Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2018
Volume: 12
First Page: 57
Last Page: 76
Publisher Id: TOTJ-12-57
DOI: 10.2174/1874447801812010057

Article History:

Received Date: 12/12/2017
Revision Received Date: 26/12/2017
Acceptance Date: 04/02/2018
Electronic publication date: 27/02/2018
Collection year: 2018

© 2018 Bhandari and Nalmpantis.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Pulchowk Campus, Lalitpur, Nepal; Tel: +977 1 4810181, +977 9841380634; E-mail: sbbhandari@ioe.edu.np





1. INTRODUCTION

At the present time, almost 46% of 7.349 billion of the world’s population are still living in rural areas [1United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Data Booklet. ST/ESA/SER.A/377., United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, .]. Due to the need of rural areas for development, rural transportation projects’ demand is high. On the other hand, the cost of the investment per km per person of rural roads is very high as compared to the urban roads. Furthermore, financial resources for rural roads, especially in developing countries, are insufficient as compared to demand. The “lack of rural access roads has killed the dreams and resilience of those who may have chosen to live in the villages” [2E. Ibok, and E. Daniel, "The impact of rural roads and bridges on the socio- economic development of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria : An evaluation", Glob. J. Polit. Sci. Adm., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27-36.]. Thus, ranking or selecting the most important rural roads is a very important issue for planners, decision makers, politicians and other stakeholders. Numerous types of evaluation methods are applied in ranking or selecting rural road projects. “Cost – Benefit Analysis (CBA) has been a widely used tool in decision making on transport projects in many countries for many years” [3R. Vickerman, "Cost - benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: State of the art and challenges", Environ. Plann. B Plann. Des., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 598-610.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b32112]
]. Nevertheless, financial costs or benefits are not sufficient to evaluate the sustainability of infrastructure projects. Since the Earth Summit held on Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 1992 sustainability has “become perceived as a combination of three dimensions or ‘pillars’, namely, the environmental (ecological), economic, and social dimensions” [4M. Lehtonen, "The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: Capabilities, social capital, institutions", Ecol. Econ., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 199-214.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.019]
] of any infrastructure project. These economic, social, and environmental criteria, and their corresponding sub-criteria, are measured either quantitatively or qualitatively. The criteria and sub-criteria might have difference importance and even conflict each other. CBA cannot cover all these three dimensions [5G. Wegner, and U. Pascual, "Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique", Glob. Environ. Change, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 492-504.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.008]
]. Hence, in the frame of this paper, a suitable multi-criteria method shall be identified and applied for the evaluation of rural transportation projects.

There are several multi-criteria methods applied in rural transportation projects. Broadly, the multi-criteria methods are classified as following: a) priority or utility methods, such as the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory / Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAUT/MAVT) and the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART); b) outranking methods such as the Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality, or “ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité” (ELECTRE) in French, and the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE); c) distance based methods such as the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and the Multi-criteria Optimization and Compromise Solution, or Višekriterijumsko Kompromisno Rangiranje (VIKOR) in Serbian; d) mixed and other methods such as the linear additive method, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Likert scale, the fuzzy-TOPSIS, the fuzzy-VIKOR, etc [6P. Adhikary, P.K. Roy, and A. Mazumdar, "Selection of Small Hydropower Project Site : A Multi- Criteria Optimization Technique Approach", ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 3280-3285.].

This study examines three multi-criteria methods (viz. TOPSIS, Multi-Objective Optimisation on the basis of Ratio Analysis [MOORA], and PROMETHEE) with the application of a real case study in Nepal. The strength of TOPSIS is that it is easy to implement having an understandable principle, it is applicable when exact and total information is collected, it considers both the positive and negative ideal solutions, and it provides a well-structured analytical framework for alternatives ranking [7G. Kabir, R. Sadiq, and S. Tesfamariam, "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management", Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1176-1210.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978]
]. TOPSIS and MOORA methods are very simple and do not need the use of sophisticated software. Furthermore, a free academic software is available for PROMETHEE. For this reason, these three multi-criteria methods: TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE were applied in order to aggregate the performance parameters. The study presents a brief overview of the application of these multi-criteria methods and the methodology applied in this study as follows. After that, the analysis and results are presented and a discussion follows. Finally, the conclusions derived from the study are presented.

2. OVERVIEW OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS METHODS FOR EVALUATION

Different researchers/practitioners have used different multi-criteria analysis methods for combining the value of performance parameters. The study by Mardani et al. (2015) showed that among the different Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) methods (100%), AHP (32.57%), hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) (16.28%), aggregation Decision-Making (DM) Methods (11.70%), TOPSIS (11.4%), ELECTRE (8.65%), PROMETHEE (6.62%), and VIKOR (3.56%) were applied in different kinds of multi-criteria decision-making problems between 2000 to 2014 [8A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K.M. Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, "Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications: A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014", Econ. Res. Istraživanja, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 516-571.]. However, “there are no universally-accepted approaches. Each method stands on its own background and principles” [9N. Jaini, and S. Utyuzhnikov, "Trade-off ranking method for multi-criteria decision analysis", J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal., no. October, p. e1600.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1600]
]. Otun (2016) applied a decision making framework using concordance/discordance analysis within a multi-criteria decision support system to a process of selecting a ward (out of eleven) to be provided with a rural road in a local government area in Nigeria [10O.W. Otun, "Application of multi-criteria analysis in rural roads provision in developing countries", Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 148-157.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v9i2.3]
]. Joerin et al. (2001) applied Geographic Information System (GIS) and outranking multi-criteria analysis for land suitability assessment [11F. Joerin, M. Thériault, and A. Musy, "Using GIS and outranking multicriteria analysis for land-use suitability assessment", Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 153-174.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658810051030487]
]. Monjezi et al. (2012) applied TOPSIS method to investigate the blasting operations in the Tajareh limestone mine and select the most appropriate blasting pattern [12M. Monjezi, H. Dehghani, T.N. Singh, A.R. Sayadi, and A. Gholinejad, "Application of TOPSIS method for selecting the most appropriate blast design", Arab. J. Geosci., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 95-101.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-010-0133-2]
]. Similarly, Chu and Su (2012) studied the selection of appropriate fixed seismic shelters for evacuation in an earthquake in cities with the application of TOPSIS [13J. Chu, and Y. Su, The Application of TOPSIS Method in Selecting Fixed Seismic Shelter for Evacuation in Cities, .]. Likewise, Omar and Fayek (2016) applied a TOPSIS-based approach for prioritised aggregation in multi-criteria decision-making problems [14M.N. Omar, and A.R. Fayek, "A topsis-based approach for prioritized aggregation in multi-criteria decision-making problems, J. Multi-Criteria ", Decis. Anal., vol. 23, no. 5-6, pp. 197-209.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1561]
]. Brauers and Zavadskas (2006) applied MOORA method to privatisation in a transition economy [15W.K. Brauers, and E.K. Zavadskas, "The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy", Control Cybern., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 445-469.]. Gadakh (2011) applied the MOORA method for solving multiple criteria (objective) optimisation problem in a milling process [16V.S. Gadakh, "Application of MOORA method for parametric optimization of milling process", Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 743-758.]. Sinha and Labi (2007) applied MCA methodologies for the evaluation of transportation projects ensuring that the most important costs and impacts were taken into consideration [17K.C. Sinha, and S. Labi, Transportation Decision Making: Principles of Project Evaluation and Programming., John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, .
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470168073]
]. Behzadian et al. (2010) discussed a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and application of PROMETHEE with 217 scholarly papers applied in environment management, hydrology and water management, business and financial management, chemistry, logistics and transportation, manufacturing and assembly field, energy management, and social and other topics [18M. Behzadian, R.B. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, and M. Aghdasi, "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 198-215.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021]
]. These and other studies proved that the three multi-criteria methods, namely TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE, are applied successfully in several decision-making problems. Nevertheless, the authors found very few applications of these three multi-criteria methods, i.e. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE, in rural road projects’ selection.

2.1. Methodology

This paper extends previous works by Bhandari, Shahi, & Shrestha (2014; 2016) [19S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, "Multi-criteria evaluation for ranking rural road projects : Case study of Nepal", IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 53-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/1684-11615365]
, 20S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, Ranking Rural Road Projects: Weighting Different Evaluation Criteria With a Focus on the Case of Nepal, .www.ijerst.com] in the multi-criteria evaluation of rural transportation projects in the case of Nepal. This study in the application of multiple criteria analysis methods for the evaluation of rural transportation projects was conducted with the determination of criteria, weighting of criteria, measurement of criteria, scaling of criteria, and aggregation of the performance of criteria with three multi-criteria analysis methods (viz. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE). Four rural roads from the Dang district of Nepal were evaluated. Dang district is an inner Terai district, located at about 280 km west of Kathmandu. Dang covers an area of 2955 km2 with a population of 552,583 inhabitants. The road network in the district is comprised of 807.11 km. Dang district has 24 district roads and 16 village roads. These roads are mainly earthen and gravel type. The local authority has to upgrade these roads to all-weather road standards. Due to the limited budget for the four rural roads of the district road category, that belong to different geographical locations with the characteristics given in Table 1 the interventions have to be prioritized.

Table 1
Characteristics of the roads.


2.2. Determination of Criteria

Evaluation criteria are important elements for ranking rural road projects, for which there are scarce resources. The evaluation criteria involving 3 aspects of sustainability for ranking rural road projects were determined in this study. The criteria for sustainability assessment depend significantly on the project stakeholders understanding of sustainable development [21A. Umer, K. Hewage, H. Haider, and R. Sadiq, "Sustainability assessment of roadway projects under uncertainty using Green Proforma: An index-based approach", Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 604-619.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.06.002]
]. The evaluation criteria for this study were derived from a thorough literature review, a personnel interview, and an online survey among different experts. A pilot survey was conducted among seven Nepalese experts working in the field of rural roads. This study identified 13 sub-criteria under the headings of the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. The sub-criteria were validated with a wider survey of experts from 24 countries and Nepal through an online questionnaire. The identified criteria and sub-criteria are presented below in Fig. (1).

Fig. (1)
Essential criteria for the sustainability of rural roads.


The brief description of the above mentioned sub-criteria and their measure are given below in Table 2.

Table 2
Brief description of sub-criteria and their measures.


2.3. Determination of Weight

The relative importance or weight of the criteria is a key step in a multiple criteria evaluation. The following methods can be used to establish the weights: a) equal weighting, b) direct weighting, c) regression based observer derived approach, d) the Delphi method [22C. Okoli, and S.D. Pawlowski, "The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications", Inf. Manage., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 15-29.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002]
], e) pairwise comparisons or AHP, and f) Likert scale. The last two methods, AHP and Likert scale, were applied by the first author for the determination of the weights [19S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, "Multi-criteria evaluation for ranking rural road projects : Case study of Nepal", IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 53-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/1684-11615365]
, 20S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, Ranking Rural Road Projects: Weighting Different Evaluation Criteria With a Focus on the Case of Nepal, .www.ijerst.com] due to the robustness and simplicity of these two methods. The same weights were applied in this study.

The AHP model is based on a basic set of the four axioms [23T.L. Saaty, "Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables", Math. Comput. Model., vol. 46, no. 7-8, pp. 860-891.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.028]
]. The first axiom states that given any two evaluation elements, stakeholders must be able to provide a pair-wise comparison. The second axiom requires that when comparing any two elements, stakeholders should never decide that one indicator is infinitely superior to another. The third axiom states that the evaluation must be formulated as a hierarchy [23T.L. Saaty, "Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables", Math. Comput. Model., vol. 46, no. 7-8, pp. 860-891.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.028]
]. In AHP, the criteria are synthesised to a different level of the hierarchy. The overall objective of the decision is at the top level. The criteria used in arriving at this decision are in the lower level. Three major criteria are taken, i.e. costs (economic), social, and environmental aspects in the second level [19S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, "Multi-criteria evaluation for ranking rural road projects : Case study of Nepal", IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 53-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/1684-11615365]
]. In the third level economic costs are synthesised into financial and social costs. The financial cost, social costs, social aspects, and environmental aspects have three, three, four, and three sub-criteria respectively. The decision hierarchy for multi-criteria evaluation is given below in Fig. (2).

Fig. (2)
Multi-criteria evaluation by AHP.


The criteria of each level were compared pairwise in order to determine the relative weights of all criteria & sub-criteria and a pairwise comparison matrix was developed as suggested by Thomas L. Saaty [24T.L. Saaty, "Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process", Int. J. Serv. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83-98.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590]
]. Saaty suggested an arbitrary rating scale of 1 to 9 based on psychological experiments. The definition of each scale is as follows:

  • 1: Two criteria are equally important
  • 3: Moderate importance of criterion X over criterion Y
  • 5: Strong importance of criterion X over criterion Y
  • 7: Very strong importance of criterion X over criterion Y
  • 9: Extreme importance of criterion X over Y

2, 4, 6 & 8: Intermediate values between the values mentioned above

With this rating values as elements of matrix aij of the criteria i and j (where aij are the geometric mean values of responses), a pair-wise comparison matrix A has been developed as follows:

(1)

A Likert Scale is a psychometric scale commonly used in questionnaire surveys. It is simple to construct and easy to be read and filled by the participants. The Likert scale is the sum of responses to several Likert items. A Likert item is simply a statement, which the respondent is asked to evaluate according to any kind of subjective or objective criteria; generally, the level of agreement or disagreement is measured. In this research, an 11-point Likert scale is used to evaluate the weightage of evaluation criteria for rural transportation projects.

The questionnaire for both methods was set up on an online survey tool (Google Forms). Table 3 shows two example questions from the questionnaire in Likert Scale.

Table 3
An extract from the questionnaire using Likert scale.


2.3.1. Measurement of Criteria

A field survey was conducted for four roads of the Dang district of Nepal to assess the criteria identified in the study. The study collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The data were analysed and the performance measures for each sub-criterion were identified.

2.3.2. Scaling of Criteria

The performance parameters were measured in both quantitative and qualitative terms. The qualitative measurements were converted into quantitative ones in order to obtain the respective commensurate units. The impact of environmental criteria was assessed using the following 5 ratings: very low, low, average, high, and very high, and they were transposed into the following 9-point scale: 9,7,5,3, and 1, respectively.

2.3.3. Multi-Criteria Analysis

Three multi-criteria methods TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE are used in this study. In TOPSIS and MOORA methods, excel spreadsheets were used for the calculations. In PROMETHEE method, an academic version of PROMETHEE software was used for the analysis. The software of academic version of the PROMETHEE is available at www.promethee-gaia.net. A brief introduction to these three methods is as follows.

2.4. TOPSIS Method

Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is “an approach that originates from the geometric concept of the displaced ideal point, according to which a criterion under investigation is seen to be situated in relation to its ideal positive (most favourable) and negative (least favourable) locations” [14M.N. Omar, and A.R. Fayek, "A topsis-based approach for prioritized aggregation in multi-criteria decision-making problems, J. Multi-Criteria ", Decis. Anal., vol. 23, no. 5-6, pp. 197-209.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1561]
]. This method considers three types of attributes or criteria: qualitative benefit attributes/criteria, quantitative benefit criteria, and cost. In this method, two alternatives are hypothesised; i.e. ideal and negative ideal. The ideal alternative has the best level for all attributes considered and the negative alternative has the worst alternative value. TOPSIS selects the alternative, which is the closest to the ideal solution and farthest from negative ideal solution. For the decision making with TOPSIS method, there should be m alternatives and n criteria and a score of each option with respect to each criterion. The following steps are taken with TOPSIS method for decision making [25E. Triantaphyllou, B. Shu, S.N. Sanchez, and T. Ray, "Multi-criteria decision making : An operations research approach", Encycl. Electr. Electron. Eng. Electron., vol. 15, pp. 175-186.]:

(i) Step 1: Construct the Normalized Decision Matrix (rij):

(2)

Where xij = evaluation parameters.

(ii) Step 2: Construct the weighted normalised decision matrix (vij):

(3)

Where (wj)=weightage of parameters

(iii) Step 3: Determine the ideal and negative ideal solutions:

Ideal solution (A*):

(4a)

Negative ideal solution (A'):

(4b)

(iv) Step 4: Calculate the Separation Measures for each alternative:

The separation from the ideal alternative (S*i) is:

(5a)

Similarly, the Separation Measure from the negative ideal alternative (S'i) is:

(5b)

(v) Step 5: Calculate the Relative Closeness to the Ideal Solution C*i:

(6)

Select the option with C*i closest to 1.

2.5. MOORA Method

Multi-Objective Optimisation on the basis of Ratio Analysis (MOORA) method was first introduced by Brauers and Zavadskas (2006) [15W.K. Brauers, and E.K. Zavadskas, "The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy", Control Cybern., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 445-469.]. MOORA method is composed of five steps [15W.K. Brauers, and E.K. Zavadskas, "The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy", Control Cybern., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 445-469., 16V.S. Gadakh, "Application of MOORA method for parametric optimization of milling process", Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 743-758., 26W.K. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, F. Peldschus, and Z. Turskis, "Multi‐objective decision‐making for road design", Transport, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 183-193.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2008.23.183-193]
-28P. Karande, and S. Chakraborty, "Application of multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method for materials selection", Mater. Des., vol. 37, pp. 317-324.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.01.013]
]:

(i) Step 1: The method starts with a matrix of responses of different alternatives on a different objective (X):

(7)

where, xij x–the response of alternative j on objective or attributes i;

i = 1, 2…. n i=1,2…. n objectives or attributes;

j = 1, 2…. m:j = 1,2……m: the number of alternatives.

(ii) Step 2: The second step is the normalisation of a matrix of responses with the ratio system. Ratio System: In MOORA method each response of an objective is compared to a denominator of representative for all alternatives concerning that objective (x'ij).

(8)

Thus, normalised responses of the alternatives on the objectives belong to the interval [0,1][0,1].

(iii) Step 3: The third step is an evaluation of positive and negative effects (x'ij). For optimisation, these responses are added in case of maximisation and subtracted in the case of minimisation:

(9)

where: i = 1,2,….gi as the objectives to be maximise di = g + 1, g+ 2,….n as the objectives to be minimised.

(iv) Step 4: In the fourth step, weighted assessment value is determined. In order to give an importance to the criteria, they could be multiplied by the importance factor of the criteria [15W.K. Brauers, and E.K. Zavadskas, "The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy", Control Cybern., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 445-469.].

Finally, all alternatives are ranked, according to the obtained ratios (i.e. decreasing value of y*j).

2.5. PROMETHEE Method

Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) belongs to the family of outranking methods as it was initiated by B. Roy at the end of the ‘60 with the ELECTRE methods [29J.P. Brans, P. Vincke, and B. Mareschal, "How to select and how to rank projects: The promethee method", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 228-238.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5]
]. The original PROMETHEE methods were conceived by J. P. Brans in 1982 and were further extended by Vincke and Brans in 1985 [18M. Behzadian, R.B. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, and M. Aghdasi, "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 198-215.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021]
]. The PROMETHEE methods include several unique tools for this purpose, such as the weight stability intervals and the Walking Weights interactive procedure. In 1989, the introduction of Geometrical Analysis for Interactive Aid (GAIA) added a descriptive complement to the PROMETHEE rankings. A graphical representation of the multi-criteria problem enables the decision maker to better understand the available choices and the necessary compromises he or she will have to make to achieve the best decision. GAIA can also be used to see the impact of the criteria weights on the PROMETHEE rankings. “The evaluation table is the starting point of the PROMETHEE method. In this table, the alternatives are evaluated on different criteria. These evaluations involve essentially numerical data” [30C. Macharis, J. Springael, K. De Brucker, and A. Verbeke, "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 153, no. 2, pp. 307-317.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X]
]. There are several types of PROMETHEE (viz. PROMETHEE-I, PROMETHEE-II, PROMETHEE-III, PROMETHEE-IV, PROMETHEE-TRI, PROMETHEE CLUSTER, etc.). The most common used methodology is PROMETHEE-II, which is used in complete ranking. “It is interactive and is able to classify and order alternatives which are complex and difficult to compare. In addition, it has other characteristics such as: simplicity, clarity and stability” [31T.M. Amaral, and A.P. Costa, "Improving decision-making and management of hospital resources: An application of the PROMETHEE II method in an Emergency Department", Oper. Res. Health Care, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orhc.2013.10.002]
]. The basic principle of PROMETHEE II is based on a pair-wise comparison of alternatives along each recognised criterion. Alternatives are evaluated according to different criteria, which have to be maximised or minimised.

The implementation of PROMETHEE-II requires two additional types of information, namely: information on the relative importance (i.e. the weights) of the criteria considered and information on the decision maker’s preference function, which he/she uses when comparing the contribution of the alternatives in terms of each separate criterion. The weights and the preference function determine the preference structure of the decision-maker. PROMETHEE does not provide specific guidelines for determining these weights but assumes that the decision-maker is able to weigh the criteria appropriately, at least when the number of criteria is not too large. The preference function (Pj) translates the differences between the evaluations (i.e. scores) obtained by two alternatives (a and b) in terms of a particular criterion, into a preference degree ranging from 0 to 1. The procedure for implementing PROMETHEE-II “is started to determine deviations based on the pairwise comparison. It is followed by using the relevant preference function for each criterion in Step 2, calculating [the] global preference index in Step 3, and calculating positive and negative outranking flows [strength & weakness] for each alternative and partial ranking in Step 4” [18M. Behzadian, R.B. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, and M. Aghdasi, "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 198-215.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021]
]. Finally, the procedure ends in Step 5 with the calculation of net outranking flow for each alternative and complete ranking.

3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

As mentioned previously, the study was conducted for four rural roads in Dang district of Nepal. The detailed identification of criteria, weights, and performance parameters were described in previous articles [19S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, "Multi-criteria evaluation for ranking rural road projects : Case study of Nepal", IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 53-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/1684-11615365]
, 20S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, Ranking Rural Road Projects: Weighting Different Evaluation Criteria With a Focus on the Case of Nepal, .www.ijerst.com]. There were various MCA methods applied in the transportation projects [10O.W. Otun, "Application of multi-criteria analysis in rural roads provision in developing countries", Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 148-157.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v9i2.3]
, 32H.A. Effat, and O.A. Hassan, "Designing and evaluation of three alternatives highway routes using the Analytical Hierarchy Process and the least-cost path analysis, application in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt", Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 141-151.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2013.08.001]
] earlier but in this paper three MCA methods (PROMETHEE, TOPSIS and MOORA) are applied and compared. The values and weights of the criteria are presented below in Table 42.

Another approach would be to calculate the Cost/Benefit (C/B) ratio or else the Economic Internal rate of Return (EIRR) for the economic pillar combining the first six parameters into a single indicator. Moreover, an even better approach could be using the indicator Net Present Value (NPV)/Construction Cost, which normalizes the net benefits in relation to cost. Since the parameters 11, 12 and 13 have the same ordinal scale (1-9) and they refer to the environmental pillar, these could be combined into a composite index. The measurement of parameters 7, 8 and 9 are explained in Table 1. Moreover, for the parameters 7, 8 and 9, the same discrete 5-point scale that was used for the parameter 10 could be used too. With such an approach, the array of factors could be streamlined and hence possible double-counting of benefits would be avoided, however, the above-mentioned 13 indicators are used in this way in this study to make the different aspects of rural roads more understandable to the decision makers.

Table 4
Decision Table xij with costs in US dollars (USD).


3.1. Ranking with TOPSIS Method

The strength of TOPSIS is that it is easy to implement having an understandable principle, it is applicable when exact and total information is collected, it considers both the positive and negative ideal solutions, and it provides a well-structured analytical framework for alternatives ranking [7G. Kabir, R. Sadiq, and S. Tesfamariam, "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management", Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1176-1210.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978]
]. The ranking of the abovementioned roads with TOPSIS is described below.

  1. Step 1: The decision-making was formulated with the evaluation parameter xij as given above in Table 4.
  2. Step 2: The Normalised Matrix rij of the four roads is presented below in Table 5.
Table 5
Normalised TOPSIS matrix.


(iii) Step 3: The Weighted Normalised Matrix is calculated by the multiplication of the Normalised Matrix [rij] with the weights of the respective criteria in AHP as specified in Table 4. The results with AHP are presented below in Table 6.

Table 6
Weighted normalised TOPSIS matrix.


(iv) Step 4: The Ideal Solution and the Negative Ideal Solution of the Weighted Normalised Matrix are presented below in Table 7.

Table 7
Ideal solution and negative ideal solution with TOPSIS.


(v) Step 5: The separation measures from the ideal solution and the negative ideal solution of each road are presented below in Table 8.


Table 8
Separation measures with TOPSIS.


(vi) Step 6: The Relative Closeness and their ranking order of the rural transportation projects are presented below in Table 9. The ranking of the rural road projects is as per the decreasing order of the Relative Closeness of the respective roads.


Table 9
Relative closeness and ranking with TOPSIS.


3.2. Ranking with Multi-Objective Optimisation on the Basis of Ratio Analysis (MOORA) Method

The same Decision Matrix with the TOPSIS is used as presented in Table 4. Then, the Ratio Matrix is derived as presented in Table 10. Similarly, the Normalised Matrix is presented in Table 11.

Table 10
Ratio MOORA matrix.


Table 11
Weighted MOORA matrix.



Finally, the ranks are determined based on the Reference Point and the Deviation from the Reference Point as presented in Table 12.


Table 12
Reference point and deviation from reference point with MOORA.



3.3. Ranking with PROMETHEE Method

The ranking of the above-mentioned roads was also studied with the application of the VISUAL PROMETHEE MCDA decision aid software. The academic version of this software was used in this case study. The software was downloaded from the following link http://www.promethee-gaia.net. The same input of impact matrix and the weights derived with AHP presented in Table 4 were used in this study. All criteria were defined by a linear preference function. The statistics of the data of the rural road projects are presented in Table 13. The preference parameters and rankings with PROMETHEE are presented in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. The Range of Stability derived from Visual Stability Interval at Stability Level four is presented in Table 16. The results are presented in Figs. (3-7).

Table 13
Statistics of the data for PROMETHEE.


Table 14
Preference parameters for PROMETHEE.



Table 15
Ranking with AHP-PROMETHEE method.



Table 16
Range of stability of the weights.


In Fig. (3) the partial ranking of the analysis with PROMETHEE-I is presented. It can be noticed that the Road B is the highest and the Road C is the second highest preferred to all the other roads and that Road D is the lowest preferred to all the others road projects in PROMETHEE-I partial ranking. No projects are identified as incomparable (i.e. worse phi- and best phi+ or reverse while comparing between two projects).


Fig. (3)
PROMETHEE-I partial ranking of the roads.


In Fig. (4) the PROMETHEE-II complete ranking shows that Road B has the highest phi. Road C has the second highest phi. Road A and Road D have almost similar net phi. Road D has the lowest net phi value. In Fig. (5) the PROMETHEE Diamond shows that Road B (in red colour) overlaps all the other roads. Obviously, this project is preferred to all the other projects according to the PROMETHEE-II partial ranking.

Fig. (4)
PROMETHEE-II complete ranking.


Fig. (5)
PROMETHEE diamond.


Fig. (6) represents the GAIA Plane obtained principle component analysis to the alternative of the problem. At first, it may be noticed that the alternative Road C performs well on the environmental, maintenance cost, and pollution cost criteria. It is neutral in travel time saving cost and accident cost criteria and it has a poor performance on the population served per km, vehicle operation cost saving, access to educational services, and access to other services criteria. On the other hand, Road B performs well on access to educational services, access to other services, population served per km, and vehicle operation cost saving criteria. It is neutral in the travel time savings cost, construction cost, and accident cost criteria and it has a poor performance on maintenance cost and impact on natural resources criteria. On the contrary, Road D performs well on the construction cost and travel time saving cost criteria. It is neutral in access to educational services, access to other services, population served per km, vehicle operation cost saving, impact on natural resources, and pollution cost criteria and has a poor performance on accident cost criterion. Similarly, Road A performs well on accident cost criterion. It is neutral in vehicle operation cost saving, population served per km, pollution cost, impact on natural resources, and maintenance cost criteria and it has a poor performance on travel time saving cost and construction cost criteria. Thus, the use of complementary tools such as the GAIA Plane, Diamond, etc. provides support to the decision maker in order to understand the result and make the best selection for the final solution.


Fig. (6)
Visual representation of the problem in GAIA plane.


In Fig. (7) the positive and negative outranking flows show that Road B is preferred compared to all the other roads. Road C and Road A follow. Road D is the least preferred alternative. No road projects are incomparable.

Fig. (7)
Positive and negative outranking flows.


3.3.1. Ranking with the Weights of Likert Scale

The study was also conducted using the weights of Likert scale presented in Table 4. The summary of rankings with weights of the Likert scale and the multi-criteria methods TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE are presented below in Tables 17-19 respectively.

Table 17
Relative closeness and ranking with TOPSIS (Likert scale weights).


Table 18
Reference point and deviation on reference point with MOORA (Likert scale weights).


Table 19
Ranking with Likert scale with PROMETHEE.



4. DISCUSSION

In this research, three MCA evaluation methods (viz. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE) were used to evaluate four rural transportation projects (viz. Road A, Road B, Road C, and Road D). The summary of the study is presented below in Table 20.

Table 20
Ranking rural transportation projects with various MCA methods.


The results of this study showed that in the MCA methods TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE the same rankings of the rural road projects Road B, Road D were found for both AHP and Likert scale weights. The rankings of Road A and Road C were found different for AHP and Likert weights in TOPSIS and MOORA methods. In the case of Road B and Road D, the values of relative closeness are 0.540 and 0.373 and deviation from the reference point -12.4323 and -20.9617, respectively. On the other hand, the values of the relative closeness and deviation from the reference point of Road A and Road C are 0.4710 and 0.4540, and -18.1904 and -18.2814, respectively. The absolute values of difference of the relative closeness and deviation from the reference point of the rural roads Road B and Road D are 0.168 and 8.5295 respectively, and for the rural roads Road A and Road C are 0.069 and 0.910 respectively. This shows that if the difference between relative closeness and/or deviation from the reference point is more, the ranking does not change for some deviation of the weights. Thus, the measurements of the weights with robust unbiased methods (e.g. AHP) and the measurement of the criteria with accurate values is an important issue for the application of different multi-criteria analysis methods.

Obviously, all the three methods used are quite capable of dealing both with quantitative and qualitative data. In the multi-criteria evaluation, it is possible that different stakeholders may participate to determine the weights of different criteria. Input of experts to find the value of the economic dimension is also needed. All the three dimensions of sustainability are included. Moreover, the inclusion of the environmental dimension helps to sensitise the stakeholders about the importance of the protection of the environment.

The TOPSIS and MOORA methods are very simple and can be applied without any software. The outranking methods, like PROMETHEE, are useful to make a decision on the application of different criteria and also in an alternative scenario with the application of the software. A different analysis of PROMETHEE (e.g. partial ranking, complete ranking, PROMETHEE Diamond, GAIA Plane, and positive and negative outranking flow) give a clear picture on the ranking of the alternatives (rural roads in the case of this study). The range of stability of weights can be identified easily in PROMETHEE with the application of the software. The results of multi-criteria methods depend upon the value of performance measures, weights, normalisation, and aggregation procedures. The MCA methods used (e.g. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE), in which weights are derived using robust methods (e.g. AHP) and precise measurement of the criteria of rural roads, generally return the same rankings.

This study proved that the developed model with the 13 parameters was useful for the evaluation of rural roads in the context of Nepal, since all the three multi-criteria analysis methods applied returned similar ranking results.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, a comparison of the application of three multi-criteria methods (viz. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE) took place. The criteria and weights derived in previous studies on rural roads were applied in this study. Performance measurements of four rural roads of a district of Nepal were used for the analysis. Sensitivity analysis of weights was also done with PROMETHEE method. The results of the three multi-criteria methods returned the same rankings for Road B and Road D but deviations in ranking for Road A and Road C were observed. The multi-criteria analysis methods used (e.g. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE), in which weights are derived using robust methods (e.g. AHP) and precise measurement of the criteria of rural roads, generally return the same rankings. This study proved the successful application of these three MCA methods with the inclusion of the three pillars of sustainability (viz. economic, social, and environmental dimension). Therefore, the same model seems to be promising for other applications on rural road projects both in Nepal and in other developing countries.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AHP = Analytic Hierarchy Process
B/C = Benefit Cost Ratio
CBA Cost = Benefit Analysis
DM = Decision-Making
EIRR = Economic Internal Rate of Return
ELECTRE = ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality)
GAIA = Geometrical Analysis for Interactive Aid
GIS = Geographic Information System
MAUT/MAVT = Multi-Attribute Utility Theory / Multi-Attribute Value Theory
MCA = Multi-Criteria Analysis
MCDM = Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making
MOORA = Multi-Objective Optimisation on the basis of Ratio Analysis
NPV = Net Present Value
NR = Nepalese Rupees
PROMETHEE = Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations
SMART = Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique
TOPSIS = Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
USD = United States of America Dollar
VIKOR = VIšekriterijumsko KOmpromisno Rangiranje

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Erasmus+ International Programme funded a scholarship for the first author for the exchange program at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. There are no conflicts of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based on the doctoral dissertation of the first author at the Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. This article was written during his period of study at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. The first author would like to thank the Erasmus+ International Programme for providing a scholarship for the exchange program at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.

REFERENCES

[1] United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Data Booklet. ST/ESA/SER.A/377., United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, .
[2] E. Ibok, and E. Daniel, "The impact of rural roads and bridges on the socio- economic development of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria : An evaluation", Glob. J. Polit. Sci. Adm., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27-36.
[3] R. Vickerman, "Cost - benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: State of the art and challenges", Environ. Plann. B Plann. Des., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 598-610.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b32112]
[4] M. Lehtonen, "The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: Capabilities, social capital, institutions", Ecol. Econ., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 199-214.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.019]
[5] G. Wegner, and U. Pascual, "Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique", Glob. Environ. Change, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 492-504.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.008]
[6] P. Adhikary, P.K. Roy, and A. Mazumdar, "Selection of Small Hydropower Project Site : A Multi- Criteria Optimization Technique Approach", ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 3280-3285.
[7] G. Kabir, R. Sadiq, and S. Tesfamariam, "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management", Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1176-1210.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978]
[8] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K.M. Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, "Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications: A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014", Econ. Res. Istraživanja, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 516-571.
[9] N. Jaini, and S. Utyuzhnikov, "Trade-off ranking method for multi-criteria decision analysis", J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal., no. October, p. e1600.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1600]
[10] O.W. Otun, "Application of multi-criteria analysis in rural roads provision in developing countries", Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 148-157.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v9i2.3]
[11] F. Joerin, M. Thériault, and A. Musy, "Using GIS and outranking multicriteria analysis for land-use suitability assessment", Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 153-174.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658810051030487]
[12] M. Monjezi, H. Dehghani, T.N. Singh, A.R. Sayadi, and A. Gholinejad, "Application of TOPSIS method for selecting the most appropriate blast design", Arab. J. Geosci., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 95-101.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-010-0133-2]
[13] J. Chu, and Y. Su, The Application of TOPSIS Method in Selecting Fixed Seismic Shelter for Evacuation in Cities, .
[14] M.N. Omar, and A.R. Fayek, "A topsis-based approach for prioritized aggregation in multi-criteria decision-making problems, J. Multi-Criteria ", Decis. Anal., vol. 23, no. 5-6, pp. 197-209.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1561]
[15] W.K. Brauers, and E.K. Zavadskas, "The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy", Control Cybern., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 445-469.
[16] V.S. Gadakh, "Application of MOORA method for parametric optimization of milling process", Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 743-758.
[17] K.C. Sinha, and S. Labi, Transportation Decision Making: Principles of Project Evaluation and Programming., John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, .
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470168073]
[18] M. Behzadian, R.B. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, and M. Aghdasi, "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 198-215.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021]
[19] S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, "Multi-criteria evaluation for ranking rural road projects : Case study of Nepal", IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 53-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/1684-11615365]
[20] S.B. Bhandari, P.B. Shahi, and R.N. Shrestha, Ranking Rural Road Projects: Weighting Different Evaluation Criteria With a Focus on the Case of Nepal, .www.ijerst.com
[21] A. Umer, K. Hewage, H. Haider, and R. Sadiq, "Sustainability assessment of roadway projects under uncertainty using Green Proforma: An index-based approach", Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 604-619.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.06.002]
[22] C. Okoli, and S.D. Pawlowski, "The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications", Inf. Manage., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 15-29.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002]
[23] T.L. Saaty, "Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables", Math. Comput. Model., vol. 46, no. 7-8, pp. 860-891.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.028]
[24] T.L. Saaty, "Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process", Int. J. Serv. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83-98.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590]
[25] E. Triantaphyllou, B. Shu, S.N. Sanchez, and T. Ray, "Multi-criteria decision making : An operations research approach", Encycl. Electr. Electron. Eng. Electron., vol. 15, pp. 175-186.
[26] W.K. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, F. Peldschus, and Z. Turskis, "Multi‐objective decision‐making for road design", Transport, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 183-193.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2008.23.183-193]
[27] A. Gorener, H. Dinçer, and Ü. Hacıoğlu, "Application of multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method for bank branch location selection", Int. J. Financ. Bank. Stud., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 41-52.
[28] P. Karande, and S. Chakraborty, "Application of multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method for materials selection", Mater. Des., vol. 37, pp. 317-324.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.01.013]
[29] J.P. Brans, P. Vincke, and B. Mareschal, "How to select and how to rank projects: The promethee method", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 228-238.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5]
[30] C. Macharis, J. Springael, K. De Brucker, and A. Verbeke, "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 153, no. 2, pp. 307-317.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X]
[31] T.M. Amaral, and A.P. Costa, "Improving decision-making and management of hospital resources: An application of the PROMETHEE II method in an Emergency Department", Oper. Res. Health Care, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orhc.2013.10.002]
[32] H.A. Effat, and O.A. Hassan, "Designing and evaluation of three alternatives highway routes using the Analytical Hierarchy Process and the least-cost path analysis, application in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt", Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 141-151.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2013.08.001]
Track Your Manuscript:


Endorsements



"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."


Daniel Pesut
(Indiana University School of Nursing, USA)

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."


Jacques Descotes
(Centre Antipoison-Centre de Pharmacovigilance, France)

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."


Patrice Talaga
(UCB S.A., Belgium)

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."


Jeffrey M. Weinberg
(St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA)

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."


Debomoy K. Lahiri
(Indiana University School of Medicine, USA)

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."


Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."


Richard Reithinger
(Westat, USA)

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."


J. Ferwerda
(University of Oxford, UK)

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."


Sean L. Kitson
(Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland)

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."


Hubert Wolterbeek
(Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."


Alessandro Laviano
(Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy)

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."


Philippe Hernigou
(Paris University, France)

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."


Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."


M. Bendandi
(University Clinic of Navarre, Spain)

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."


Peter Chiba
(University of Vienna, Austria)

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."


Jaime Sampaio
(University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal)

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."


Eduardo A. Castro
(INIFTA, Argentina)

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."


Kenji Hashimoto
(Chiba University, Japan)

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."


Daniel Shek
(Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."


Jih Ru Hwu
(National Central University, Taiwan)


Browse Contents




Webmaster Contact: info@benthamopen.net
Copyright © 2020 Bentham Open