{"title":"An integrated multi-criteria decision making approach for selecting the starting location of railroad projects","authors":"Harun Turkoglu, Emel Sadikoglu, Sevilay Demirkesen, Atilla Damci, Serra Acar","doi":"10.1108/ecam-06-2024-0764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The successful completion of linear infrastructure construction projects such as railroads, roads, tunnels, and pipelines relies heavily on decision-making processes during planning phase. Professionals in the construction industry emphasize that determining the starting point of a linear infrastructure construction project is one of the most important decisions to be made in the planning phase. However, the existing literature does not specifically focus on selection of the starting point of the segments to be constructed. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to develop a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model to support selection of the starting point of the segments to be constructed in linear infrastructure construction projects.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Based on the characteristics of the railroad projects and insights gathered from expert interviews, the appropriate criteria for the model were determined. Once the criteria were determined, a decision hierarchy was developed and the weights of the criteria (w_i) were calculated using DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method. Then, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), COmplex PRoportional Assessment (COPRAS), and evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) methods were used. The alternatives were ranked in terms of their priority with TOPSIS method based on relative closeness (Ci) of each alternative to the ideal solution, COPRAS method based on quantitative utility (Ui) for each alternative and EDAS method based on evaluation score (ASi) for all alternatives. The results were compared with each other.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The study reveals the effects of all criteria on the proposed model. The results of DEMATEL method indicated that quantity of aggregate (w_i = 0.075), ballast (w_i = 0.071), and sub-ballast (w_i = 0.069) are the most important criteria in starting location selection for railroads, where earthquake (w_i = 0.046), excavation cost (w_i = 0.054), and longest distance from borrow pit (w_i = 0.055) were found to be less important criteria. The starting location alternatives were ranked based on TOPSIS, COPRAS and EDAS methods. The A-1 alternative was selected as the most appropriate alternative (Ci = 0.64; Ui = 100%; ASi = 0.81), followed by A-6 alternative (Ci = 0.61; Ui = 97%; ASi = 0.73) and A-7 alternative (Ci = 0.59; Ui = 94%; ASi = 0.60). Even tough different methods were used, they provided compatible results where the same ranking was achieved except three alternatives.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study identifies novel criteria for the starting location selection of railroad construction based on the data of a railroad project. This study uses different methods for selecting the starting location. Considering the project type and its scope, the model can be used by decision-makers in linear infrastructure projects for which efficient planning and effective location selection are critical for successful operations.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":11888,"journal":{"name":"Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-06-2024-0764","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The successful completion of linear infrastructure construction projects such as railroads, roads, tunnels, and pipelines relies heavily on decision-making processes during planning phase. Professionals in the construction industry emphasize that determining the starting point of a linear infrastructure construction project is one of the most important decisions to be made in the planning phase. However, the existing literature does not specifically focus on selection of the starting point of the segments to be constructed. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to develop a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model to support selection of the starting point of the segments to be constructed in linear infrastructure construction projects.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on the characteristics of the railroad projects and insights gathered from expert interviews, the appropriate criteria for the model were determined. Once the criteria were determined, a decision hierarchy was developed and the weights of the criteria (w_i) were calculated using DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method. Then, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), COmplex PRoportional Assessment (COPRAS), and evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) methods were used. The alternatives were ranked in terms of their priority with TOPSIS method based on relative closeness (Ci) of each alternative to the ideal solution, COPRAS method based on quantitative utility (Ui) for each alternative and EDAS method based on evaluation score (ASi) for all alternatives. The results were compared with each other.
Findings
The study reveals the effects of all criteria on the proposed model. The results of DEMATEL method indicated that quantity of aggregate (w_i = 0.075), ballast (w_i = 0.071), and sub-ballast (w_i = 0.069) are the most important criteria in starting location selection for railroads, where earthquake (w_i = 0.046), excavation cost (w_i = 0.054), and longest distance from borrow pit (w_i = 0.055) were found to be less important criteria. The starting location alternatives were ranked based on TOPSIS, COPRAS and EDAS methods. The A-1 alternative was selected as the most appropriate alternative (Ci = 0.64; Ui = 100%; ASi = 0.81), followed by A-6 alternative (Ci = 0.61; Ui = 97%; ASi = 0.73) and A-7 alternative (Ci = 0.59; Ui = 94%; ASi = 0.60). Even tough different methods were used, they provided compatible results where the same ranking was achieved except three alternatives.
Originality/value
This study identifies novel criteria for the starting location selection of railroad construction based on the data of a railroad project. This study uses different methods for selecting the starting location. Considering the project type and its scope, the model can be used by decision-makers in linear infrastructure projects for which efficient planning and effective location selection are critical for successful operations.
期刊介绍:
ECAM publishes original peer-reviewed research papers, case studies, technical notes, book reviews, features, discussions and other contemporary articles that advance research and practice in engineering, construction and architectural management. In particular, ECAM seeks to advance integrated design and construction practices, project lifecycle management, and sustainable construction. The journal’s scope covers all aspects of architectural design, design management, construction/project management, engineering management of major infrastructure projects, and the operation and management of constructed facilities. ECAM also addresses the technological, process, economic/business, environmental/sustainability, political, and social/human developments that influence the construction project delivery process.
ECAM strives to establish strong theoretical and empirical debates in the above areas of engineering, architecture, and construction research. Papers should be heavily integrated with the existing and current body of knowledge within the field and develop explicit and novel contributions. Acknowledging the global character of the field, we welcome papers on regional studies but encourage authors to position the work within the broader international context by reviewing and comparing findings from their regional study with studies conducted in other regions or countries whenever possible.