可持续交通项目评价中的成本效益分析和多准则决策分析综述

IF 2.3 Q3 MANAGEMENT EURO Journal on Decision Processes Pub Date : 2019-11-01 DOI:10.1007/s40070-019-00098-1
Francis Marleau Donais , Irène Abi-Zeid , E.OwenD. Waygood , Roxane Lavoie
{"title":"可持续交通项目评价中的成本效益分析和多准则决策分析综述","authors":"Francis Marleau Donais ,&nbsp;Irène Abi-Zeid ,&nbsp;E.OwenD. Waygood ,&nbsp;Roxane Lavoie","doi":"10.1007/s40070-019-00098-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Transport decision processes have traditionally applied cost–benefit analysis (CBA) with benefits mainly relating to time-savings, and costs relating to infrastructure and maintenance costs. However, a shift toward more sustainable practices was initiated over the last decades to remedy the many negative impacts of automobility. As a result, decision processes related to transport projects have become more complex due to the multidimensional aspects and to the variety of stakeholders involved, often with conflicting points of view. To support rigourous decision-making, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is, in addition to CBA, often used by governments and cities. However, there is still no consensus in the transport field regarding a preferred method that can integrate sustainability principles. This paper presents a descriptive literature review related to MCDA and CBA in the field of transport. Among the 66 considered papers, we identified the perceived strengths and weaknesses of CBA and MCDA, the different ways to combine them and the ability of each method to support sustainable transport decision processes. We further analysed the results based on four types of rationality (objectivist, conformist, adjustive, and reflexive). Our results show that both methods can help improve the decision processes and that, depending on the rationality adopted, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of MCDA and CBA can vary. Nonetheless, we observe that by adopting a more global and holistic perspective and by facilitating the inclusion of a participative process, MCDA, or a combination of both methods, emerge as the more promising appraisal methods for sustainable transport.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44104,"journal":{"name":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40070-019-00098-1","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A review of cost–benefit analysis and multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of sustainable transport in project evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Francis Marleau Donais ,&nbsp;Irène Abi-Zeid ,&nbsp;E.OwenD. Waygood ,&nbsp;Roxane Lavoie\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40070-019-00098-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Transport decision processes have traditionally applied cost–benefit analysis (CBA) with benefits mainly relating to time-savings, and costs relating to infrastructure and maintenance costs. However, a shift toward more sustainable practices was initiated over the last decades to remedy the many negative impacts of automobility. As a result, decision processes related to transport projects have become more complex due to the multidimensional aspects and to the variety of stakeholders involved, often with conflicting points of view. To support rigourous decision-making, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is, in addition to CBA, often used by governments and cities. However, there is still no consensus in the transport field regarding a preferred method that can integrate sustainability principles. This paper presents a descriptive literature review related to MCDA and CBA in the field of transport. Among the 66 considered papers, we identified the perceived strengths and weaknesses of CBA and MCDA, the different ways to combine them and the ability of each method to support sustainable transport decision processes. We further analysed the results based on four types of rationality (objectivist, conformist, adjustive, and reflexive). Our results show that both methods can help improve the decision processes and that, depending on the rationality adopted, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of MCDA and CBA can vary. Nonetheless, we observe that by adopting a more global and holistic perspective and by facilitating the inclusion of a participative process, MCDA, or a combination of both methods, emerge as the more promising appraisal methods for sustainable transport.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EURO Journal on Decision Processes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40070-019-00098-1\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EURO Journal on Decision Processes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2193943821001102\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2193943821001102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

运输决策过程传统上应用成本效益分析(CBA),其效益主要与节省时间有关,与基础设施和维护成本有关。然而,在过去的几十年里,人们开始转向更可持续的做法,以弥补汽车的许多负面影响。因此,与运输项目有关的决策过程变得更加复杂,因为涉及多方面和各种利益相关者,往往有相互冲突的观点。为了支持严格的决策,除了CBA之外,多标准决策分析(MCDA)也经常被政府和城市使用。然而,在运输领域,对于能够综合可持续性原则的首选方法,仍然没有达成共识。本文对交通运输领域中与MCDA和CBA相关的文献进行了综述。在考虑的66篇论文中,我们确定了CBA和MCDA的优势和劣势,结合它们的不同方式以及每种方法支持可持续交通决策过程的能力。我们进一步分析了基于四种类型的理性(客观主义、顺从主义、调整和反思)的结果。我们的研究结果表明,这两种方法都有助于改善决策过程,并且根据采用的合理性,MCDA和CBA的感知优势和劣势会有所不同。尽管如此,我们观察到,通过采用更加全球化和整体的视角,并促进参与性过程的纳入,MCDA或两种方法的结合,将成为更有前途的可持续交通评估方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A review of cost–benefit analysis and multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of sustainable transport in project evaluation

Transport decision processes have traditionally applied cost–benefit analysis (CBA) with benefits mainly relating to time-savings, and costs relating to infrastructure and maintenance costs. However, a shift toward more sustainable practices was initiated over the last decades to remedy the many negative impacts of automobility. As a result, decision processes related to transport projects have become more complex due to the multidimensional aspects and to the variety of stakeholders involved, often with conflicting points of view. To support rigourous decision-making, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is, in addition to CBA, often used by governments and cities. However, there is still no consensus in the transport field regarding a preferred method that can integrate sustainability principles. This paper presents a descriptive literature review related to MCDA and CBA in the field of transport. Among the 66 considered papers, we identified the perceived strengths and weaknesses of CBA and MCDA, the different ways to combine them and the ability of each method to support sustainable transport decision processes. We further analysed the results based on four types of rationality (objectivist, conformist, adjustive, and reflexive). Our results show that both methods can help improve the decision processes and that, depending on the rationality adopted, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of MCDA and CBA can vary. Nonetheless, we observe that by adopting a more global and holistic perspective and by facilitating the inclusion of a participative process, MCDA, or a combination of both methods, emerge as the more promising appraisal methods for sustainable transport.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Feature Issue on Fair and Explainable Decision Support Systems Editorial: Feature issue on fair and explainable decision support systems Corrigendum to “Multi-objective optimization in real-time operation of rainwater harvesting systems” [EURO Journal on Decision Processes Volume 11 (2023) 100039] Multiobjective combinatorial optimization with interactive evolutionary algorithms: The case of facility location problems Performance assessment of waste sorting: Component-based approach to incorporate quality into data envelopment analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1