Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban Transport Options - Comparative Analysis of Group Aggregation Methods

Sudhakar Yedla and Ram M. Shrestha
Additional contact information
Sudhakar Yedla: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research

Microeconomics Working Papers from East Asian Bureau of Economic Research

Abstract: The present study presents a comparative analysis of different group aggregation methods adopted in AHP by testing them against social choice axioms with a case study of Delhi transport system. The group aggregation (GA) methods and their correctness were tested while prioritizing the alternative options to achieve energy efficient and less polluting transport system in Delhi It was observed that among all group aggregation methods, geometric mean method (GMM) - the most widely adopted GA method of AHP - showed poor performance and failed to satisfy the most popular pareto optimality and non-dictatorship axiom raising questions on its validity as GA method adopted in AHP. All other group aggregation methods viz. weighted arithmetic mean method with varying weights and equal weights (WAMM, WeAMM) and arithmetic mean of individual priorities (AMM) resulted in concurring results with the individual member priorities. This study demonstrates that WeAMM resulted in better aggregation of individual priorities compared to WAMM. Comparative analysis between individual and group priorities demonstrates that the arithmetic mean (AMM) of priorities by individual members of the group showed minimum deviation from the group consensus making it the most suitable and simple method to aggregate individual preferences to arrive at a group consensus.

Keywords: AHP; decision making; GMM; group aggregation; transportation; WAMM (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: L91 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007-01
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.eaber.org/node/22400 (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 301 [REDIRECT LOOP] Moved Permanently (http://www.eaber.org/node/22400 [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.eaber.org/node/22400 [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.eaber.org/node/22400 [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.eaber.org/node/22400 [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.eaber.org/node/22400 [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.eaber.org/node/22400 [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.eaber.org/node/22400 [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.eaber.org/node/22400)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eab:microe:22400

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Microeconomics Working Papers from East Asian Bureau of Economic Research Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Shiro Armstrong ().