Why does birthplace matter so much? Sorting, learning and geography
Clement Bosquet () and
Henry Overman ()
No 2016-02, THEMA Working Papers from THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise
The Transportation Elimination-by-Aspects (TEBA) framework, a new evaluation and decision making framework (and methodology) for large transportation projects, is proposed to elicit, structure and quantify the preferences of stakeholder groups across project alternatives. The decision rule used for group decision making within TEBA is the individual non-compensatory model of choice elimination by aspects (EBA). TEBA is designed to bring out the decision rule employed by decision makers when ranking the options presented, incorporate various criteria types and ease communication of relevant information related to options and criteria for multiple stakeholder groups. It is a platform for democratizing the decision making process. The TEBA framework was tested using a case study investigating alternative land connections between Beirut and Damascus. Key results showed that (1) stakeholders have employed EBA in making decisions, (2) a defined group of decision makers will rank options differently when provided with modified sets of criteria, (3) the public sector and general public groups ranked Impact on Employment among the top criteria, (4) the most important criterion per group from EBA was as expected; (5) the EBA analysis suggested that only 3 to 4 criteria are significant in reaching a decision; (6) aggregation of user assigned weights masked relative importance of criteria in some cases; and (7) analysis of user assigned weights and Minimum Threshold (MT) values suggest higher risk perception with increased criterion importance. Policy implications include recommendation to reach out to stakeholders for input on decisions, including the “people” but refrain from relying on criteria weights assigned by “experts” and reduce the “experts”’ role in decision making. Also, it is recommended to model the decision making in a probabilistic framework rather than a deterministic “one score” approach, seek to identify a consensus ranking, place particular attention on determining the values of the criteria that emerged as “top” at the evaluation stage and continue to emphasize risk measures.
Keywords: place of birth; spatial sorting; lifetime mobility (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: J61 J62 R23 J31 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Working Paper: Why Does Birthplace Matter So Much? Sorting, Learning and Geography (2016)
Working Paper: Why does birthplace matter so much? Sorting, learning and geography (2016)
Working Paper: Why does birthplace matter so much? sorting, learning and geography (2016)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ema:worpap:2016-02
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in THEMA Working Papers from THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Stefania Marcassa ().