Comparative Assessment of AHP and MAV in Highway Planning: Case Study
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 121, Issue 2
Abstract
A comparative analysis is made between the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the multiattribute value (MAV) functions, using the MAV theory as the basis of reference, in the evaluation of transportation projects. The analysis considers three different perspectives: theoretical support, practicality, and ability to capture the decision maker's (DM) preferences. From the theoretic-behavioral standpoint, it appears that the validity of some of the assumptions of the AHP remain to be formally established, as concluded by several researchers. Secondly, the practicality of AHP was analyzed, in terms of the quantity and type of information demanded from the DM. For an even mix of ratio scale variables and nonratio scale variables the AHP requires less information than the MAV, provided the number of alternatives is less than five. Beyond this limit, the AHP requires more information than MAV. The ability to capture the decision maker's preference structure is analyzed through a case study, to which both methods were applied. In this limited test, the DMs found the MAV theory was slightly closer to their preference structure, though they were not fully satisfied with the results of either model. In spite of this, both DMs declared satisfaction with the insights they gained from the process.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Belton, U., and Gear, T. (1983). “On a short-coming of Saaty's method of Analytic Hierarchies.”Omega, Int. J. Mgmt. Sci., Oxford, England, Vol. 11, 228–230.
2.
Belton, U., and Gear, T.(1985). “The legitimacy of rank reversal—A comment.”Omega, 13(3), 143–144.
3.
Chankong, V., and Haimes, Y. (1983). Decision making: theory and practice; Ser. Vol. No. 8, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
4.
Dyer, J., and Wendell, R. (1984). “A critique of the analytic hierarchy process.”Working paper 84/85-4-24, Dept. of Mgmt., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tex.
5.
Dyer, J. (1988). “Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process.”Working paper 87/88-4-9, Dept. of Mgmt., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tex.
6.
Goicoechea, A., Hansen, D., and Duckstein, L. (1982). Multiobjective decision analysis with engineering and business applications . John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
7.
Golden, B. L., Wasil, E. A., and Harker, P. T. (1989). The analytic hierarchy process: applications and studies . Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.
8.
Golden, B. L., Wasil, E. A., and Harker, L. D. (1989). “Applications of the analytic hierarchy process: a categorized, annotated bibliography,”The analytic hierarchy process: applications and studies, Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.
9.
Harker, P. (1987a). “Alternatives modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy process.”Mathematical Modeling, 9(3–5), 353–360.
10.
Harker, P. (1987b). “Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process.”Mathematical Modeling, 9(3–5), 837–848.
11.
Harker, P., and Millet, J.(1990). “Globally effective questioning in the analytic hierarchy process.”Eur. J. Operational Res., 48(1), 88–97.
12.
Holguín-Veras, J. (1988). “Evaluation of the road Santo Domingo-San Cristóbal.” Edificaciones y Carreteras for Ministry of Public Works (in Spanish).
13.
Johnson, C. R. (1980). “Constructive critique of a hierarchical prioritization scheme employing paired comparisons.”Proc., IEEE Int. Conf. in Cybernetics and Soc., Inst. of Electr. and Electronic Engrs., Cambridge, Mass., 373–378.
14.
Kamenetzky, R.(1982). “The relationships between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function.”Decision Sci., 13(4), 702–713.
15.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs . John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
16.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process . McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
17.
Saaty, T. L., and Vargas, L. (1982a). The logic of priorities . Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, The Hague.
18.
Saaty, T. L., and Vargas, L. (1982b). “The estimation of I-P technological coefficients.”Logic of priorities, Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, The Hague.
19.
Saaty, T. L. (1982c). Decision making for leaders . Lifetime Learing Publications, Belmont, Calif.
20.
Saaty, T. L.(1986). “Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process.”Mgmt. Sci., 32(7), 841–855.
21.
von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd Ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
22.
Watson, S. R., and Freeling, A. N. S.(1982). “Assessing attributes weights.”Omega, 10(6), 582–585.
23.
Watson, S. R., and Freeling, A. N. S. (1983). “Comment on: assessing attributes weights.”Omega, 11(1).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 121 • Issue 2 • March 1995
Pages: 191 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Mar 1, 1995
Published in print: Mar 1995
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.