A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Assessment Model for Feasibility Studies of Transportation Projects

Öz

Transportation investments are examined from many aspects, including technical, economic and financial, during the evaluation phase. Feasibility studies prepared for this purpose; It enables to identify the objectives of the investment, to see the problems that can be seen at all stages of the projects and the benefits to be gained in case the investment is realized. Evaluation of feasibility studies should be based on scientific principles above all. In this study, a three-stage model has been developed to evaluate feasibility studies. Criteria and alternatives were determined in stage 1. In stage 2, Best-Worst Method (BWM) for determining the level of significance of the criteria were used. In stage 3, a multi-criteria model created with fuzzy-based Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is proposed for the feasibility studies assessment. Current projects have been identified as alternatives to indicate the efficiency of the recommended process. After five projects were determined as alternatives, Alternative 2 was found as the best alternative. With the study, it was concluded that economy, technology and transportation are more effective criteria in the evaluation of feasibility studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• transportation investments
• feasibility studies
• best worst method
• fuzzy TOPSIS

Ulaştırma Projeleri Fizibilite Etütlerinde Bulanık Çok Kriterli Bir Değerlendirme Modeli

Öz

Ulaştırma yatırımları değerlendirme aşamasında teknik, ekonomik, mali, olmak üzere birçok yönden incelenmektedir. Bu amaçla hazırlanan fizibilite etütleri; yatırımın amaçlarını belirlemeyi, projelerin tüm aşamalarında görülebilecek problemleri tespit etmeyi ve yatırımın gerçekleşmesi durumunda sağlanacak faydaları görmeyi sağlamaktadır. Fizibilite etütlerinin değerlendirilmesi her şeyden önce bilimsel esaslara dayalı olmalıdır. Bu çalışmada fizibilite etütlerini değerlendirmek için üç aşamalı bir model geliştirilmiştir. Aşama 1’de kriterler ve alternatifler belirlenmiştir. Aşama 2’de kriterlerin önem seviyelerinin belirlenmesinde Best-Worst Method (BWM) kullanılmıştır. Aşama 3’te fizibilite etütlerinin değerlendirilmesi için bulanık tabanlı Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) ile oluşturulan bir model önerilmiştir. Önerilen yöntemin etkinliğini göstermek için güncel projeler alternatif olarak belirlenmiştir. Beş proje alternatif olarak belirlendikten sonra Alternatif 2 en iyi alternatif olarak bulunmuştur. Yapılan çalışma ile ekonomi, teknoloji ve ulaştırmanın fizibilite etütlerinin değerlendirilmesinde daha etkili kriterler olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ulaştırma yatırımları
• fizibilite etütleri
• best worst method
• bulanık TOPSIS

Kaynakça

1. [1] S. Altinok, “Türkiye’de Ulaştırma Politikaları, Karayolları ve Demiryollarının Mukayesesi,” SÜ İİBF Sos. ve Ekon. Araştırmalar Derg., 1: 72–87, (2001).
2. [2] V. Özkir and T. Demirel, “A fuzzy assessment framework to select among transportation investment projects in Turkey,” Expert Syst. Appl., 39(1):74–80, (2012).
3. [3] J. Berechman, “The evaluation of transportation investment projects”, Routledge, (2014).
4. [4] A. Guleria and R. K. Bajaj, “A robust decision making approach for hydrogen power plant site selection utilizing (R, S)-Norm Pythagorean Fuzzy information measures based on VIKOR and TOPSIS method,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 45(38):18802–18816, (2020).
5. [5] L. Dimova, P. Sevastianov, and D. Sevastianov, “MCDM in a fuzzy setting: Investment projects assessment application,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., 100(1):10–29, (2006).
6. [6] Steuer, R.E., Na, P., “Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance. A categorical bibliographic study.,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 150: 496–515, (2003).
7. [7] Wang, W.-C., “Supporting project cost threshold decisions via a mathematical cost model.,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., 22: 99–108, (2004).
8. [8] A. K. Mohamed, S., McCowan, “Modelling project investment decisions under uncertainty using possibility theory.,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., 19: 231–241, (2001).

9. [9] H. D. Li, Q., Sterali, “An approach for analyzing foreign direct investment projects with application to China’s Tumen River Area development.,” Comput. Oper. Res., 3:1467–1485, (2003).
10. [10] T. Gercek, H., Karpak, B., & Kilincaslon, “A Multiple Criteria Approach for the Evaluation of the Rail Transit Networks in Istanbul,” Transportation, 31(2):203-228, (2004).
11. [11] J. Zak, “Multiple-Criteri Decision Aiding Methodology in Road Transportation,” Pozn. Pozn. Univ. Technol., (2005).
12. [12] M. Kruszynski, “Multiple-Criteri Decision Aiding Methodology in Urban Transportation Management,” Pozn. Pozn. Univ. Technol., (2014).
13. [13] N. Caliskan, “A Decision Support Approach for the Evaluation of Transport Investment Alternatives,” Eur. J. Oper. Res.,175(3): 1696–1704, (2006).
14. [14] R. Cascajo, “Assessment of economic, social and environmental effects of rail urban projects.,” Yung Res., (2005).
15. [15] H. Hayashi, H., & Morisugi, “International Comparision of Beckground Concept & Methodology of transportation Project Appraisal.,” Transp. Policy,7(1):73–88, (2000).
16. [16] H. Morisugi, “Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan.,” Transp. Policy, 7:35–40, (2000).
17. [17] M. D. Cheslow, “Issues in the evaluation of metropolitan transportation alternatives, in: Transportation systems analysis and planning 1980,” Transp. Res. Rec., 751:1–8, (1980).
18. [18] M. Shelton, J., Medina, “Integrated multiple-criteria decision-making method to prioritize transportation projects.,” Transp. Res. Rec. 2174:51–57,(2010).
19. [19] Y. Shang, J.S., Tjader, Y., Ding, “A unified framework for multicriteria evaluation of transportation projects.,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.,51(3):300–313,(2004).
20. [20] S. Topcu, Y., Onar, “A multi-criteria decision model for urban mass transit systems.,” 41st Int. Conf. Comput. Ind. Eng.,(2011).
21. [21] A. Awasthi, H. Omrani, and P. Gerber, “Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects,” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 116: 247–259, (2018).
22. [22] J. Rezaei, “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method,” Omega (United Kingdom), 53:49–57, (2015).
23. [23] L. A. Ahmad, W. N. K. W., Rezaei, J., Sadaghiani, S., & Tavasszy, “Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using Best Worst Method,” J. Clean. Prod.,153:242–252,(2017).
24. [24] J. Ahmadi, H. B., Kusi-Sarpong, S., & Rezaei, “Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 126:99–106, (2017).
25. [25] J. Van de Kaa, G., Kamp, L., & Rezaei, “Selection of biomass thermochemical conversion technology in the Netherlands: A Best Worst Method approach,” J. Clean. Prod., 166:32–39,(2017).
26. [26] R. Mahmoudi, S. N. Shetab-Boushehri, S. R. Hejazi, and A. Emrouznejad, “Determining the relative importance of sustainability evaluation criteria of urban transportation network,” Sustain. Cities Soc., 47:101493,(2019).
27. [27] J. Rezaei, “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model,” Omega (United Kingdom), 64:126–130,(2016).
28. [28] K. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, “Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods Applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg,” Int. Energy Agency, (1981).
29. [29] C. T. Chen, “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment,” Fuzzy Sets Syst, 114 (1):1–9,(2000).
30. [30] M. DEVECİ and S. YAVUZ, “Bulanık TOPSIS ve Bulanık VIKOR Yöntemleriyle Alışveriş Merkezi Kuruluş Yeri Seçimi ve Bir Uygulama,” Ege Akad. Bakis, 14(3):463–463, (2014).
31. [31] M. Deveci, N. Ç. Demirel, R. John, and E. Özcan, “Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making for carbon dioxide geological storage in Turkey,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.,27:692–705, (2015).
32. [32] N. Fouladgar, M. M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Yakhchali, S. H., Ghasempourabadi, M. H., & Badri, “Project Portfolio Selection Using VIKOR Technique under Fuzzy Environment.,” 2nd Int. Conf. Constr. Proj. Manag. IPEDR, 15:236–240,(2011).