161
The case example shows that it is possible to take into account a wide range of criteria such as environment, economic growth, and accessibility in the same decision support model. The EM-model is not only a multi-disciplinary, but also multi-participatory decision support model. Several stakeholders can be included in the assessment as recommended by e.g. Musso et al. (2007) and Macharis (2007) and in the case study, four different participants in the DC gave input to the EM-model. The setup of the DC should obviously depend on the involved participants, but more importantly be based upon the decision problem to be investigated. Therefore, a major obstacle is the ability to convey appropriate methodological approaches that provide a theoretically approved course of action while at the same time maintain its transparency and applicability.
It is planned that the EcoMobility modelling framework should also be used for the localisation problem of an Urban Consolidation Centre (UCC) in Copenhagen. An UCC initiative for Copenhagen has been proposed aiming to remedy the urban freight transport in the city centre of Copenhagen. Hence, the localisation of such an UCC is a multi-disciplinary and multi-participatory decision problem, since technical, social, economic, and environmental criteria are all important for the choice of localisation. The technical criteria consist of logistics, level of service to be provided, volume, and the trip effectiveness. The social criteria are mobility, accessibility, quality of life, and traffic safety. The economic criteria are related to the direct influence on benefits and costs, while the environmental criteria cover congestion, air pollution, and noise and energy consumption. These numerous and often conflicting criteria together with a range of different stakeholders and their different preferences make this localisation problem an obvious task for the future application of the EM modelling framework.
A key concern within the EcoMobility project is to identify the effective means for sustainable transport planning in the Øresund region. This complex challenge can be met as concerns assessment methodology with the multi-faceted EM-model, which involves risk analysis on the socio-economic part of the decision problem, MCDA to embrace various and often conflicting criteria and sensitivity analysis for taking into account the interests and preferences of different stakeholders. To optimise the use of the EM-model customised decision conferences become essential where the engagement of stakeholders and their different preferences provide a common platform for understanding a decision problem and for seeking out the most attractive decision alternative.
Overall, the EM modelling framework provides a theoretically sound, and at the same time, practical and effective decision support tool for planning sustainable transport in the Øresund region.
162
5. References
Banister, D., 2008. The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm. Transport Policy, 15 (2), pp. 73-80.
Banister, D. and Berechman, J., 2000. Transport Investment and Economic Development.
London: UCL Press.
Barfod, M.B., forthcoming. Optimising Transport Decision Making using Customised Decision Models and Decision Conferences. Ph. D. Technical University of Denmark.
Barfod, M.B. and Leleur, S., 2011. Scaling Transformation in the REMBRANDT Technique: Examination of the Progression Factors. In: University of Jyväskylä, 21st International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Jyväskylä, Finland 13-17 June 2011.
Belton, V. And Stewart, T.J., 2002. Multi Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Beukers, E., Bertolini, L. and Te Brӧmmelstroet, M., 2012. Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: A Process Perspective.
Transportation Research Part A, 46 (1), pp. 68-78.
Communication from the Commission COM/2007/0607 of 18 October 2007 on Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan.
Danish Transport Authority, 2011. Green Corridor Manual (Draft) - Purpose, Definition and Vision for Green Transport Corridors. Copenhagen: Danish Transport Authority.
Edwards, W. and Barron, F.H., 1994. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, pp. 306-325.
Franco, L.A. and Montibeller, G., 2010. Facilitated Modelling in Operational Research.
European Journal of Operational Research, 205 (3), pp. 489-500.
Larsen, L.A. and Skougaard, B.Z., 2010. Appraisal of Alternatives Concerning a Fixed Link between Elsinore and Helsingborg (in Danish). M.Sc. Technical University of Denmark.
Leleur, S., Larsen, A.L. and Skougaard, B.Z., 2010. Strategic Transport Decision Making:
The SIMDEC Approach based on Risk Simulation and Multi-Criteria Analysis. In: The Westin Bund Centre, Asian Simulation Technology Conference (ASTEC’ 2010).
Shanghai, China 1-3 March 2010. Belgium: Eurosis.
Leleur, S., 2012. Complex Strategic Choices: Applying Systemic Planning for Strategic Decision Making. London: Springer-Verlag.
Lootsma, F.A., 1992. The REMBRANDT System for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Pair Wise Comparisons or Direct Rating. Technical report 92-05. Delft: Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics, Delft University of Technology.
Lootsma, F.A., 1999. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
163
Macharis, C., 2007. Multi-Criteria Analysis as a Tool to Include Stakeholders in Project Evaluation: the MAMCA method. In E. Haezendonck, ed. 2007. Transport Project Evaluation – Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 115-131.
Mareschal, B., 1988. Weight Stability Intervals in Multicriteria Decision Aid. European Journal of Operational Research, 33 (1), pp. 54-64.
Musso, E., Sanguineti, S. and Sillig, C., 2007. Socio-Economic Impact of Transport Policies: an Institutional Approach. In E. Haezendonck, ed. 2007. Transport Project Evaluation – Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 95-114.
Phillips, L.D., 2007. Decision conferencing. In W. Edwards, R.F. Miles and D. von Winterfeldt, eds. 2007. Advances in Decision Analysis – From Foundations to Applications. Cambridge University Press, pp. 375-399.
Phillips, L.D. and Bane e Costa, C.A., 2007. Transparent Prioritization, Budgeting and Resource Allocation with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Decision Conferencing.
Annals of Operational Research, 154 (1), pp. 51-68.
Roberts, R. and Goodwin, P., 2002. Weight Approximations in Multi-Attribute Decision Models. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 11 (6), pp. 291-303.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. Scenarios and Priorities in Transport Planning: Application to the Sudan. Transport Research, 11 (3), pp. 343-350.
Salling, K.B. 2008. Assessment of Transport Projects: Risk Analysis and Decision Support. PhD Dissertation, Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark.
Salling, K.B. and Leleur, S. 2012. Modelling of Transport Project Uncertainties:
Feasibility Risk Assessment and Scenario Analysis. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 12 (1), 2012, pp. 21-38.
Thomopoulos, N., Grant-Muller, S. and Tight, M.R. 2009. Incorporating Equity Considerations in Transport Infrastructure Evaluation: Current Practice and a Proposed Methodology. Evaluation and program planning, 32 (4), pp. 351-359.
Zurita, L. 2006. Consensus Conference Method in Environmental Issues: Relevance and Strengths. Land Use Policy, 23 (1), pp. 18-25.
Øresundsbro Konsortiet, 2010. 10 years: The Øresund Bridge and Its Region.
Copenhagen: Øresundsbro Konsortiet.
164