대중교통전용지구 선정기준 분석 - AHP 적용 및 평가 -
Transit Mall Candidate Selection Criteria - Application and Evaluation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process -
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
교통수요관리와 도심활성화의 차원에서 추진되는 대중교통전용지구는 적지 선정여부에 성패가좌우된다. 적지를 판단하기 위한 후보지 평가과정에는 다양하고 때로는 상충적인 기준이 고려되는데이에 대한 의견은 이해관계자 간에 상이하다. 따라서 의견을 합리적으로 수렴하는 방법이 무엇인지, 그리고 의사결정집단의 특성에 따라 의견의 차이가 어떠한지 파악하는 것이 중요하다. 본 연구는 대중교통전용지구 후보지 평가를 위한 복수의 기준을 발견하고 이를 유형화한 후, 이를 다단계 위계모형으로나타낸다. 이 모형을 기반으로 정부, 업계, 학계의 전문가들을 대상으로 AHP를 통해 개별 기준이 갖는상대적인 중요도를 계산하고 성별, 연령, 업종 및 경력 등 표본의 특성이 중요도 평가에 어떠한 영향을미치는지 분석한다. 분석결과, AHP는 어떠한 계산모드를 채택하느냐에 따라 평가항목의 상대적 중요도를 다르게 판정하는 것으로 나타난다. 한편, 집단별 분석에서는 (1) 어느 집단이든 후보지 적합성을 평가하는 두 일반요소 중에는 후보지 도입에 따른 기대효과 측면을 후보지가 갖는 제약조건 측면보다 우선시 하지만 (2) 각 집단은 세부기준에 대해 상이한 의견을 보이며 그 차이는 직종, 연령 및 경력, 성별에따른다는 결과를 도출한다.
Abstract
The success of transit malls, which are being introduced for managing transportation demand and vitalizing downtown activities, depends on the suitability of the candidate sites. The process of the candidate evaluation requires various and sometimes conflicting considerations or criteria on which stakeholders show differing opinions. Thus, an issue is what a rational way of synthesizing the opinions is and how the difference is related to characteristics the stakeholders have. Accordingly, this study identifies multiple criteria for the selection of the transit mall candidate,categorizes the criteria, and structuralizes them in a multi-level hierarchy model. Based on the model,it conducts an expert survey and AHP analyses. This allows to determine the relative magnitudes of the criteria and to examine the relationship that the magnitudes have with the sampled experts’characteristics. A major finding is that the resultant magnitudes differ by computation mode used in AHP. By analyzing the sample itself, it finds that (1) at a general level, benefits expected from a candidate overwhelm its constraints in magnitude, but (2) at a specific level, the magnitudes differ among the groups of the sample, specifically according to their occupation, age and career, and gender.
참고문헌 (26)
- 김대기, "제3자 물류업체 선정을 위한 평가항목 개발 및 우선순위 설정에 관한 연구", 경영과학, 20(2), pp.151~163 (2003), 한국경영과학회
- 박철형, "AHP–군집분석을 이용한 주요어종의 자원감소 원인 비교분석에 관한 연구", 수산경영론집, 40(3), pp.127~146 (2009), 한국수산경영학회
- 조근태, "계층분석적 의사결정" (2003), 동현출판사
- 예비타당성조사수행을 위한 일반지침 수정․보완 연구(제4판), "한국개발연구원", ~ (2004)
- Barzilai, J., "Measurement and Preference Function Modelling", International Transactions in Operational Research, 12(2), pp.173~183 (2005)
- Belton, V., "On a Shortcoming of Saaty’s Method of Analytical Hierarchies", Omega, 11(3), pp.228~230 (1983)
- Center City Commission, "Pedestrian and Transit Malls Study" (2008)
- City of Buffalo, "City of Buffalo 2001 Staff Analysis of Buffalo Place Mall" (2001)
- Dodd, F., "Comparison of Priotization Techniques Using Interhierarchy Mappings", Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(4), pp.492~498 (1995)
- Duleba, S., "A Dynamic Analysis on Public Bus Transport’s Supply Quality by Using AHP", Transport, 27(3), pp.268~275 (2012)
- Ishizaka, A., "Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and Limitations", OR Insight, 22(4), pp.201~220 (2009)
- Kainulainen, T., "A Statistical Approach to Assessing Interval Scale Preferences in Discrete Choice Problems", Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(2), pp.252~258 (2009)
- Medineckienė, M., "Owner Preferences Regarding Renovation Measures: The Demonstration of Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making", Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 17(2), pp.284~295 (2011)
- Miller, G., "The Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information", Psychological Review, 63, pp.81~97 (1956)
- Millet, I., "On the Relativity of Relative Measures: Accommodating both Rank Preservation and Rank Reversals in the AHP", European Journal of Operational Research, 121(1), pp.205~212 (2000)
- Saaty, T., "The Analytic Hierarchy Process" (1980), McGraw Hill
- Saaty, T., "Highlights and Critical Points in the Theory and Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process", European Journal of Operational Research, 74(3), pp.426~447 (1994)
- Saaty, T., "Decision-Making with the AHP: Why is the Principal Eigenvector Necessary?", European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), pp.85~91 (2003)
- Sivilevičius, H., "Modelling the Interaction of Transport System Elements", Transport, 26(1), pp.20~34 (2011)
- Transit Cooperative Research Program, "Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities" (1998)
- Triantaphyllou, E., "Two New Cases of Rank Reversals When the AHP and Some of Its Additive Variants are Used that Do Not Occur with the Multiplicative AHP", Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10(1), pp.11~25 (2001)
- Triantaphyllou, E., "An Examination of the Effectiveness of Four Multi-Dimensional Decision-Making Methods: A Decision-Making Paradox", International Journal of Decision Support Systems, 5, pp.303~312 (1989)
- Triantaphyllou, E., "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges", International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2(1), pp.35~44 (1995)
- Troutt, M., "Rank Reversal and the Dependence of Priorities on the Underlying MAV Function", Omega, 16(4), pp.365~367 (1988)
- Tupėnaitė, L., "Multiple Criteria Assessment of Alternatives for Built and Human Environment Renovation", Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(2), pp.257~266 (2010)
- Wang, Y., "On Rank Reversal in Decision Analysis", Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49(5), pp.1221~1229 (2009)