Multi Criteria Evaluation Framework for Prioritizing Indian Railway Stations Using Modified Rough AHP-Mabac Method

  • 1 Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology , Durgapur, India
  • 2 Department of Mobile Machinery and Railway Transport, Faculty of Transport Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, , Vilnius, Lithuania

Abstract

This study proposes a hybrid multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methodology for evaluating the performance of the Indian railway stations (IRS). Since the customers are heterogeneous and their requirements are often imprecise, the evaluation process is a critical step for prioritizing the IRS. To improve the existing approaches, an efficient evaluation technique has been proposed by integrating rough numbers, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and multi-attribute border approximation area comparison (MABAC) methods in rough environment. The relative criteria weights based on their preferences given by experts is determined by rough AHP whereas evaluation of the alternatives based on these criteria are done by the modified rough MABAC method. A case study of prioritizing different railway stations in India is provided to demonstrate the efficiency and applicability of the proposed method. Among different criteria “proactively” is observed to be the most important criteria in our analysis, followed by ‘Railfanning’ and ‘DMO’ is found to be the best among the forty IRS in this study. Finally, a comparative analysis and validity testing of the proposed method are elaborated and the methodology provides a standard to select IRS on the basis of different criteria.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Brons, M., Givoni, M., and Rietveld, P. (2009) Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use. Transportation Research Part A, 43, pp. 136-149.

  • 2. Chen, C.T. (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 114(1), pp. 1-9.

  • 3. Daamen, W. (2002) A quantitative assessment on the design of a railway station. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 61.

  • 4. Debnath, A., Roy, J., Kar, S., Zavadskas, E.K. and Antucheviciene, J. (2017) A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Strategic Project Portfolio Selection of Agro By-Products. Sustainability, 9(8), pp. 1302.

  • 5. Givoni, M. and Rietveld, P. (2007) The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel, Transport Policy 14, pp. 357-365.

  • 6. Givoni, M. and Rietveld, P. (2014) Do cities deserve more railway stations? The choice of a departure railway station in a multiple-station region, Journal of Transport Geography, 36, pp. 89-97.

  • 7. Hennig, C., Meila, M., Murtagh, F. and Rocci, R. (2015) Handbook of cluster analysis. CRC Press.

  • 8. Kaakai, F., Hayat, S. and Moudni, A. E. (2007) A hybrid Petri nets-based simulation model for evaluating the design of railway transit stations. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 15, pp. 935-969.

  • 9. Khoo, L.P. and Zhai, L.Y. (2001) A prototype genetic algorithm-enhanced rough set-based rule induction system. Computers in Industry, 46(1), pp. 95-106.

  • 10. Lai, W.T. and Chen, C. F. (2011) Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers-The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport Policy, 18, pp. 318-325.

  • 11. Liang, H., Ren, J., Gao, Z., Gao, S., Luo, X., Dong, L. and Scipioni, A. (2016) Identification of critical success factors for sustainable development of biofuel industry in China based on grey decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL). Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, pp. 500-508.

  • 12. Martínez, L., Liu, J., Ruan, D. and Yang, J.B. (2007) Dealing with decision-making information in engineering evaluation processes. Information Sciences, 177(7), pp. 1533-1542.

  • 13. Mateus, R., Ferreira, J. A. and Carreira, J. (2008) Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Central Porto high-speed railway station. European Journal of Operational Research, 187, pp. 1-18.

  • 14. Mohajeri, N. and Amin, G. R. (2010) Railway station site selection using analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 59, pp. 107-114.

  • 15. Pamučar, D. and Ćirović, G. (2015) The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), pp. 3016-3028.

  • 16. Pamučar, D., Petrovic, I. and Ćirović, G. (2018) Modification of the Best-Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers, Expert Systems with Applications, 91, pp. 89-106.

  • 17. Pawlak, Z. (1982) Rough sets. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 11(5), pp. 341-356.Zh

  • 18. Pawlak, Z. (1991) Rough Sets. Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

  • 19. Qazi, K.I., Lam, H.K., Xiao, B., Ouyang, G. and Yin, X. (2016) Classification of epilepsy using computational intelligence techniques. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 1(2), pp. 137-149.

  • 20. Rietveld, P. (2000). The accessibility of railway stations: the role of the bicycle in The Netherlands, Transportation Research Part D, 5, pp. 71-75.

  • 21. Roy, J., Adhikary, K. and Kar, S. (2016a) Credibilistic TOPSIS Model for Evaluation and Selection of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Method. ArXiv preprint, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01254.

  • 22. Roy, J., Chatterjee, K., Bandyopadhyay, A. and Kar, S. (2018) Evaluation and selection of medical tourism sites: A rough analytic hierarchy process based multi‐attributive border approximation area comparison approach. Expert Systems, 35(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12232

  • 23. Roy, J., Ranjan, A., Debnath, A. and Kar. S. (2016b) An extended MABAC for multi-attribute decision making using trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy numbers. ArXiv preprint, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01254

  • 24. Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (2012) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 175). Springer Science & Business Media.

  • 25. Song, W., Ming, X. and Wu, Z. (2013) An integrated rough number-based approach to design concept evaluation under subjective environments. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(5), pp. 320-341.

  • 26. Wang, H., Yang, B. and Chen, W. (2016) Unknown constrained mechanisms operation based on dynamic interactive control. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 1(3), pp. 259-271.

  • 27. Zheng, P., Xu, X. and Xie, S.Q. (2016) A weighted interval rough number based method to determine relative importance ratings of customer requirements in QFD product planning. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, pp. 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1224-z

  • 28. Xue, Y.X., You, J.X., Lai, X.D. and Liu, H.C. (2016) An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information. Applied Soft Computing, 38, pp. 703-713.

  • 29. Zemp, S., Stauffacher, M., Lang, D.J. and Scholz, R.W. (2011) Classifying railway stations for strategic transport and land use planning: Context matters. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, pp. 670-679.

  • 30. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2008) A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to quality function deployment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 37(5-6), pp. 613-624.

  • 31. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2009) A rough set based QFD approach to the management of imprecise design information in product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23(2), pp. 222-228.

  • 32. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2010) Towards a QFD-based expert system: A novel extension to fuzzy QFD methodology using rough set theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12), 8888-8896.

  • 33. Zhu, G. N., Hu, J., Qi, J., Gu, C.C. and Peng, Y.H. (2015) An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29(3), pp. 408-418.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search