Decision support system for evaluating park & ride system using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method

Figures & data

Figure 1. The theoretical P&R system.

Figure 2. Model for the determination of criteria for establishing a P&R system.

Table 1. Judgment scale of relative importance for pairwise comparison (Saaty, 1977, 1980).

Numerical values	Explanation	Verbal scale
1	Two elements contribute equally	Equal importance of both elements
3	Experience and judgment favor one element over another	Moderate importance of one element over another
5	An element is strongly favored	Strong importance of one element over another
7	An element is very strongly dominant	Very strong importance of one element over another
9	An element is favored by at least an order of magnitude	Extreme importance of one element over another
2,4,6,8	Used to compromise between two judgments	Intermediate values

Table 2. Ranking of main criteria.

Criteria	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6
Weight	0,071	0,065	0,355	0,160	0,103	0,246
Rank	5	6	1	3	4	2

Figure 3. Results of applying the AHP model at the primary level.

Table 3. Ranking of sub-criteria.

Criteria	Global weight	Rank	Local weight	Rank
C1.1	0.059	5	0.829	1
C1.2	0.012	18	0.171	2
C2.1	0.007	19	0.110	3
C2.2	0.024	13	0.368	2
C2.3	0.034	12	0.522	1
C3.1	0.241	1	0.678	1
C3.2	0.037	8	0.104	3
C3.3	0.077	3	0.218	2
C4.1	0.052	7	0.323	2
C4.2	0.059	4	0.367	1
C4.3	0.035	10	0.217	3
C4.4	0.015	17	0.092	4
C5.1	0.023	14	0.227	2
C5.2	0.036	9	0.347	1
C5.3	0.022	15	0.218	3
C5.4	0.021	16	0.209	4
C6.1	0.156	2	0.636	1
C6.2	0.055	6	0.224	2
C6.3	0.034	11	0.140	3

Figure 4. Results of applying the AHP model at the second level.

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning. MacGraw-Hill, New York International Book Company. Priority Setting. Resource Allocation

 Google Scholar