References
- Aczél, J., & Saaty, T. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7
- Amenta, P., Ishizaka, A., Lucadamo, A., Marcarelli, G., & Vyas, V. (2020). Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context. Annals of Operations Research, 284(1), 33–62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03258-3
- Basak, I., & Saaty, T. (1993). Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Computers Modelling, 17(4), 5) 105–109.
- Blagojevic, B., Srdjevic, B., Srdjevic, Z., & Zoranovic, T. (2016). Heuristic aggregation of individual judgments in AHP group decision making using simulated annealing algorithm. Information Sciences, 330(C), 260–273. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.10.033
- Bozóki, S. (2008). Solution of the least squares method problem of pairwise comparison matrices. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 16(4), 345–358. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-008-0063-1
- Bozóki, S., & Fülöp, J. (2018). Efficient weight vectors from pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 419–427. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.033
- Cho, Y. G., & Cho, K. T. (2008). A loss function approach to group preference aggregation in the AHP. Computers & Operations Research, 35(3), 884–892. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.04.008
- Crawford, G., & Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(85)90002-1
- Csató, L. (2018). Characterization of the Row Geometric Mean Ranking with a group consensus axiom. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(6), 1011–1027. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9589-3
- Dias, L. C., & Sarabando, P. (2012). A note on a group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Decision Analysis, 9(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1120.0244
- Dong, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, W., & Xu, Y. (2010). Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 281–289. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.003
- Duleba, S., & Moslem, S. (2018). Sustainable urban transport development with stakeholder participation, an AHP-Kendall model: A case study for Mersin. Sustainability, 10(10), 3647. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103647
- Duleba, S., Mishina, T., & Shimazaki, Y. (2012). A dynamic analysis on public bus transport’s supply quality by using. Transport, 27(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2012.719838
- Duleba, S., & Moslem, S. (2019). Examining Pareto-optimality in analytic hierarchy process on real data: An application in public service development. Expert Systems with Applications, 116, 21–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.08.049
- Esztergár-Kiss, D., & Tettamanti, T. (2019). Stakeholder engagement in mobility planning. In Autonomous vehicles and future mobility. (pp. 113–123) Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817696-2.00009-3
- Gargallo, P., Moreno-Jimenez, J. M., & Salvador, M. (2007). AHP-Group decision-making: A Bayesian approach based on mixtures for group pattern identification. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(6), 485–506. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9068-0
- Ghorbanzadeh, O., Moslem, S., Blaschke, T., & Duleba, S. (2018). Sustainable urban transport planning considering different stakeholder groups by an Interval-AHP decision support model. Sustainability, 11(1), 9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010009
- Huang, Y. S., Liao, J. T., & Lin, Z. L. (2009). A study on aggregation of group decisions. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(4), 445–454. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.941
- Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7317–7325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.004
- Keeney, R. L. (2009). The foundations of collaborative group decisions. International Journal of Collaborative Engineering, 1(1/2), 4–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2009.027438
- Lin, P., Grange, A., Heyman, B., Noble, P., & Bus, B. (2008). Stakeholders perceptions of a research capacity project for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(3), 315–326.
- Macharis, C., & Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177–186. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002
- Mikusova, M. (2018). Proposal of benchmarking methodology for the area of public passenger transport. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 47(2), 166–170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3311/PPtr.10271
- Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
- Moreno-Jimenez, J. A., Aguaron, J., & Escobar, M. T. (2008). The core of consistency in AHP-group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(3), 249–265. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9072-z
- Moreno-Jimenez, J. A., Joven, J. A., Pirla, A. R., & Lanuza, A. T. (2005). A spreadsheet module for consistent consensus building in AHP-group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14, 89–108.
- Ossadnik, W., Schinke, S., & Kaspar, R. H. (2016). Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: A comparative analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(2), 421–457. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9448-4
- Perez, J., & Mokotoff, E. (2016). Eigenvector priority function causes strong rank reversal in group decision making. Fundamenta Informaticae, 144(3-4), 255–261. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2016-1333
- Ramanathan, R., & Ganesh, L. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90356-5
- Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
- Triantaphyllou, E., Hou, F., & Yanase, J. (2020). Analysis of the final ranking decisions made by experts after a consensus has been reached in Group Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 29, 271–291. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09655-5
- Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
- Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2009). A new data envelopment analysis method for priority determination and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(1), 239–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.01.049
- Zhang, B., Dong, Y., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2019). Group decision making with heterogeneous preference structures: An automatic mechanism to support consensus reaching. Group Decision and Negotiation, 28(3), 585–617. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-09609-y