Journal of Korean Society of Transportation (대한교통학회지)

Korean Society of Transportation (대한교통학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation Scheme for EcoMobility Policy Based on Multi-criteria Decision Making, AHP and ANP

AHP와 ANP 중심의 다기준 의사결정 기반 생태교통정책 평가체계에 관한 연구

  • KIM, Junghwa (Urban Management, Kyoto University) ;
  • KIM, Sukhee (Department of Urban and Environment, Suwon Research Institute)
  • 김정화 (교토대학교 공학연구과 ITS연구실) ;
  • 김숙희 (수원시정연구원 안전환경연구실)
  • Received : 2017.02.28
  • Accepted : 2017.06.27
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, policy evaluation scheme was established to encourage the efficient implementation of EcoMobility which has been expanding gradually all around the world. A total of eight evaluation goals and 22 evaluation items are reviewed and suggested based on the three major evaluation categories of "Basic elements for EcoMobility", "Land use and transport system for EcoMobility", and "Implications and impact of EcoMobility". The results of this study are as follows: the result of AHP analysis which reflects only the hierarchical structure shows a high priority in "Elements for EcoMobility promotion", "Eco-fiendly transport infrastructure", and "Safety in transport". While in result of ANP which considered the elements' dependencies, "Eco-fiendly transport Services", "Welfare in transport", and "Environment by transport" have high weights and importances. In conclusion, this study would be useful to make reasonable judgment based on the analysis results of the two techniques in order to ensure reliability in evaluation of EcoMobility policy. Furthermore we have confirmed appropriate evaluation technique between AHP and ANP which is better to reflect the features of EcoMobility.

본 연구에서는 국제사회에서 점차 확대되고 있는 생태교통 정책의 효율적 추진이 가능하도록 그 평가체계를 구축하였다. 이에 "생태교통의 구현요소", "생태교통의 토지이용과 교통체계", "생태교통의 결과 및 영향" 의 큰 3가지 평가항목을 주축으로 총 8개 평가목표와 22개 평가 지표가 검토되고 제시되었으며, 종합적 평가를 위한 평가지표별 가중치 산정시 AHP와 ANP 기법을 통해 양방향적 분석을 시행하였다. 먼저 계층적 구조만 반영된 AHP의 분석결과는 "생태교통의 추진요소"와 "생태교통의 인프라구축", 그리고 "생태교통의 안전성"이 높은 우선순위를 갖는 반면, 요소간 종속성이 추가적으로 고려된 ANP의 결과에서는 "생태교통의 서비스", "생태교통의 복지성" 그리고 "생태교통의 환경성"이 높은 중요도를 가지는 것으로 나타났다. 결론적으로 본 연구는 생태교통 정책평가 결과의 신뢰성 확보를 위해 두 기법의 분석 결과를 비교 검토하여 생태교통의 특성을 보다 잘 반영할 수 있는 적절한 평가기법을 확인하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahangari H., Garrick N., Atkinson-Palombo C. (2016), Relationship Between Human Capital and Transportation Sustainability or the United States and Selected European Countries, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2598, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 92-101. https://doi.org/10.3141/2598-11
  2. Al-Atawi A., Kurmar R., Saleh W. (2016), Transportation Sustainability Index for Tabuk city in Saudi Arabia: an analytic hierarchy process, Tramsport, 31(1), 47-55.
  3. Busan Development Institute (2014), Analysis and Evaluation Indicators of Ecological Transportation in Busan City.
  4. Hamalainen R.P., Seppalainen T.O. (1986) The Analytic Network Process in Energy Policy Planning Science, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 20(6), 399-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(86)90054-6
  5. ICLEI (2013) EcoMobility Suwon 2013, ICLEI.
  6. Jeon C., Amekudzi A., Guensler R. (2010), International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4, 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310902940209
  7. Jeong K. (2009), Development of Green Indicators and Models for 3G Implementation, Gyeonggi Research Institute.
  8. Kim J., Lee S. (2013), A Study on Evaluation Indices for Sustainable Urban Transport Systems, 14(2), 245-257.
  9. Kim S., Lee S. (2014), An Analysis of Residential Satisfaction at The Ecomobility World Festival 2013 Suwon, Transportation Technology and Policy, 11(4), Korean Society of Transportation, 64-72.
  10. Korea Ministry of Environment (2001), Study on Development and Utilization of National Indicators of Sustainable Development.
  11. Korea Transport Institute (2009), Development of Transport Indicators for Green Growth Index and DB Construction Plan.
  12. KRIHS (2003), Sustainable Land Development Index.
  13. KRIHS (2007), Sustainable Land Development Index.
  14. Lee S. (2009), A Study on Sustainability Evaluation of Transportation Policy, Seoul studies, 10(1), 209-221.
  15. Lee Y. (2006), Designing Customer-Oriented Marketing Decision Making Model Using ANP, Journal of -Quality Management, 33(2), 32-39.
  16. Matsui D., Asahi Y., Yamaguchi T. (2006), Consideration on leadership Evaluation System of Preliminary School Teachers Using AHP and ANP, Proceedings for Conference of Japan Operations Research Society, 54-55.
  17. Mead L., Sarkis J. (1999) Analyzing Organizational Project Alternatives for Agile Manufacturing Process: An Analytical Network Approach, International Journal of Production Research, 37(2), 241-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075499191751
  18. Mead L., Sarkis J. (2002) A Conceptual Model for Selection and Evaluating Third party Reverse Logistics Provider, Supply Chain Management: An international Journal, 7(5), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540210447728
  19. OECD (2001), Toward Sustainable Development.
  20. Saaty T.L. (1996), Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications.
  21. Seoul Research Institute (2008), Development and Utilization of Sustainable Traffic Policy Indicators.
  22. Shim Y., Byun G., Lee B. (2011), Deriving Strategic Priorities of Green ICT Policy Using AHP and ANP, Jornal of Internet Computing and Services, 12(1), 85-98.
  23. Son E., Bae S. (2011), Calculation of Weighting Factors for Sustainable Transportation Index, Journal of Transportation Research, 18(2), 47-60.
  24. Suwon Research Insitutue (2013), A Study on the Policy Direction through the Analysis of the Effect of Eco-Transportation Suwon 2013 Project.
  25. The Commission on Sustainable Development (2008), National Sustainable Development Indicators.
  26. UNSCSD (2007), Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidance and Methodologies.
  27. Yang J., Kim N., Ahn K. (2015), A Study on the Development of Sustainable Indicators of Transportation Department of Local Governments Through Compare Internal and External Indicators, The 72nd Conference of KST, Korean Society of Transportation, 421-426.

Cited by

  1. AHP기법을 이용한 교통정책 최적대안의 선정 방안연구 - 수도권광역교통청의 최적 설립형태와 업무범위 고찰 - vol.38, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12652/ksce.2018.38.1.0103
  2. 보행자 우선도로 개선 사업으로 인한 교통사고 변화에 대한 연구 vol.36, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7470/jkst.2018.36.2.112