Post by Knowledge and Decision Systems with Applications

Comparative Analysis of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Interval Analytic Hierarchy Process for Multi-Stakeholder Evaluation of Public Transport Supply Quality Authors Hiba Solieman Budapest University of Technologies and Economics, Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary. https://lnkd.in/dXyZjMJf Szabolcs Duleba University of Nyíregyháza, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Nyíregyháza, Hungary. https://lnkd.in/dienK3Gi DOI: https://lnkd.in/dQaniyeq Keywords: #Multi-#Criteria #Decision #Making (#MCDM), #Fuzzy #Analytic #Hierarchy #Process (#FAHP), #Interval #Analytic #Hierarchy #Process (IAHP), #Stakeholder #Analysis, #Public #Transport #Quality, #Kendall’s #Coefficient of #Concordance (W), #Urban #Mobility ABSTRACT #Evaluating #public #transport #service #quality requires #balancing diverse #stakeholder #perspectives, a #complex task #essential for #sustainable #urban #mobility. The #efficiency of #Multi-#Criteria #Decision-Making (#MCDM) #techniques, such as the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (#FAHP), in fostering consensus among diverse groups is still up for debate. This study compares FAHP and Interval #AHP (#IAHP) to determine which method better achieves stakeholder agreement in public transport quality assessment. Using a three-level criteria hierarchy, data were collected from regular #passengers, potential passengers, and government officials in #Mersin, #Turkey. Both FAHP and IAHP derived priority weights, with consensus measured by #Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W). Results revealed that consensus was strongest for strategic goals and weakened for operational details. Notably, IAHP #consistently outperformed FAHP, producing higher concordance across all levels. The findings demonstrate that IAHP is a more effective tool for reconciling divergent preferences, offering transport planners a superior method for fostering legitimate, consensus-driven #policies and improvements.