Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process Method to Evaluate Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Applications

References

• J.T. de Aquino, F.J.C. de Melo, T. de B. Jerônimo, and D.D. de Medeiros, “Evaluation of Quality in Public Transport Services: The Use of Quality Dimensions as an Input for Fuzzy TOPSIS,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 21: 1 (2019) 176–193. doi: 10.1007/s40815-018-0524-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Arias-Molinares, and J.C. García-Palomares, “Shared Mobility Development as Key for Prompting Mobility as a Service (MaaS) in Urban Areas: The Case of Madrid,” Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020a) 846–859. doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2020.05.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Arias-Molinares, and J.C. García-Palomares, “The Ws of MaaS: Understanding Mobility as a Service from a Literature Review,” IATSS Research 44: 3 (2020b) 253–263. doi: 10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N.F. Aziz, S. Sorooshian, and F. Mahmud, “MCDM-AHP Method in Decision Makings,” ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 11 (2016) 7217–7220. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2013.2297315.
   Google Scholar
• H. Becker, M. Balac, F. Ciari, and K.W. Axhausen, “Assessing the Welfare Impacts of Shared Mobility and Mobility as a Service (MaaS),” Transport Research Part A: Policy and Practice 131 (2020) 228–243. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I. Belošević, M. Kosijer, M. Ivić, and N. Pavlović, “Group Decision Making Process for Early Stage Evaluations of Infrastructure Projects Using Extended VIKOR Method Under Fuzzy Environment,” European Transport Research Review 10: 2 (2018) 43. doi: 10.1186/s12544-018-0318-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Broniewicz, and K. Ogrodnik, “Multi-Criteria Analysis of Transport Infrastructure Projects,” Transport Research Part D: Transport and Environment 83 (2020) 102351. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Broniewicz, and K. Ogrodnik, “A Comparative Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods for Sustainable Transport,” Energies 14: 16 (2021) 5100. doi: 10.3390/en14165100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. Buran, and M. Erçek, “Public Transportation Business Model Evaluation with SPHERICAL and Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP and Sensitivity Analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications 204 (2020) 117519. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Deveci, F. Canıtez, and I. Gökaşar, “WASPAS and TOPSIS Based Interval Type-2 Fuzzy MCDM Method for a Selection of a Car Sharing Station,” Sustainable Cities and Society 41 (2018) 777–791. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Duleba, T. Mishina, and Y. Shimazaki, “A Dynamic Analysis on Public Bus Transport’s Supply Quality by Using AHP,” Transport 27: 3 (2012) 268–275. doi: 10.3846/16484142.2012.719838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Duleba, and S. Moslem, “Examining Pareto Optimality in Analytic Hierarchy Process on Real Data: An Application in Public Transport Service Development,” Expert Systems with Applications 116 (2019) 21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.08.049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Duleba, and Z. Szádoczki, “Comparing Aggregation Methods in Large-Scale Group AHP: Time for the Shift to Distance-Based Aggregation,” Expert Systems with Applications 196 (2022) 116667. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Duleba, “Introduction and Comparative Analysis of the Multi-Level Parsimonious AHP Methodology in a Public Transport Development Decision Problem,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 73: 2 (2022) 230–243. doi: 10.1080/01605682.2020.1824553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EMTA, Polis, and UITP, Joint Opinion on EU Wide Integrated Ticketing (online, 2021) https://cms.uitp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/UITP_EMTA_POLIS_Joint-opinion-on-EU-wide-integrated-ticketing.pdf Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• ERTICO, Urban Mobility: Delivering Seamless Mobility for All (online, 2021) https://ertico.com/focus-areas/urban-mobility/ Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• D. Esztergár-Kiss, T. Kerényi, T. Mátrai, and A. Aba, “Exploring the MaaS Market with Systematic Analysis,” European Transport Research Review 12 (2020) 67. doi: 10.1186/s12544-020-00465-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Esztergár-Kiss, and T. Kerényi, “Creation of Mobility Packages Based on the MaaS Concept,” Travel Behaviour and Society 21 (2020) 307–317. doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2019.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission, A Fundamental Transport Transformation: Commission Presents its Plan for Green, Smart and Affordable Mobility (online, 2020) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2329 Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Fostering Mobility SL, Meep MaaS (online, 2021) https://meep.app/maas-2/ Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• P. Georgakis, A. Almohammad, E. Bothos, B. Magoutas, K. Arnaoutaki, and G. Mentzas, “Heuristic-Based Journey Planner for Mobility as a Service (MaaS),” Sustainability 12: 23 (2020) 10140, doi: 10.3390/su122310140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O. Ghorbanzadeh, S. Moslem, T. Blaschke, and S. Duleba, “Sustainable Urban Transport Planning Considering Different Stakeholder Groups by an Interval-AHP Decision Support Model,” Sustainability 11: 1 (2019) 9. doi: 10.3390/su11010009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Gompf, M. Traverso, and J. Hetterich, “Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Introduce Weights to Social Life Cycle Assessment of Mobility Services,” Sustainability 13: 3 (2021) 1258. doi: 10.3390/SU13031258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Groag, Zero-Emission Mobility for All – Mission for MaaS, (online, 2020) https://maas-alliance.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2020/10/MaaS-Summit-2020-report.pdf Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• S. Heikkilä, Mobility as a Service - A Proposal for Action for the Public Administration, Case Helsinki (online, 2014) https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/13133/master_Heikkilä_Sonja_2014.pdf?sequence=1andisAllowed=y Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• D.A. Hensher, and S. Hietanen, “Mobility as a Feature (MaaF): Rethinking the Focus of the Second Generation of Mobility as a Service (MaaS),” Transport Reviews, 43: 3 (2023) 325–329. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2022.2159122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Jittrapirom, V. Caiati, A.M. Feneri, S. Ebrahimigharehbaghi, M.J. Alonso-González, and J. Narayan, “Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of Schemes, and Key Challenges,” Urban Planning 2: 2 (2017) 13–25. doi: 10.17645/up.v2i2.931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Jittrapirom, V. Marchau, R. van der Heijden, and H. Meurs, “Dynamic Adaptive Policymaking for Implementing Mobility-as-a Service (MaaS),” Research in Transportation Business and Management 27 (2018) 46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Jittrapirom, V. Marchau, R. van der Heijden, and H. Meurs, “Future Implementation of Mobility as a Service (MaaS): Results of an International Delphi Study,” Travel Behaviour and Society 21 (2020) 281–294. doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2018.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Kamargianni, and R. Goulding, “The Mobility as a Service Maturity Index: Preparing Cities for the Mobility as a Service Era,” 7th Transport Research Arena (TRA) (Vienna, April 16–18, 2018) doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1485002.
   Google Scholar
• M. Kamargianni, W. Li, M. Matyas, and A. Schäfer, “A Critical Review of New Mobility Services for Urban Transport,” Transport Research Procedia 14 (2016) 3294–3303. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.277.
   Google Scholar
• M. Kiciński, and K. Solecka, “Application of MCDA/MCDM Methods for an Integrated Urban Public Transportation System – Case Study, City of Cracow,” Archives of Transport 46: 2 (2018) 71–84. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0012.2107.
   Google Scholar
• G. Koca, O. Egilmez, and O. Akcakaya, “Evaluation of the Smart City: Applying the Dematel Technique,” Telematics and Informatics 62 (2021) 101625. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Kumar, and A. Ramesh, “An MCDM Framework for Assessment of Social Sustainability Indicators of the Freight Transport Industry under Uncertainty. A Multi-Company Perspective,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 33 (2020) 1023–1058. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F. Liu, G. Aiwu, V. Lukovac, and M. Vukic, “A Multicriteria Model for the Selection of the Transport Service Provider: A Single Valued Neutrosophic Dematel Multicriteria Model,” Decision Making Applications in Management and Engineering 1: 2 (2018) 121–130. doi: 10.31181/dmame1802128l.
   Google Scholar
• Y. Liu, C.M. Eckert, and C. Earl, “A Review of Fuzzy AHP Methods for Decision-making with Subjective Judgements,” Expert Systems with Applications 161 (2020) 113738. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I. Lopez-Carreiro, A. Monzon, E. Lopez, and M.E. Lopez-Lambas, “Urban Mobility in the Digital Era: An Exploration of Travellers’ Expectations of MaaS Mobile Technologies,” Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101392. doi: 10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2020.101392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MaaS Alliance, MaaS Alliance Service map, (online, 2021) https://maas-alliance.eu/maas-in-action/ Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• MaaS Alliance AISBL, MaaS Alliance Suggestions for Legislative and Financial Measures Supporting the Digital and Green Transformation of the Mobility Sector During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic, (online, 2020) https://maas-alliance.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2020/08/Quick_Fix_V0.3_final-1.pdf Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• MaaS Global, Whim App (online, 2021) https://whimapp.com/helsinki/en/ Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• J. Mahfod, B. Canel-Depitre, and A. Taghipour, “Quality Function Deployment-ELECTRE in Supplier Evaluation,” Journal of Advanced Management Science 7: 4 (2019) 131–135. doi: 10.18178/joams.7.4.131-135.
   Google Scholar
• H. Meurs, F. Sharmeen, V. Marchau, and R. van der Heijden, “Organizing Integrated Services in Mobility-as-a-Service Systems: Principles of Alliance Formation Applied to a MaaS-Pilot in the Netherlands,” Transport Research Part A: Policy and Practice 131 (2020) 178–195. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Miyazu, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Market by Latest Trends, Top Key Players, Future Growth, Revenue Forecast, Demand Forecast to 2030 (online, 2021) https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/mobility-as-a-service-market-78519888.html Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• M. Morfoulaki, and J. Papathanasiou, “Use of PROMETHEE MCDA Method for Ranking Alternative Measures of Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning,” Mathematics 9: 6 (2021) 602. doi: 10.3390/math9060602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Myrovali, M. Morfoulaki, B.M. Vassilantonakis, A. Mpoutovinas, and K.M. Kotoula, “Travelers-led Innovation in Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans,” Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering 48:2 (2021) 126–132. doi: 10.3311/PPtr.11909.
   Google Scholar
• K. Pangbourne, M.N. Mladenović, D. Stead, and D. Milakis, “Questioning Mobility as a Service: Unanticipated Implications for Society and Governance,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 131 (2020) 35–49. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Pazzini, C. Lantieri, V. Vignali, A. Simone, G. Dondi, G. Luppino, and D. Grasso, “Comparison Between Different Territorial Policies to Support Intermodality of Public Transport,” Transportation Research Procedia 60 (2022) 68–75. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.010.
   Google Scholar
• Pluservice S.r.l, MyCicero, (online, 2021) https://www.mycicero.it/ Accessed August 8, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• A. Polydoropoulou, I. Pagoni, A. Tsirimpa, A. Roumboutsos, M. Kamargianni, and I. Tsouros, “Prototype Business Models for Mobility-as-a-Service,” Transport Research Part A: Policy and Practice 131 (2020a) 149–162. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Polydoropoulou, I. Tsouros, I. Pagoni, and A. Tsirimpa, “Exploring Individual Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Mobility as a Service,” Transport Research Record 2674:11 (2020b) 152–164. doi: 10.1177/0361198120938054.
   Google Scholar
• T.L. Saaty, Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980).
   Google Scholar
• K. Sakai, “MaaS Trends and Policy-level Initiatives in the EU,” IATSS Research 43: 4 (2019) 207–209, doi: 10.1016/j.iatssr.2019.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, E.K. Zavadskas, and D. Streimikiene, Multi-criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) for the Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies in a Household: A Review,” Energies 13: 5 (2020) 1164. doi: 10.3390/en13051164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Smith, and D.A. Hensher, “Towards a Framework for Mobility-as-a-Service Policies,” Transport Policy 89 (2020) 54–65. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Smith, J. Sochor and S. Sarasini, “Mobility as a Service: Comparing Developments in Sweden and Finland,” Research in Transportation Business and Management 27 (2018) 36–45. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Sochor, H. Arby, I.C.M.A. Karlsson, and S. Sarasini, “A Topological Approach to Mobility as a Service: A Proposed Tool for Understanding Requirements and Effects, and for Aiding the Integration of Societal Goals,” Research in Transportation Business and Management 27 (2018) 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Stoilova, “Evaluation Efficiency of Intermodal Transport Using Multi-Criteria Analysis,” Engineering for Rural Development 17: 152 (2018) 2030–2039. doi: 10.22616/ERDev2018.17.N246.
   Google Scholar
• R. Utriainen, and M. Pöllänen, “Review on Mobility as a Service in Scientific Publications,” Research in Transportation Business and Management 27 (2018) 15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Velmurugan, S. Selvamuthukumar, and R. Manavalan, “Multi Criteria Decision Making to Select the Suitable Method for the Preparation of Nanoparticles Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process,” Pharmazie 66: 11 (2011) 836–842. doi: 10.1691/ph.2011.1034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Venkatesan, “A Comparison of Strengths and Weaknesses for Analytical Hierarchy Process,” Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences 9:3 (2019) 12–15.
   Google Scholar
• A. Vij, and S. Dühr, “The Commercial Viability of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): What’s in it for Existing Transport Operators, and Why Should Governments Intervene?” Transport Reviews 42: 5 (2022) 695–716. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2022.2028032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Więckowski, J. Wątróbski, B. Kizielewicz, B., and W. Sałabun, “Complex Sensitivity Analysis in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: An Application to the Selection of an Electric Car,” Journal of Cleaner Production 390 (2023) 136051. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Zapolskytė, M. Burinskienė, and M. Trépanier, “Evaluation Criteria of Smart City Mobility System Using MCDM Method,” Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 15: 4 (2020) 196–224. doi: 10.7250/bjrbe.2020-15.501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar