×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Original scientific article

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF THE BEST METHOD HIGHWAY ROUTE

By
Zahid Bašić ,
Zahid Bašić
Contact Zahid Bašić

Faculty of Mining, Geology and Civil Engineering, University of Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Amir Džananović
Amir Džananović

Faculty of Mining, Geology and Civil Engineering, University of Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to review the methods used in the process of selecting the optimal route of the highway, the way in which these methods are used, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and comparing the particular case make the favored one of the offered methods. In addition to mutual comparison criteria optimization work are detailed methods and presents a concrete example, which can be very useful to researchers in this field.

Comparison of the already complex valuation methods with a large number of influential factors is a particular challenge to the author. It is extremely difficult to make a comparison method which the authors used a completely different mathematical approach. Some of the criteria optimization are incurred in order to concrete problems (air transport of passengers, the annual prediction of accidents, etc.) and as such are not primarily been designed for the selection of the optimal route of the highway.

After much thought and research criteria optimization, this paper applied the mathematical approach in comparison method, as follows: Spearman's and Pearson's correlation coefficient and Kendall's coefficient of correlation.

References

1.
Hyde KM, Maier HR, Colby CB. A distance-based uncertainty analysis approach to multi-criteria decision analysis for water resource decision-making. Journal of environmental management. 2005;v.77(4.
2.
Radojičić M, Vesić J. One approach to modeling and preference in Multi-criteria optimization. In: published in the Proceedings of: management in the industry. 2003.
3.
Srđević B, Srđević Z, Zoranović T. Promethee, topsis and CP in multicriteria decision making in agriculture. 2002;
4.
Belton S, Stewart TS. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. In: An Integrated Approach. 2002.
5.
Pavličić D. Cconsistency of the method attribute analysis. 2002.
6.
Kablan MM. Decision support for energy conservation promotion: an analytic hierarchy process approach. Energy Policy. 2004;32.
7.
Winston W, C A. Practical management science. 2008.
8.
Saaty TL. How to make a decision. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research. 1990;48.
9.
Šošić I. Applied Statistics,Zagreb. 2004;
10.
Oprecović S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods. Acomparative analysis of Vikor and Topsis. European Journal of Operational Research. 2004;156.
11.
Srđević B, Bajčetić R. Multi-criteria analysis of alternatives for the reconstruction of regional water supply system method Promethee. Water Management. 2007;39.
12.
Buchanan J, P. S, Vanderpooten D. Project ranking using Electre III. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 1999;11:4–5.
13.
Mining G, Engineering C, Tuzla U, Tuzla L doo. Maribor, IRGO consulting doo, Maribor, Gradis Design Centre d.o.o. Traffic study for the highway Orašje. 2009;

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.