Dalal, J; Mohapatra, P K J and Mitra, G C (2010) Prioritization of rural roads: AHP in group decision. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 17(2), pp. 135-158. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - Poor conditions of rural roads in most developing countries have hindered the growth of their rural economy. Investments from government and other sources in rural road projects are inadequate, leading often to political, rather than socio-economic, considerations in allocating funds to specific projects. Realizing this, many donor organizations demand an unbiased study for prioritizing rural roads for funds allocation. This requires prioritizing rural roads on a rational basis. This paper seeks to examine this issue. Design/methodology/approach - A two-stage AHP model is developed considering several socio-economic criteria relevant to a road and the region through which it passes. The model is exercised in a group-decision environment. The final scores indicate a list of roads in decreasing order of priority. Findings - The framework, when applied to 178 rural roads in two districts of Orissa, a relatively backward state of India, yields a ranked-order list of roads. Research limitations/implications - Experts' judgments during pair-wise comparison are associated with imprecision. Fuzzy AHP is a distinct alternative. Possible dependency among criteria has been ignored. Use of Analytic Network Process (ANP) can overcome problems arising from such dependencies. Practical implications - Funds that are limited can be allotted to the highly ranked roads. Originality/value - The paper presents application of AHP for ranking of rural roads in a developing country; development of a generic road prioritization framework; and devising a group decision-making procedure that combines the best features of the group consensus and geometric mean methods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical hierarchy process; decision making; India; rural areas |
| Index terms: | methodology, decision-making, developing country, donor, India, analytic network process, analytical hierarchy process, rural area, road project, prioritizing, judgment |
| Subjects: | decision-making and optimization, land use and regional development, decision analysis, sociology, Geography, development economics, infrastructure engineering, research methods, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, International Construction |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here