Sustainable transport planning requires an integrated approach involving strategic planning, impact analysis, and multicriteria evaluation. This study aimed at relaxing the utility-based decision-making assumption by newly embedding anticipated-regret and combined utility regret decision mechanisms in a framework for integrated transport planning. The framework consisted of a two-round Delphi survey, integrated land use and transport model for Madrid, and multicriteria analysis. Results show that (a) the regret-based ranking has a similar mean but larger variance than the utility-based ranking does, (b) the least-regret scenario forms a compromise between the desired and the expected scenarios, (c) the least-regret scenario can lead to higher user benefits in the short term and lower user benefits in the long term, (d) the utility-based, the regret-based, and the combined utility- and regret-based multicriteria analyses result in different rankings of policy packages, and (e) the combined utility regret ranking is more informative compared with the utility-based or the regret-based ranking.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ShiftanY., KaplanS., and HakkertS.Scenario Building as a Tool for Planning a Sustainable Transportation System. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 8, No. 5, 2003, pp. 323–342.
2.
ChatterjeeK., and GordonA.Planning for an Unpredictable Future: Transport in Great Britain in 2030. Transport Policy, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2006, pp. 254–264.
3.
BrowneD., O'ReganB., and MolesR.Use of Ecological Footprinting to Explore Alternative Transport Policy Scenarios in an Irish City-Region. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2008, pp. 315–322.
4.
ShiftanY.The Use of Activity-Based Modeling to Analyze the Effect of Land-Use Policies on Travel Behavior. Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2008, pp. 79–97.
5.
MalayathM., and VermaA.Activity Based Travel Demand Models as a Tool for Evaluating Sustainable Transportation Policies. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2013, pp. 45–66.
6.
TurcksinL., BernardiniA., and MacharisC.A Combined AHP-PROMETHEE Approach for Selecting the Most Appropriate Policy Scenario to Stimulate a Clean Vehicle Fleet. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 20, 2011, pp. 954–965.
7.
FedraK.Sustainable Urban Transportation: A Model-Based Approach. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, Vol. 35, No. 5/6, 2004, pp. 455–485.
8.
LópezE., MonzonA., and PfaffenbichlerP. C.Assessment of Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Scenarios in the Transport System. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2012, pp. 47–56.
9.
HickmanR., SaxenaS., BanisterD., and AshiruO.Examining Transport Futures with Scenario Analysis and MCA. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2012, pp. 560–575.
10.
MacharisC., TurcksinL, and LebeauK.Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) as a Tool to Support Sustainable Decisions: State of Use. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2012, pp. 610–620.
11.
ZeelenbergM., and PietersR.A Theory of Regret Regulation 1.0. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2007, pp. 3–18.
12.
BulkeleyH.No Regrets? Economy and Environment in Australia's Domestic Climate Change Policy Process. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2001, pp. 155–169.
13.
ChorusC. G., AnnemaJ. A., MouterN., and van WeeB.Modeling Politicians’ Preferences for Road Pricing Policies: A Utilitarian and a Regret-Based Perspective. Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 6, 2011, pp. 856–861.
14.
ChorusC. G., and BierlaireM.An Empirical Comparison of Travel Choice Models That Capture Preferences for Compromise Alternatives. Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2013, pp. 549–562.
15.
IversonT.Communicating Trade-Offs amid Controversial Science: Decision Support for Climate Policy. Ecological Economics, Vol. 77, May 2012, pp. 74–90.
16.
KujawskiE.A Reference-Dependent Regret Model for Deterministic Tradeoff Studies. Systems Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2005, pp. 119–137.
17.
InmanJ. J., DyerJ. S., and JiaJ.A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret Effects on Post-Choice Valuation. Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1997, pp. 97–111.
18.
ChorusC. G., RoseJ. M., and HensherD. A.Regret Minimization or Utility Maximization: It Depends on the Attribute. Environment and Planning Part B, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2013, pp. 154–169.
19.
PowellC.The Delphi Technique: Myths and Realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2003, pp. 376–382.
20.
PfaffenbichlerP., EmbergerG., and ShepherdS.The Integrated Dynamic Land Use and Transport Model MARS. Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2008, pp. 183–200.
21.
PfaffenbichlerP.Modelling with Systems Dynamics as a Method to Bridge the Gap Between Politics, Planning and Science? Lessons Learnt from the Development of the Land Use and Transport Model MARS. Transport Reviews, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 267–289.
22.
GuzmánL. A., De la HozD., and MonzonA.Optimal and Long-Term Dynamic Transport Policy Design. Seeking Maximum Social Welfare Through a Pricing Scheme. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2012, pp. 107–136.
23.
KeeneyR. L., and RaiffaH.Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 1993.
24.
CostaB. E., and CarlosA.The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support the Search for Less Conflicting Policy Options in a Multi-Actor Context: Case-Study. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2001, pp. 111–125.
25.
LoomesG., and SugdenR.Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty. Economic Journal, Vol. 92, No. 368, 1982, pp. 805–824.
26.
ChorusC.Random Regret Minimization: An Overview of Model Properties and Empirical Evidence. Transport Reviews, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2012, pp. 75–92.
27.
MuermannA., MitchellO. S., and VolkmanJ. M.Regret, Portfolio Choice, and Guarantees in Defined Contribution Schemes. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2006, pp. 219–229.
28.
LacianaC. E., and WeberE. U.Correcting Expected Utility for Comparisons Between Alternative Outcomes: A Unified Parameterization of Regret and Disappointment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1–17.
