Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evalua- tion of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach Cathy Macharis n , Annalia Bernardini Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department BUTO – Business Technology and Operations, Research Group MOBI – Mobility, Logistics and Automotive Technology, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium article info Article history: Received 26 November 2013 Received in revised form 30 October 2014 Accepted 2 November 2014 Keywords: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Stakeholders Transport Mobility abstract In this paper we give an overview of the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for transport project appraisal. The aim of this review is to provide an outline of the increasing use of MCDA methods in the evaluation of transport projects. We investigate for which kind of transport decisions the MCDA methods are applied. The review consists of identifying the transport related subjects, the interconnected arising decision problems and the kind of representative MCDA method(s) used for transport project evaluations. This review allowed deriving a general frame for the evaluation of transport projects. One of the conclusions resulted in the importance of integrating stakeholders in the decision process not yet very common in the transport projects that were reviewed. The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) approach is suggested as a direction for further research. The MAMCA methodology has al- ready proven its usefulness in several transport related decision problems enabling to involve the sta- keholders explicitly in the decision process. & Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Almost every decision we take requires us to consider and balance several criteria. For transport projects, a complex decision making process is almost inevitable. Aside from the existence of several important effects, often described in both quantitative and qualitative terms (economic, environmental, technical, spatial and social aspects), there also exists a wide range of possible alter- natives (solutions to a proposed question). Sometimes, a large number of stakeholders are involved in the decision making pro- cess as well. All those elements render the decision making more complex (Janic, 2003). For more complex situations, modeling, organization and structuring tools provide an enhanced device for the decision makers. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis-Aid (MCDA), which stems from operation research, makes it possible to evalu- ate several alternative projects or variants on several quantitative and qualitative criteria (Vincke, 1992). There exist various MCDA techniques to conduct this Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. There is no better or worse technique, because the appropriateness of the method depends on the specific decision situation (Tsam- boulas, 2007). Within MCDA, almost all methodologies share si- milar steps of organization and decision matrix construction, but each methodology synthesizes information differently (Yoe, 2002). MCDA is increasingly used for decision-making in environ- mental policy evaluation due to the complexity of issues and the inadequacies of conventional tools such as Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) for capturing the full range of impacts of a policy or capital project (Browne and Ryan, 2011). In the UK, for example, WebTAG has been very thoroughly developed and this represents the main appraisal methodology used in the UK (Hickman et al., 2012). In the USA, the CBA is the recommended method, but for large projects other impacts are added and at the regional level MCDA variations are used (Hayashy and Morisugi, 2000; Bekefi, 2003). The research concerning road based intelligent transport sys- tems from Marschke et al. (2005) suggests the same shift towards the use of MCDA in Australia. A similar suggestion for a shift to- wards a more comprehensive approach is seen with the TIIRIS project in West-Australia (Curciarello, 2002). The increased use of MCDA seems to be originating from the possibility to include other aspects in the analysis aside from economic elements. Many eva- luation methods, such as CEA, Economic-Effects Analysis (EEA), private investment analysis and CBA, are mainly aiming at eco- nomic effects, thereby sometimes neglecting the ecological, spatial or social aspects of a transport project. Even when those latter aspects are taken into account, for example in a Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA), it remains difficult to achieve a monetary as- sessment of all criteria (Tudela et al., 2006). Evaluating transport projects nowadays requires the incorporation of several objectives like noise reduction, social impact, even political priorities, which Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol Transport Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002 0967-070X/& Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. n Corresponding author. Fax: þ32 2 629 21 86. E-mail address: Cathy.Macharis@vub.ac.be (C. Macharis). Transport Policy 37 (2015) 177–186