Public transport development decisions are generally made by local government representatives or managers of the local transport company through a top-down procedure. However, if the implications do not meet the demand of the public, the improvement cannot be considered as sustainable and in a long range, correction is necessary. This paper aims to introduce a new model which is capable of supporting public transport development decision making by examining the preferences of different stakeholder groups (passengers, potential passengers, and local government) and creating an acceptable coordination for an ultimate, sustainable decision. In the model, Analytic Hierarchy Process is applied, combined with Kendall rank correlation and an extra level of stakeholder significance in the decision. A case study is also presented on the situation of a Turkish city: Mersin. The results show, that by the application of the new model, a more integrated and thus more sustainable solution can be created for the public transport problems of the city, and by this, probably more citizens can be attracted to use public transport modes which might result in decreased CO2 emissions.

1. sustainability
Article
Sustainable Urban Transport Development with
Stakeholder Participation, an AHP-Kendall Model:
A Case Study for Mersin
Szabolcs Duleba * and Sarbast Moslem
Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Stoczek u. 2, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary; moslem.sarbast@mail.bme.hu
* Correspondence: duleba.szabolcs@mail.bme.hu
Received: 13 August 2018; Accepted: 10 October 2018; Published: 11 October 2018
Abstract: Public transport development decisions are generally made by local government
representatives or managers of the local transport company through a top-down procedure. However,
if the implications do not meet the demand of the public, the improvement cannot be considered as
sustainable and in a long range, correction is necessary. This paper aims to introduce a new model
which is capable of supporting public transport development decision making by examining the
preferences of different stakeholder groups (passengers, potential passengers, and local government)
and creating an acceptable coordination for an ultimate, sustainable decision. In the model, Analytic
Hierarchy Process is applied, combined with Kendall rank correlation and an extra level of stakeholder
significance in the decision. A case study is also presented on the situation of a Turkish city:
Mersin. The results show, that by the application of the new model, a more integrated and thus
more sustainable solution can be created for the public transport problems of the city, and by this,
probably more citizens can be attracted to use public transport modes which might result in decreased
CO2 emissions.
Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); Kendall’s coefficient of concordance; public transport;
multi-criteria decision making; supply quality
1. Introduction
In recent years, it has become well-known that sustainable local development decisions may only
be made by considering the interests of different stakeholder groups [1]. Evidently, this also refers
to urban transport service development, in which three main stakeholder participants can easily be
identified: Passengers, potential passengers (citizens using other type of transport yet), and local
government. Merely such public transport system improvement can be successful in the long term,
which integrates the needs of these different groups; in case one or more are violated, the impact
(e.g., on the environment) will not be as expected by the decision makers [2]. Moreover, because of
the different motivation of the evaluator groups, the information that they possess, the perception,
expertise, and interest that they have, also their need for development of the system might differ
severely among stakeholders in urban transport planning [3]. Government representatives and experts
may consider cost and technical issues [4], while the users and potential users of public transport
(in the paper the term: non-passenger will be applied for this group) as consumers of the public service
may have more subjective opinions [5]—based on their perceptions of the journey. It is advisable
for all public service development projects, to examine the conflict among the needs of the involved
groups before launching the implications. Measuring the gaps among the requirements is a powerful
tool in decision making and the first step for coordinating the conflicts in case of large discrepancy.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647; doi:10.3390/su10103647 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 2 of 14
Coordination should be fair [6] and target-oriented [7], and in case of urban transport, it should serve
sustainably [8].
Consequently, a proper methodology is necessary in public transport planning, which is capable of
surveying the needs of the stakeholders, measuring the deviation in needs, and creating an acceptable
consensus among the groups.
Considering that for transport supply quality, both tangible and intangible factors have to
be participated as factors in the decision [9,10] and also regarding the success of application in
sustainable transport issues [11–13], a hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model has been
created. The combination of AHP with Kendall rank correlation provided the measurement of
discrepancy among different stakeholder groups while the coordination of opinions could be reached
by inserting an extra level (“Level 0”) into the AHP hierarchy referring the weights of participant
groups in the final decision.
The objective of this paper is to present a decision support methodology that can be applied
for public transport development decisions integrating the demand of all involved groups and thus
resulting in a sustainable amelioration of the system. The created model has been tested in the
city of Mersin in Turkey on surveying the local public bus transport supply quality and its desired
modification by passenger, potential passenger, and local government representatives.
In the followings, the applied two techniques—AHP and Kendall rank correlation—are introduced
in the Materials and Methods section. Afterwards, a case study is presented that demonstrates
the difference of group opinions and the necessity of coordination among stakeholders. The final
calculation and decision for improvement is also presented.
2. Materials and Methods
There are several well applicable techniques in multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) utilized
by many analysts around the world [14–16]. To improve supply quality of public transport, MCDM
methods have been used by authors, because of their widespread popularity in gathering stakeholder’s
opinions over the last 30 years, especially in service quality improvements [7,17]. Most of the MCDM
techniques are available, many of them are implemented by different specialized decision-making
software. TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) is generally
applied for multi-criteria decisions [18], however, in the examined case of Mersin no alternatives
were given in the decision; the aim was just to analyze the weights of the criteria. The same refers to
PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation) technique [19].
ANP (Analytic Network Process) [20] is capable of determining criteria weights in a decision and also of
integrating the interdependencies of the criteria. Nevertheless, the evaluation procedure of this method
is highly complex and requires knowledge and expertise from the decision makers, thus for layman—as
the citizen stakeholder groups of the recent survey—it is not convenient. The selected Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) (see Figure 1) method has the advantage of providing a comprehensive
decision structure to the evaluators and checking the consistency of the responses that are inevitable in
the case of layman evaluators. However, there is a serious disadvantage of this technique; compared
to ANP, it cannot deal with non-hierarchical connections of the decision system elements. Since the
decision structure for evaluating the supply quality of public transport in Mersin is dominantly
hierarchical (see Figure 2), this drawback could be omitted.
Thus, out of the wide range of possible techniques, AHP has been selected because of the nature
of the decision problem to be solved. The evaluators have to be provided with a clear, hierarchical
structure of public transport system elements (see Table 1), and moreover, a consistency check is also
advisable due to the non-expert characteristics of two out of three evaluator groups. Based on this,
the preconditions of the creator of AHP [21], for the application, have been fulfilled.
• The problem is hierarchically structured and dynamic analysis could be considered;
• Consistency check is required (passengers and non-passengers are evaluators);
• The elements of supply quality should be characterized both from ordinal and cardinal aspects;

3. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 3 of 14
• In the final decision not only the ranking itself is important but also the score attained to each
factor, this will be the basis for deciding on development projects in the city.
The first phase of every AHP application is setting up a decision tree where the elements of the
decision are designed in a hierarchical order. The top level is connected directly to the final decision,
the lower levels (can be called sub-criteria) are linked to the elements of the upper levels. Based on the
hierarchy, pairwise comparison matrices (PCM) have to be created. It is an assumption of the AHP that
evaluators can better decide between two issues at a time than solving a more complex decision among
more factors. The hierarchy constitutes groups within elements of the complex decision following the
branches, thus pairwise comparisons can be created by comparing the factors that belong to the same
branch, based on Saaty’s judgment scale.
Table 1. Judgment scale of relative importance for pairwise comparisons (Saaty’s 1–9 scale).
Numerical Values Verbal Scale
1 Equal importance of both elements
3 Moderate importance of one element over another
5 Strong importance of one element over another
7 Very strong importance of one element over another
9 Extreme importance of one element over another
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values
AHP utilizes the special characteristics of pairwise comparison matrices. A theoretical PCM is
quadratic, reciprocal, and consistent.
The matrix A is considered consistent if all of its elements are positive, transitive, and reciprocal as
aij =
1
aji
, (1)
aik = aij · ajk. (2)
The dominant eigenvector of such PCM is trivial to be determined by Saaty’s eigenvector
method [21]: if A is a consistent matrix, then the eigenvector w can be calculated by finding its
maximum eigenvalue (λmax).
A w = λmax w. (3)
(A − λmax I) w = 0, (4)
While in AHP, decision makers most likely do not evaluate PCM-s consistently (for the evaluation,
the Saaty scale is recommended, see Table 1) the eigenvector method can be used provided consistency
check has been conducted for the evaluations. Thus, for AHP applications the eigenvector method can
be used for deriving the weight scores of the decision elements, however only in those cases, in which
the pairwise evaluations meet the inconsistency tolerance, measured by the Consistency Ratio,
Consequently, during the AHP process the consistency of answers must be examined by Saaty’s
Consistency Index (CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR) [21–23]:
CI =
λmax − n
n − 1
, (5)
where CI is the consistency index, λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the PCM and n is the number of
rows in the matrix. CR can be determined by:
CR =
CI
RI
, (6)
Saaty provides the calculated RI values for matrices of different sizes as shown in Table 2.

4. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 4 of 14
Table 2. Consistency indices for a randomly generated matrix.
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RI 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45
Where RI is the random consistency index. The threshold was also determined by Saaty, if CR is
below 0.1 (CR < 0.1), the PCM can be considered as acceptable from inconsistency point of view. Since
most of the AHP applications involve several evaluators, the individual scores have to be aggregated,
and avoiding rank reversal, the calculation of the geometric mean [24] of the respective evaluator
scores is recommended for determining the aggregate results.
If “h” evaluators exist in the procedure
f(x1, x2, . . . , xh) = h
h
∏
k=1
xk. (7)
where x1, x2, . . . , xh denotes entries, in the same position (i, j), of pairwise comparison matrices, filled
in by the k-th decision maker.
Having gained the aggregated matrices, calculating final weight vector scores considering
hierarchical linkages within the decision is the next step in the procedure. As consistency has been
acceptable, the final score determination can be applied as:
wAi
=
wj
w
wij
∑n
k=1 wik
=
wj
w
1
∑n
k=1 wik
wij (8)
where j = 1, . . . , m and w =
m
∑
i=1
wj; wj > 0 (j = 1, . . . , m) represents the related weight coordinate from
the previous level; wij > 0 (i = 1, . . . , n) is the eigenvector computed from the matrix in the current
level, wAi (i = 1, . . . , n) is the calculated weight score of current level’s elements. Sensitivity analysis
enables understanding of the effects of changes in the main criteria on the sub criteria ranking and
help decision maker to check the robustness throughout the process.
The steps of conducting AHP is clearly presented in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14
Table 2. Consistency indices for a randomly generated matrix.
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RI 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45
Where RI is the random consistency index. The threshold was also determined by Saaty, if CR
is below 0.1 (CR 0.1), the PCM can be considered as acceptable from inconsistency point of view.
Since most of the AHP applications involve several evaluators, the individual scores have to be
aggregated, and avoiding rank reversal, the calculation of the geometric mean [24] of the respective
evaluator scores is recommended for determining the aggregate results.
If “h” evaluators exist in the procedure
f x , x , … , x ) = x . (7)
where x , x , … , x denotes entries, in the same position (i, j), of pairwise comparison matrices, filled
in by the k-th decision maker.
Having gained the aggregated matrices, calculating final weight vector scores considering
hierarchical linkages within the decision is the next step in the procedure. As consistency has been
acceptable, the final score determination can be applied as:
=
∑
=
1
∑
(8)
where j = 1,…, m and = ∑ ; wj > 0 (j = 1,…, m) represents the related weight coordinate from
the previous level; > 0 (i = 1,…, n) is the eigenvector computed from the matrix in the current
level, (i = 1,…, n) is the calculated weight score of current level’s elements. Sensitivity analysis
enables understanding of the effects of changes in the main criteria on the sub criteria ranking and
help decision maker to check the robustness throughout the process.
The steps of conducting AHP is clearly presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The process of applying AHP (Source: own).
As previously stated, the objective of this research has not only been to gain preference scores
related to public transport development, but also to analyze the difference among the opinions of the
three clearly distinguished evaluator groups. These opinions are expressed by the previously
introduced final scores (8) gained group wisely. It has to be emphasized that for such cases,
where fairly homogeneous groups can be separated in the evaluation process with different interest,
Figure 1. The process of applying AHP (Source: own).
As previously stated, the objective of this research has not only been to gain preference scores
related to public transport development, but also to analyze the difference among the opinions of
the three clearly distinguished evaluator groups. These opinions are expressed by the previously
introduced wAi final scores (8) gained group wisely. It has to be emphasized that for such cases,

5. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 5 of 14
where fairly homogeneous groups can be separated in the evaluation process with different interest,
expertize, etc., the aggregation Formula (7) can only be applied within the homogeneous group, but not
among groups. In the case of Mersin (introduced in the Results section) 3 quasi-homogeneous groups:
Passengers, non-passengers, and government representatives could be separated. The Formula (7) was
applied within each group so the aggregation was made group wisely considering the different
characteristics (motivation, etc.) of groups as described in the Introduction section. By this,
the application of AHP could clearly demonstrate the preferences of each group: Three different
rankings of supply quality elements could be gained that reflected the importance scores of each
stakeholder community related to the necessity of development of public transport system items.
To estimate the agreement degree or concordant degree among passengers, non-passengers and
government, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) has been applied [25,26]. This is a non-parametric
method for three or more different rankings and applicable for evaluating the agreement among
multiple participant groups.
Ri = ∑
m
j=1
rij , (9)
where Ri is the aggregated ranking of the criterion i, rij is the rank given to criterion i by the evaluator
group j, m is the number of rater groups rating n factors.
R =
m(n + 1)
2
. (10)
S = ∑
n
i=1
(Ri − R)2
, (11)
where S is a sum-of-squares statistic deviations over the row sums of ranking Ri.
R is the mean of the Ri values. Following that, Kendall’s “W” statistic is between one and zero
and it can be obtained from either of the following formulas:
W =
12 S
m2 ( n3 − n)
. (12)
After applying the formula, the result will be a number that determines the agreement degree
among the different groups as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Kendall’s W agreement degree scale.
W Interpretation
0 No agreement
0.10 Weak agreement
0.30 Moderate agreement
0.60 Strong agreement
1 Perfect agreement
For the last phase, coordinating the three different group scoring, a zero level has been inserted
into the AHP hierarchy based on the logic of Saaty. While this level is out of the criteria and sub-criteria
of the original decision tree, it plays an important role in determining the final scores of the decision.
Level ‘0’ is for deciding on the significance of each evaluator group in the final decision. Such as
any other levels, pairwise comparisons have to be made by filling a PCM that is constituted by the
evaluator groups (note that the evaluators of this phase can be different persons than the ones in
the original survey). The procedure of deriving weights is also identical with any other criteria see
Formula (4), evidently after the consistency check (5) and (6). Due to the nature of the eigenvector
method, the results of (4) are normalized to the value of one, and thus, the overall scores and ranking
of the decision elements can be gained by simply multiplying the weight scores of significance attained
to each decision maker group with the preference weight scores (related to criteria and sub-criteria of
the decision) of that certain group. In the next section, the authors provide a detailed description of the

6. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 6 of 14
procedure on real data for all the three phases: The AHP group wise step, the Kendall rank correlation
test, and the final coordination phase.
3. Results
The following structural model (Figure 2) has been created and applied for elaborating the public
transport situation in a Turkish city, Mersin. This hierarchical model was previously tested on a
Japanese small town, Yurihonjo in 2012 and because of the positive feedbacks it has been selected for
this case too. The results of the preliminary study were published in Reference [3]. In the Japanese
survey, however, only the different images on the supply quality could be determined group wisely
but a consensual overall result was not elaborated. The model for the case of Mersin, introduced in this
paper—AHP amended by Kendall rank check and an extra level on the significance of the stakeholder
groups—is a step forward to a sustainable development decision.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the first level of the hierarchy is a fairly general one, the second level is
more specific and the third is even more specific so the data could be increased essential on a wide range
of components in an entirely intelligent manner, keeping the hierarchy. The selection of the elements of
supply quality aimed to take into account not only quantitative influencing factors (e.g., frequency of
lines, awaiting time, and fit connection), but also qualitative ones such as perspicuity of the timetable
or mental comfort during the journey. The perception of the quality of the journey has been divided
into three main parts: transport quality refers to the time spent on the vehicle, tractability refers
to providing the sufficient and comprehensive information before and during travel, while service
quality describes the pre and post-service elements. A thorough preliminary literature survey was
conducted based on References [27–30], before setting up the decision hierarchy. Cost considerations
are omitted, only supply quality issues are investigated. Another point in AHP approach is isolating the
different members of open transport: Government as a maintainer, organization as the administrator,
and travelers as clients. The conflict of their distinctive picture on key-purposes of a specific framework
can be the reason for settling on wrong choices on transport advancement [22]. Thus evaluator
groups had to be created, because of the different point of view of passengers, non-passengers, and
governmental evaluators. Pairwise comparisons had to be made by the evaluators for all the elements
of the model, considering the hierarchy levels as the nature of AHP.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14
3. Results
The following structural model (Figure 2) has been created and applied for elaborating the
public transport situation in a Turkish city, Mersin. This hierarchical model was previously tested on
a Japanese small town, Yurihonjo in 2012 and because of the positive feedbacks it has been selected
for this case too. The results of the preliminary study were published in Reference [3]. In the Japanese
survey, however, only the different images on the supply quality could be determined group wisely
but a consensual overall result was not elaborated. The model for the case of Mersin, introduced in
this paper—AHP amended by Kendall rank check and an extra level on the significance of the
stakeholder groups—is a step forward to a sustainable development decision.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the first level of the hierarchy is a fairly general one, the second level
is more specific and the third is even more specific so the data could be increased essential on a wide
range of components in an entirely intelligent manner, keeping the hierarchy. The selection of the
elements of supply quality aimed to take into account not only quantitative influencing factors (e.g.,
frequency of lines, awaiting time, and fit connection), but also qualitative ones such as perspicuity of
the timetable or mental comfort during the journey. The perception of the quality of the journey has
been divided into three main parts: transport quality refers to the time spent on the vehicle,
tractability refers to providing the sufficient and comprehensive information before and during
travel, while service quality describes the pre and post-service elements. A thorough preliminary
literature survey was conducted based on References [27–30], before setting up the decision
hierarchy. Cost considerations are omitted, only supply quality issues are investigated. Another point
in AHP approach is isolating the different members of open transport: Government as a maintainer,
organization as the administrator, and travelers as clients. The conflict of their distinctive picture on
key-purposes of a specific framework can be the reason for settling on wrong choices on transport
advancement [22]. Thus evaluator groups had to be created, because of the different point of view of
passengers, non-passengers, and governmental evaluators. Pairwise comparisons had to be made by
the evaluators for all the elements of the model, considering the hierarchy levels as the nature of AHP.
Figure 2. The hierarchical structure of public bus transport.
Figure 2 exhibits that for the recent AHP application, one 3 × 3 PCM has been created for the first
level, one 5 × 5 and two 3 × 3 PCM-s for the second level and two 3 × 3 and two 2 × 2 matrices for the
third level. This has been the basis of constructing a questionnaire considering the rules of the AHP
Figure 2. The hierarchical structure of public bus transport.

7. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 7 of 14
Figure 2 exhibits that for the recent AHP application, one 3 × 3 PCM has been created for the
first level, one 5 × 5 and two 3 × 3 PCM-s for the second level and two 3 × 3 and two 2 × 2 matrices
for the third level. This has been the basis of constructing a questionnaire considering the rules of
the AHP methodology. For the first level the following questions have been asked: ‘Compare the
importance of improvement for the service quality and transport quality elements. Compare the
importance of improvement for the service quality and tractability elements. Compare the importance
of improvement for the transport quality and tractability elements’. For the second and third level,
the same procedure has been followed.
The characteristics of the conducted survey based on the hierarchical model were the following:
• 97 evaluators (2 managers ‘in the relevant field’ + 15 government officials ‘in the relevant field’
+ 40 public passengers + 40 non-passenger) were asked out of the total population of 1,773,852.
The number of participants evidently not statically representative however the MCDM provides a
deeper insight based on pairwise comparisons than a simple statistical survey [21];
• The evaluators were randomly selected nearby bus stops in Mersin in the peak hours. Despite
the random selection, the proportion of genders and age reflected the characteristics of the total
population of the city and even more the current and potential users of public transport. In the
sample, the proportion of males was 45%, female was 55% for both passenger and non-passenger
groups (men more tend to use private cars in Turkey); from an occupational aspect, students 40%,
retired 20% (university students give a great proportion of public transport usage); and 70% for
age 18–30, 17.5% for age 31-51, and 12.5% for over 51 (Mersin such as many developing cities has
many youngsters). The data of the selected evaluator groups of citizens were compared to the
data of the Turkish Statistical Institute [30]. Based on the official database, the female proportion
in the city is 51% (893,806) and male is 49% (881,046), while the number of students is 412,559,
which makes 23% out of the total population. In the sample the representation of the students
were higher due to their increased participation in the public transport. The number of retired
persons, aged over 51 is 202,053 that makes 11.4% out of the total population of the city which
was reflected in the sample.
• All of the government decision makers were selected from Mersin Municipality Transportation
Department. The characteristics were obviously different from the citizen groups. 88.24% were
male due to the gender feature of engineering profession; 70.6% of the respondents were between
the age of 31–51, all with relevant experience in transport planning and development. 76.47% had
bachelor degrees and 23.53% had master degrees.
• The questionnaire was evaluated between July and November 2017, and analyzed in
December 2017.
The consistency ratio (CR) for all matrices in all groups was smaller than 0.1, thus it is acceptable
to complete the AHP analysis as Saaty suggested [21]. Sensitivity analysis has been performed
by changing the weight of each main criterion to test the stability of the rank and it was robust
without change.
In case of some factors significant conflict could be detected among the passenger, non-passenger
and the governmental evaluators. The scores of the proper eigenvectors provide the opportunity to set
up a rank order of preferences among the participants of public transport on the issues of the system
considering the weights of the previous levels as well (see Formula (6)). Priority order of different
elements in public bus transportation systems in terms of their development is presented in Tables
Table 4 Table 5 Table 6.
For the first two groups, passenger and non-passenger evaluators of the analyzed public
transportation system indicated in the first level the development of “Transport Quality” as the
most essential related issue as presented in Table 4, however, there were differences of preferences in
the second and third rank, in which passenger side ranked “Service Quality” was the second most
important issue, followed by “Tractability” and non-passenger side evaluated “Tractability” that was

8. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 8 of 14
the second most important issue, followed by “Service Quality”. In the survey, transport quality
referred to the time spent on the vehicle by passengers and consisted of elements such as physical and
mental comfort on the vehicle during the journey or the feeling of safety on the bus. Consequently,
public evaluators esteemed that the most crucial part of the system is the service during their journey
on the vehicle and not the other circumstances (before or after) of the travel.
Table 4. Different priority ranking of elements by evaluator groups for Level 1.
For Passenger Side For Non-Passenger Side For Government Side
1 Transport Quality 0.4658 Transport Quality 0.3927 Tractability 0.5849
2 Service Quality 0.3743 Tractability 0.3541 Transport Quality 0.2776
3 Tractability 0.1599 Service Quality 0.2532 Service Quality 0.1375
The situation is completely different for the government side, where “Tractability” is the most
important issue followed by “Transport Quality” and “Service Quality”.
In level 2, for the passenger and non-passenger side “Safety of travel” was the most essential
issue to be developed, however, it was not so important for government side as shown in Table 5.
The second important issue for passenger side was “Physical comfort”, followed by “Directness”,
“Time availability”, and “Approachability”, however, non-passengers’ point of view was the same as
government’s point of view for improving “Information before travel”, “Information during travel”,
and similar in the cases of “Mental comfort”, “Physical comfort”, and “Approachability”. Based on the
priorities, it can be stated that local government representatives are not aware of the need of citizens
for improving the safety of travel in local buses. In case project initiations, it would be started for
increasing safety in transportation that might attract more people to use public transport that might
have a positive impact on the environment and sustainability issues.
Table 5. Different priority ranking of elements by evaluator groups for Level 2.
For Passenger Side For Non-Passengers Side For Government Side
1 Safety of travel 0.2696 Safety of travel 0.1817 Perspicuity 0.2003
2 Physical comfort 0.1253 Information before travel 0.1418 Information before travel 0.1945
3 Directness 0.0966 Information during travel 0.1336 Information during travel 0.1902
4 Time availability 0.0925 Mental comfort 0.1086 Physical comfort 0.1369
5 Approachability 0.0871 Physical comfort 0.1024 Mental comfort 0.1158
6 Information before travel 0.0739 Reliability 0.0842 Speed 0.0384
7 Mental comfort 0.0709 Perspicuity 0.0786 Directness 0.0347
8 Reliability 0.0685 Directness 0.0552 Time availability 0.0336
9 Information during travel 0.0553 Speed 0.0515 Safety of travel 0.0248
10 Perspicuity 0.0307 Time availability 0.0325 Approachability 0.0187
11 Speed 0.0296 Approachability 0.0298 Reliability 0.0121
Table 6. Different priority ranking of elements by evaluator groups for Level 3.
For Passenger Side For Non-Passengers Side For Government Side
1 Frequency of lines 0.0649 Fit connection 0.0392 Limited time of use 0.0260
2 Need for transfer 0.0604 Time to reach stops 0.0238 Need for transfer 0.0202
3 Directness to stops 0.0404 Frequency of lines 0.0213 Journey time 0.0160
4 Fit connection 0.0362 Need for transfer 0.0160 Fit connection 0.0145
5 Limited time of use 0.0276 Safety stops 0.0157 Time to reach stops 0.0133
6 Safety stops 0.0255 Awaiting time 0.0151 Comfort in stop 0.0106
7 Comfort in stop 0.0212 Journey time 0.0125 Awaiting time 0.0091
8 Time to reach stops 0.0148 Limited time of use 0.0112 Frequency of lines 0.0076
9 Journey time 0.0078 Comfort in stop 0.0093 Safety stops 0.0049
10 Awaiting time 0.007 Directness to stops 0.0048 Directness to stops 0.0033
In the last level, “Frequency of lines” was the most essential issue for passenger side which is
a rather general demand from citizens all over the world. It was followed by “Need for transfer”,

9. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 9 of 14
“Directness to stops”, and “Fit connection”. For the non-passenger side, “Fit connection” is first, which
can be recommended for the decision makers to overview, that not only means connection of transport
modes (e.g., bus-train), but also linkage of local-regional buses or local bus lines. For the government
side, “Limited time of use” was the most important issue, followed by “Need for transfer”, “Journey
time”, and “Fit connection”. Interestingly, the time limitation of bus lines (the gap between the last bus
in the evening and the first bus in the morning) did not get attention for citizens, thus this issue is a
miss-perceived problem by the local transport operators.
“Fit connection” issue had the same importance for both passengers’ and government’ side, while
“Awaiting time” and “Directness to stops” issues had the same importance for non-passengers’ and
government’ side.
Sensitivity analysis showed stability of ranking factors.
As could be seen in Tables Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 there is significant difference among the different
evaluator groups, and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) is verified to apply to detect the degree of
agreement among different evaluator groups (Passengers, non-passengers and government). Based on
Table 3, there was “moderate agreement” among different evaluator groups in the first Level (Table 7).
In Level 2. (Table 8) Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) also indicates that the agreement is
temperance among different evaluator groups following the intervals exhibited in Table 3. Further,
the situation for Level 3 is also similar, the agreement degree is moderate among different evaluator
groups (Table 9).
Table 7. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) for Level 1.
Criteria
Rank of
Passenger Side
Rank of
Non-Passenger Side
Rank of
Government Side
Ri (Ri−R)2
Service quality 2 3 3 8 4
Transport Quality 1 1 2 4 4
Tractability 3 2 1 6 0
n = 3 m = 3 S = 8 R = 6 W = 0.444
Table 8. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) for Level 2.
Criteria
Rank of
Passenger Side
Rank of
Non-Passenger Side
Rank of
Government Side
Ri (Ri−R)2
Approachability 5 11 10 26 81
Directness 3 8 7 18 0
Time availability 4 10 8 22 16
Speed 11 9 6 26 64
Reliability 8 6 11 25 49
Physical comfort 2 5 4 11 49
Mental comfort 7 4 5 16 4
Safety of travel 1 1 9 11 49
Perspicuity 10 7 1 18 0
information before travel 6 2 2 10 64
Information during travel 9 3 3 15 9
n = 11 m =3 S =385 R = 18 W = 0.3889
Rank analysis indicated diverse opinions on the necessary elements to be developed for the same
public transportation system. It can be explained by the different interest and motivation of the groups
(mainly between citizens with maximizing the comfort of the travel and local transport managers with
decreasing costs) or not sufficient expertize or information for the users side.
However, a sustainable development plan can only be created if citizens’ (both passengers
and potential passengers) aspects are also considered, as mentioned in the Introduction section.
Consequently, coordination is necessary among group opinions by weighting each group score by
the attained significance of each group in the decision. Evidently, it is a difficult task on deciding the

10. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 10 of 14
significance of passenger, non-passenger, and local government representatives in a public transport
development decision.
Table 9. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) for Level 3.
Criteria
Rank of
Passenger Side
Rank of
Non-Passenger Side
Rank of
Government Side
Ri (Ri−R)2
Directness to stops 3 10 10 23 42.25
Safety of stops 6 5 9 20 12.25
Comfort in stops 7 9 6 22 30.25
Need of transfer 2 4 2 8 72.25
Fit connection 4 1 4 9 56.25
Frequency of lines 1 3 8 12 20.25
Limited time of use 5 8 1 14 6.25
Journey time 9 7 3 19 6.25
Awaiting time 10 6 7 23 42.25
Time to reach stops 8 2 5 15 2.25
n = 10 m = 3 S = 290.5 R = 16.5 W = 0.3912
In the research four independent transportation experts have been asked in Mersin to evaluate
(through pair wise comparisons, following the AHP logic) the relative importance of each evaluator
group in the public transport decision. The results are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. The relative importance of each group in the public transport decision.
Evaluator Weight Rank
Passengers 0.2530 2
Non-passengers 0.1119 3
Government 0.6351 1
The final aggregated scores (considering stakeholder weights) for different levels have been
calculated and proffered in Table 11.
Table 11. Overall (consensual) scores according to expert opinion.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Supply Quality Service Quality Approachability
Service Quality 0.2104 Approachability 0.1586 Directness to stop 0.2466
Transport Quality 0.3381 Directness 0.2498 Safety of stops 0.2993
Tractability 0.4515 Time availability 0.2320 Comfort in stops 0.4541
Speed 0.2201 Directness
Reliability 0.1395 Need of transfer 0.5598
Transport Quality Fit connection 0.4402
Physical comfort 0.4104 Time availability
Mental comfort 0.3345 Frequency of lines 0.3936
Safety of travel 0.2551 Limited time of us 0.6064
Tractability Speed
Perspicuity 0.2909 Journey time 0.3581
Information before
travel
0.3729 Awaiting time 0.2438
Information during
travel
0.3362 Time to reach stops 0.3981
Weighting the group importance caused the approximation of the final results to the government
preferences. It is explainable regarding that local governmental budget is at stake in public transport

11. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 11 of 14
development and cost and technical considerations also play an important role. It has to be strongly
emphasized, however, that the final results are more sophisticated and are significantly closer to
citizens’ preferences than the original government side scoring (see Tables Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 ).
For instance, in Level 2; “Perspicuity” got ranked only at 4th place in the overall decision (see Table 13),
while the original government incentive was to develop it in the first place (see Table 5). Consequently,
the created model succeeded in contributing to a more sustainable public transport development
planning by adding public preferences to the governmental aspects on the amelioration of the system.
Table 12. Priority ranking of elements by all groups for Level 1.
Rank Criteria Final Score
1 Tractability 0.4515
2 Transport Quality 0.3381
3 Service Quality 0.2104
Table 13. Different priority ranking of elements by all groups for Level 2.
Rank Criteria Final Score
1 Information before travel 0.1684
2 Information during travel 0.1518
3 Physical comfort 0.1388
4 Perspicuity 0.1314
5 Mental comfort 0.1131
6 Safety of travel 0.0862
7 Directness 0.0526
8 Time availability 0.0488
9 Speed 0.0463
10 Approachability 0.0334
11 Reliability 0.0293
Table 14. Different priority ranking of elements by all groups for Level 3.
Rank Criteria Final Score
1 Limited time of use 0.0296
2 Need for transfer 0.0294
3 Fit connection 0.0231
4 Frequency of lines 0.0192
5 Time to reach stops 0.0184
6 Journey time 0.0166
7 Comfort in stop 0.0151
8 Awaiting time 0.0113
9 Safety stops 0.0100
10 Directness to stops 0.0082
4. Discussion
In this section, the relevance of the results is analyzed in detail. First, the question of
representativity might emerge because of the low proportion of respondents in the passenger and
non-passenger groups (merely 40 + 40 out of the population of approx.1.8 million in the city).
As stated in the Results section, the results of the AHP-Kendall model did not show sensitivity
and it also refers to the sample size. Consequently, the extension of the sample size does not make a
significant impact on the results.
A possible reason for that is most likely the phenomenon of “The wisdom of crowds” [31].
It states that, when it comes to a complex decision, the perception of a group is more powerful than the
rationalized decision of an expert even in case of relatively small number of participants. The member
size of the group—as a rule of thumb—should not be large, participant number from 20 can be

12. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 12 of 14
considered as sufficient for “The wisdom of crowds” effect. The logic behind this phenomenon is that
a sample consisting more than 20 randomly selected people is large enough to filter out the extreme
perceptions of some individuals, and thus a very reasonable final decision can be gained already by
this sample size. Due to the imprecise definition of the threshold, 40 participants were involved in
recent research and stable results could be gained. It has to be emphasized that this effect merely
refers to quasi-subjective or subjective decisions, such as perception on supply quality of an urban
transport system.
Obviously, the deviations within each stakeholder group were also analyzed and the authors did
not find significant difference in the perceptions of each group members in the sample of passengers
and non-passengers, which might also be a reason for the stability of the final results.
Finally, although the evaluators were randomly selected, they properly represented the total
society of the city from gender, age, and occupation aspects, and this might also explain the robustness
of the preference ranking.
Another point that has to be discussed is the decision on the significance of each group; a possible
technique would have been to ask the 97 participants to vote on their weights of opinion and not using
four experienced experts to do that. It has to be emphasized that this is a very difficult comparison:
Deciding which stakeholder group’s opinion is more important and how much more. The authors
believe that it is no use of asking the original evaluators about their significance in the decision because
all would evaluate the dominancy of their own stakeholder group (e.g., in national parliaments parties
do not vote about their significance in the decision).
This is the reason why four non participant experts (all advisors of Mersin Transportation
Department) were asked to make their judgments on the weight of the groups in the decision. It has to
be stressed that in real public transport development projects, the group of the final decision makers
does not consist of more than three or four top managers or top officials. Consequently, the sample
size of four for this stage can be considered as sufficient. Moreover, the relatively large weight (63.51%)
of the government group can be also justified by the general practice of 100%, which means not
considering public opinion at all. This 63.51% means that the local government still vindicates the
right to decide on transport system development but not with neglecting the public’s view any more.
This is a serious step towards the creation of a more sustainable transport system.
5. Conclusions
Based on the results, it can be concluded that the assumption on the difference of opinions among
the stakeholders of public transport has been verified by Kendall calculation. It has to be emphasized
that merely the AHP application itself revealed very important preferences of mainly the users’ side,
and the awareness of these needs can be the basis of initiating new transport system improvement
projects. Moreover, the application of Kendall method has proven that only moderate connection
can be detected among the three different groups’ ranking for all three levels, while the participants
evaluated exactly the same questionnaires on their own perceptions and image on public bus transport
supply quality. As a consequence, it can be stated that the decision makers in Mersin Municipality
Transportation Department ought to share public views in their future Transportation Strategic
Plan and they should pay more attention to “Service quality”, “Approachability”, and “Directness”
improving factors in their future plans more than “Tractability”, “Information during travel”,
and “Perspicuity” to attract non-passengers and increase the satisfaction of passengers.
The introduced model is primarily suitable for supporting strategic decisions of public transport
system improvement with respect to sustainability issues. Consequently, the gained overall weights
of criteria could be used for evaluating and ranking projects aiming to develop the transport system.
By applying the introduced results, the Municipality of Mersin can directly evaluate and rank tender
proposals for urban transport amelioration, and based on personal interviews, the representatives
of the local government are considering taking this opportunity. In the European Union countries,

13. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 13 of 14
this research can be a basis for creating a methodologically proven Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan
(SUMP) integrating citizens’ needs for improvement.
In general, AHP amended by Kendall analysis and group coordination has been proven to be an
appropriate method for evaluating transport participants’ demand for system improvement. Instead
of an automatic overall aggregation, a clear distinction among passengers, non-passenger citizens,
and transport operators is advised to be made in order to get more sophisticated results because of the
different motivation and expertize on the system development. Under these conditions, it is strongly
recommended to apply a Kendall method (Kendall technique has been proven to be appropriate)
together with AHP to analyze the distance among the different aspects of the stakeholders.
As a remark for further research, optimization techniques might be selected in order to create
consensus among the different groups on an objective basis, and thus, to gain a final preference
ranking for development factors containing all aspects. While the criteria are dominantly hierarchically
structured, for academic scholars, factor interactions might be possible to examine within the decision
system. This will probably lead to a more complicated, most likely hybrid operations research
model. For practitioners, the implementation of the model should be elaborated, e.g., software
application might be developed for future evaluations of public transport. The authors find it also
important to follow the impact of the decisions by the local government and surveying passenger
and potential passenger satisfaction after the modification of the transport system. A successful
implementation of the introduced model might result in a proper scoring system for tendering
transportation projects in which technical and cost considerations are integrated as well as aspects of
the current and future passengers.
Author Contributions: S.D. conceptualized the research and created the suitable methodology. S.M. conducted
the survey and calculated the results. In paper writing both authors participated.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest
References
1. Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Saija, G.; Shi, L. Sustainable local development and environmental
governance: A strategic planning experience. Sustainability 2016, 8, 180. [CrossRef]
2. Bergman, N. Impacts on the fossil fuel divestment movement: Effects on finance, policy and public discourse.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2529. [CrossRef]
3. Duleba, S.; Mishina, T.; Shimazaki, Y. A dynamic analysis on public bus transport’s supply quality by using
AHP. Transport 2012, 27, 268–275. [CrossRef]
4. Koryagin, M. Urban planning: A game theory application for the travel demand management. Per. Polyt.
Transp. Eng. 2018, 46, 171–178. [CrossRef]
5. Perlaviciute, G.; Steg, L.; Contzen, N.; Roeser, S.; Huijts, N. Emotional responses to energy projects: Insights
for responsible decision making in a sustainable energy transition. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2526. [CrossRef]
6. Scala, N.M.; Rajgopal, J.; Vargas, L.G.; Needy, K.L. Group decision making with dispersion in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. Group Decis. Negot. 2016, 25, 355–372. [CrossRef]
7. Van den Honert, R.C. Decisional power in group decision making: A note on the allocation of group members’
weights in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Group Decis. Negot. 2001, 10, 275–286. [CrossRef]
8. Li, W.; Li, Y.; Deng, H.; Bao, L. Planning of electric public transport system under battery swap mode.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2528. [CrossRef]
9. De Luca, S. Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An Analytic Hierarchy based approach.
Transp. Policy 2014, 33, 110–124. [CrossRef]
10. Sidorchuk, R.; Efimova, D.; Lopatinskaya, I.; Kaderova, W. Parametric approach to the assessment of service
quality attributes of municipal passenger transport in Moscow. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2015, 9, 303–311. [CrossRef]
11. He, Y.; Wang, X.; Lin, Y.; Zhou, F. Optimal partner combination for joint distribution alliance using integrated
fuzzy EW-AHP and TOPSIS for online shopping. Sustainability 2016, 8, 341. [CrossRef]

14. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647 14 of 14
12. Li, W.; Li, Y.; Fan, J.; Deng, H. Siting of carsharing station based on Spatial Multi Criteria evaluation: A case
study of Sanghai EVCARD. Sustainability 2017, 9, 152. [CrossRef]
13. Lyu, H.M.; Wu, Y.X.; Shen, J.S.; Zhou, A.N. Assessment of socio-economic risk of Chinese dual land use
system using fuzzy AHP. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2451. [CrossRef]
14. Hashim, H. Grassroots Participation in Local Planning Process. Master’s Thesis, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA, USA, 1986.
15. Pérez, J. Some comments on Saaty’s AHP. Manag. Sci. 1995, 41, 1091–1095. [CrossRef]
16. Benítez, J.; Delgado-Galván, X.; Izquierdo, J.; Pérez-García, R. Consistent completion of incomplete judgments
in decision making using AHP. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2015, 290, 412–422. [CrossRef]
17. Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Khalifah, Z.; Nor, K.M. Application of multiple-criteria
decision-making techniques and approaches to evaluating of service quality: A systematic review of the
literature. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2015, 16, 1034–1068. [CrossRef]
18. Kumar, K.; Garg, H. TOPSIS method based on the connection number of set pair analysis under
interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set environment. Comput. Appl. Math. 2018, 37, 1319–1329. [CrossRef]
19. Liao, H.; Wu, D.; Huang, Y.; Ren, P.; Xu, Z.; Verma, M. Green Logistic Provider Selection with a Hesitant
Fuzzy Linguistic Thermodynamic Method Integrating Cumulative Prospect Theory and PROMETHEE.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1291. [CrossRef]
20. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Network Process; RWS Publication: Pittsburg, CA, USA, 1996.
21. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15, 234–281.
[CrossRef]
22. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 1994, 24, 19–43. [CrossRef]
23. Zahedi, F. The analytic hierarchy process—A survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces 1986, 16,
96–108. [CrossRef]
24. Aczél, J.; Saaty, T.L. Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J. Math. Psychol. 1983, 27, 93–102.
[CrossRef]
25. Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1956.
26. Kendall, M.G.; Smith, B.B. The problem of m rankings. Ann. Math. Stat. 1939, 10, 275–287. [CrossRef]
27. Hensher, D. Bus Transport: Economics, Policy and Planning; Research in Transportation Economics; Elsevier:
Oxford, UK, 2007; Volume 18, Chapter 14; pp. 259–276.
28. Guo, Z. Mind the map! The impact of transit maps on path choice in public transport. Transp. Res. Part A
Policy Pract. 2011, 45, 625–639. [CrossRef]
29. Molander, S.; Felleson, M.; Friman, M.; Skalen, P. Market orientation in public transport research—A review.
Transp. Rev. 2012, 32, 155–180. [CrossRef]
30. Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT). 2017. Available online: www.turkstat.gov.tr. (accessed on
22 May 2017).
31. Solomon, M. Groupthink versus “The wisdom of crowds”: The social epistemology of deliberation and
dissent. South. J. Philos. 2006, 44, 28–42. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).