6.3 Results and discussion
6.3.3 Final normalized scores/rankings
The final weights of the objectives are calculated by multiplying the normalized objective weights from
Table 6-5 and Table 6-7 for the users and legislators, respectively, by the weights of the actors mentioned in Table 6-3. On the other hand, for the operators and manufacturers, the calculated weights from the classical AHP are used (see Table A. 17 and Table A. 18). Besides, the final weights of the criteria are calculated by multiplying each criterion’s weight by the final weight of the objective, as shown in Table 6-8, Table 6-9, Table 6-10, and Table 6-11.
Table 6-8 presents the final rankings for the objectives and the criteria based on the users’
perspectives. The objective of “increasing travel safety” is ranked as the most important objective based on the users’ viewpoints, while the objective of “ease of use” is ranked as the
94
least important. Other objectives are ranked according to their weights. The criterion of
“reduced in-vehicle travel time” is ranked as the most important factor based on the users’
objective “optimizing the travel time”, while the criterion of “reduced insurance” is ranked as the least important based on the users’ objective “minimizing the travel cost”.
Table 6-8. The final normalized weights of the users’ objectives and criteria
Objective Final
Weight
Level 1
Ranking Criterion Final
Weight Ranking Level 2 Ranking
Optimizing the travel time 0.0807 2
Reduced in-vehicle travel time 0.0333 1 4 Increased onboard multitasking
activities 0.0134 3 14
No parking time 0.0126 4 15
Acceptable waiting time 0.0214 2 9 Minimizing the travel cost 0.0649 3
Reduced fuel consumption 0.0385 1 2 Reduced vehicle maintenance 0.0139 2 13
Reduced insurance 0.0125 3 16
Increasing the perceived
comfort of traveling 0.0595 5
Information and guidance 0.0147 2 10 Available ICT tools on board 0.0142 3 12
Reliable travel time 0.0306 1 7
Respecting the users’ rights 0.0620 4 Data privacy 0.0303 2 8
Cybersecurity 0.0317 1 6
Increasing travel safety 0.0850 1
Reduction in vehicle accidents caused by the malfunction of PSAV
0.0494 1 1
Reduction in accidents with PSAV
caused by regular cars 0.0356 2 3
Ease of use 0.0480 6 No driving license 0.0144 2 11
Accessibility 0.0337 1 5
Table 6-9 presents the final rankings of the objectives and the criteria based on the legislators’ viewpoints. The objective of “increasing social welfare” is ranked as the most important objective based on the legislators’ viewpoints, while the objectives of “assuring interoperability across borders” and “increasing the GDP “are ranked as the least important.
The criterion of “new career opportunities” is ranked as the most important factor based on the legislators’ viewpoints, while the criterion of “land use development” is ranked as the least important. The 23 criteria are ranked in sequence based on their weights.
95
Table 6-9. The final normalized weights of the legislators’ objectives and criteria
Objective Final
Weight
Level 1
Ranking Criterion Final
Weight Ranking Level 2 Ranking Decreasing the expenditures
on infrastructure maintenance
0.0464 3
Reduction in the damages caused
by traffic accidents 0.0246 1 4
Increased efficiency of the existing
road network 0.0216 2 7
Minimizing the money
spent on the health sector 0.0467 3
Increased vehicle and passenger
safety 0.0247 1 5
Mobility for elderly people 0.0217 2 11 Passive health monitoring 0.0245 3 16 Protecting the environment 0.0515 2
Reduced emissions 0.0129 2 6
Reduced noise 0.0093 4 10
Efficient land use 0.0232 1 14
Efficient use of fuel 0.0128 3 20
Assuring interoperability
across borders 0.0172 6 Harmonization of laws 0.0105 1 12
Technical standard 0.0051 2 18
Defining responsibilities
among the actors 0.0249 5
The accountability and liability for
malfunction 0.0114 1 13
The accountability and liability for
accidents caused by other vehicles 0.0057 2 15 Policies to prevent technology
monopoly 0.0101 3 19
Increasing social welfare 0.0582
1 New career opportunities 0.0097 1 1
Fairness and transparency 0.0051 2 8 Ensuring users’ data privacy
and system security 0.0449 4
Data privacy 0.0374 2 3
Data ownership 0.0208 3 9
Cybersecurity 0.0311 1 2
Increasing the GDP 0.0203 6
New career opportunities 0.0174 1 17
Increased accessibility 0.0347 2 21
Increased mobility 0.0070 3 22
Land use development 0.0057 4 23
Table 6-10 presents the final rankings for the objectives and the criteria based on the operators’ viewpoints. The objective of “increasing the revenues” is ranked as the most important objective based on the operators’ viewpoints, while the objective of “increasing the efficiency of the transport system” is ranked as the least important. The criterion of “optimized supply” is ranked as the most important criterion based on the operators’ viewpoints, while the criterion of “increased mobility” is ranked as the least important. The eight criteria are ranked in sequence based on their weights.
Table 6-10. The final weights of the operators’ objectives and criteria
Objective Final
Weight
Level 1
Ranking Criterion Final
Weight Ranking Level 2 Ranking Increasing the revenues 0.0692 1
Optimized supply 0.0306 1 1
Efficient use of the existing
infrastructure 0.0160 3 7
Decreased number of accidents 0.0226 2 3
Multimodal integration 0.0522 2
Connectivity with other modes 0.0235 1 2
Increased accessibility 0.0173 2 6
Increased mobility 0.0114 3 8
Increasing the efficiency of
the transport system 0.0386 3 Clear regulatory rules 0.0195 1 4
Demand management 0.0191 2 5
Table 6-11 presents the final rankings for the objectives and the criteria based on the manufacturers’ viewpoints. The objective of “increasing the travelers’ trust” is ranked as the most important objective based on the operators’ viewpoints, while the objective of “providing user benefits” is ranked as the least important. The criterion of “increase in safety” is ranked as the most important criterion based on the manufacturers’ viewpoints, while the criterion of
96
“ease of use” is ranked as the least important. The eleven criteria are ranked in sequence based on their weights.
Table 6-11. The final weights of the manufacturers’ objectives and criteria
Objective Final
Weight
Level 1
Ranking Criterion Final
Weight Ranking Level 2 Ranking
Providing user benefits 0.0249 3
Optimized travel time 0.0043 3 2
Minimized travel cost 0.0108 1 5
Increased perceived comfort in
traveling 0.0074 2 7
Ease of use 0.0024 4 11
Increasing the travelers’
trust 0.0673 1
Increase in safety 0.0459 1 1
Data privacy 0.0106 3 6
Cybersecurity 0.0109 2 4
Maximizing the revenues 0.0377 2
Innovation and development 0.0068 2 8 Increased reliability of the vehicles 0.0211 1 3
Sufficient supply 0.0065 3 9
Increased usage of PSAV 0.0034 4 10