USING A COMBINED APP ROACH AHP PROMETHEE … is used to rank the alternative urban bypass road...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)Volume 8, Issue 5, May 2017, pp.

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN

© IAEME Publication

USING A COMBINED APP

PROMETHEE

ROADS ALTERNAT

Geophysical Laboratory of Geotechnics, Engineering Geology and Environment

M

Mohammed 5 University of Rabat, Morocco.

Mohammadia school of Engineers


ABSTRACT

The FESIA-framework environmental and social impact assessment

a necessity in the past years in several countries. The

roads, are expanding and have become a priority for the development of the country.

The technical studies, typically offer several alternatives, and it come

decision-makers to choose the variant which responds better to their need. Overall,

just the technical-economic criteria that allow you to decide the choice. However, the

environmental component is become important, and should be taken into account

the overall decision. In our case study, we tried to apply a combined approach AHP

PROMETHEE that is a MCDA Method to be able to choose between three

alternatives of bypass road of the Marrakech city in Morocco. Thirteen Sub criteria

have been selected, which are of different natures (qualitative and quantitative), and

which have been grouped into four main groups of criteria MC (physical, bio

ecological, socio-economic, project).The main criteria and sub criteria have been

compared by pairs in order to

preference index φ+(a) and

the net preference index

alternative that present a higher value of

which respects better, the preference adopted.

Key words: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Roads, GIS, AHP,

PROMETHEE.

Cite this Article: A. Bennani, L.bah

AHP PROMETHEE to Make A Decision About Roads Alternative Project: A Case

IJCIET/index.asp 856 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 2017, pp.856–868, Article ID: IJCIET_08_05_095

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=5

6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

Scopus Indexed

USING A COMBINED APPROACH AHP

PROMETHEE TO MAKE A DECISION

ROADS ALTERNATIVE PROJECT: A CASE

STUDY

A. Bennani and L.bahi




S.Amgaad

Department of Civil Engineering



framework environmental and social impact assessment

a necessity in the past years in several countries. The linear projects, especially the


The technical studies, typically offer several alternatives, and it come

makers to choose the variant which responds better to their need. Overall,

economic criteria that allow you to decide the choice. However, the

environmental component is become important, and should be taken into account

In our case study, we tried to apply a combined approach AHP



which are of different natures (qualitative and quantitative), and

which have been grouped into four main groups of criteria MC (physical, bio

economic, project).The main criteria and sub criteria have been

compared by pairs in order to determine their weights, then we have calculated the

and φ-(a) of each alternative, in order to be able to calculate

φ(a).The results concluded, have allowed to choose an

alternative that present a higher value of φ(a), which means that it is the alternative

ter, the preference adopted.

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Roads, GIS, AHP,

A. Bennani, L.bahi and S.Amgaad Using A Combined Approach

to Make A Decision About Roads Alternative Project: A Case

[email protected]

asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=5

ROACH AHP

TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT

IVE PROJECT: A CASE


framework environmental and social impact assessment have become

linear projects, especially the


The technical studies, typically offer several alternatives, and it come back to

makers to choose the variant which responds better to their need. Overall,

economic criteria that allow you to decide the choice. However, the

environmental component is become important, and should be taken into account in

In our case study, we tried to apply a combined approach AHP-



which are of different natures (qualitative and quantitative), and

which have been grouped into four main groups of criteria MC (physical, bio-

economic, project).The main criteria and sub criteria have been

determine their weights, then we have calculated the

of each alternative, in order to be able to calculate

.The results concluded, have allowed to choose an

, which means that it is the alternative

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Roads, GIS, AHP,

i and S.Amgaad Using A Combined Approach

to Make A Decision About Roads Alternative Project: A Case

A. Bennani, L.bahi and S.Amgaad

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 857 [email protected]

Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(5), 2017, pp.

856–868.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=5

1. INTRODUCTION

In order to accompany the development in the Kingdom of Morroco, the Ministry of

Equipment and Transportation and Logistics, has scheduled the attainment of motorways and

express roads linking the strategic points in the country. In the short and medium term, this

will ease road traffic and to avoid the traffic jam, in the main cities of the kingdom. The

present study consists in the testing of an analytical approach and a tool to help the

stakeholders to make a decision, for the achievement of the environmental and civil

engineering studies, in the case when several alternatives of the road alignment have been

presented. This approach will allow combining model AHP and PROMETHEE to analyze

several environmental indicators, to help us to make a decision. A result allowing choosing a

definitive alternative which can be carried out, and which responds to a specific need, of the

decision maker. AHP is used to help us to calculate the weights of the criteria and

PROMETHEE is used to rank the alternative urban bypass road project. [1] The construction

of roads will affect several elements of the natural environment, especially the agricultural

field, the wetlands, villages, and other obstacles, such as rails, tracks, etc. The challenge is to

carry out the project without compromising the existing environmental elements. Take

decision has the upstream of the project will minimize the environmental impacts, and

succeed the environmental and social integration of the project.

2. METHODOLOGY

The main purpose of this approach is to permit stakeholders to choose a few variants among

several, who meet their need, in the case when are several parameters to take in consideration.

In our case, we have taken some environmental indicators of surface (ha, square meters, etc.),

and other qualitative indicators, that were analysed using the fuzzy logic. The necessary steps

to decide on the choice of one alternative are:

• Identify the linear trajectory of the project

• Identify the environmental indicators

• Drawing the GIS maps,

• Create a geodatabase,

• Weighting criteria using AHP,

• Define our preference,

• Analysis of the PROMETHEE results

Below we give a brief presentation of the two methods AHP and PROMETHEE:

2.1 The AHP Method

In the literature, the AHP “Analytic hierarchy process” has been developed by Saaty (1980)

[2], in order to solve problems “multi criteria decision.”

The main process of the AHP is divided on four steps:

• The first step consists in the determination of the problematic, and the

establishment of the hierarchy of decision. The hierarchical tree represents the

Using A Combined Approach AHP PROMETHEE to Make A Decision About Roads Alternative Project: A Case Study


various levels of the decision and the preference, and the relationship between

them. [2]

• The second step consists in the comparison of the different criteria by pairs. This

step will be carried out using a scale with nine points, in order to determine the

preference of a criterion to the other. The odd levels (1, 3, 5, 7, and 9) correspond

to the powers of the importance order (equal, moderate, higher, much higher and

complete dominance). The pair’s level corresponds to the intermediate values. [2]

• The next step is the determination of the priority for each criterion, in fact to

define the overall preference. The crossing by pairs are made, and it is

subsequently established a matrix of standardization. This matrix of comparison is

carried out by the fraction of each item by the sum of the column. By against the

normalized matrix is performed by the calculation of the average of the line, in

order to find the priority vector. [2]

• The last step is to calculate the CR “Consistency Ratio”. This step is divided into

four Sub Steps: 1) Creation of a matrix by the multiplication of the matrix of

comparison and the priority vector. 2) The calculation of the eigenvalues by the

division of the elements of the weighted matrix, by the vector of priority

corresponding. 3) the principal eigenvalue is calculated from the average of the

eigenvalues. 4) This eigenvector is the main indicator to find the CI “Consistency

Index”, which is necessary to find the CR. “The CR value must be lower than 0.1,

if not all of computations are false, and it must be reviewed.”[2]

Table 1 The Saaty Scale for Pairwise Comparison [3]

Intensity of importance Definition

1 Equal importance

3 Moderate importance

5 Higher importance

7 Much higher importance

9 Complete dominance

2,4,6,8 Intermediate values

1/2,1/3,3/4….1/9 Reciprocal

Table 2 Pairwise Comparison of Elements in AHP

C a1 … a1 … an

a1 1

…

[1]

ai

Pc (ai, a1)

…

[1]

an

1

2.2 The PROMETHEE Method

The Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation “PROMETHEE”

Approach is developed by Brans and Vincke (1982–1985), and completed by Brans and

Mareschal (1994).



This approach is one of the most important partial aggregation methods, who are switched

to complete aggregation (MAUT) method [4].

PROMETHEE Method needs some information; the first one is the evaluation table

where the whole of actions should be evaluated using different criteria.

First, a specific preference function needs to be defined (Pj (a, b)) that translates the

deviation between the evaluations of two alternatives (a and b) on a particular criterion (gj)

into a preference degree ranging from 0 to 1. [2]

This preference index is a non-decreasing function of the observed deviation between the

scores of the alternatives on the considered criterion (fj (a)-fj (b)), as shown in equation (1).

[2]

��, �� = �� − �� 1� Several preferences have been cited in the literature [5], but just six among them, were

selected to determine the function of preference, we note: (usual shape, U-shape function, V-

shape function, level function, linear function and Gaussian function). [2]

After the determination of the specific function, the determination of the weights of the

criteria is paramount, because the approach PROMETHEE does not determine the weight for

a large number of criteria. In this case, it is recommended to use several methods, particularly

the comparison by pairs, [6].

In our study, the weight of the criteria and criterion is determined by the AHP. Using this

method, a preference index π (a, b) can be calculated, taking all the criteria into account

(eq2).

��, �� =��, ��2��

��

The preference index is calculated from two sub parameters positive preference index

φ+(a) and the negative preference index φ-(a). For each alternative, the calculation of the

preference index shows, if it is outranking or outranked in relation with the others.

The preference index net is calculated from the subtraction of the two preference indexes (eq 3 and 4).

�� = 1� − 1��, ��3�

�

�� = 1� − 1��, ��4�

�

The interpretation of the obtained value, shows a strong correlation between the

higher index values and the most important alternative. The classification of the different

alternatives therefore follows a positive correlation with the net preferences indexes φ (a)

(eq 5)

�� = �� −�� (5)

Three principal PROMETHEE tools can be used to resolve the evaluation problem:

• PROMETHEE I for partial rankings,

• PROMETHEE II for complete rankings,

• GAIA plane for preference analysis.



The PROMETHEE I approach allows a partial ranking of alternatives, based on the

calculation of net preference index. The difference between two alternative (a) and (b) will be

favorable for the alternative (a), if and only if the alternative (a) presents a higher φ+(a)

value, and a lower φ-(a) value. In the case if this difference is not clear, we must apply the

complete ranking “PROMETHEE II” to make the difference between them. [2]

In order to complete the classification, the approach PROMETHEE II is used to prioritize

the alternatives in function of the net preference index φ (a).

The general classification allows putting in evidence a descending order, permitting the

identification of the best solution.

The GAIA plan “Geometrical Analysis for Interactive Aid,” is used finally for shown the

dispersion of the criteria in relation to the decision vector and to the different alternatives [2],

[7].

This approach has several advantages, which are useful to make a decision:

• The approach PROMETHEE I, avoids the confusion between the criteria, which

may occur in the AHP [2],

• The PROMETHEE approach require sources of qualitative and quantitative

information, and can give results on the basis of their availability. This will

determine the most favorable alternative for each criterion, and also the criteria

which are correlated positively and negatively for each alternative. [2]

• In conclusion, the PROMETHEE approach is a very efficient tool for the

sensitivity analyzes, but it remains very limited to estimate the weight of the

criteria, hence the idea of combining them with the AHP approach, in order to

make the complete model and adapt it to our need, to be able to choose an

alternative bypass road which respects the better the environment.

In this study, we will use a combined approach AHP-PROMETHEE. The determination

of the weight, and the structuring of the problem will be made using AHP method. Then they

PROMETHEE approach will be used for the aggregation of the criteria, and the analysis of

the sensitivity. An overview of this combined approach is presented in the following section.

2.3 AHP – PROMETHEE Combined Approach

The proposed approach in this analysis is divided into several steps:

• Firstly: The work consists in the preparation of the GIS data and the identification

of different criteria, which will be the basis of the determination of the choice;

• In second place, using the AHP approach, we will proceed to the weighting the

criteria, this step is forming the first comparison Matrix, whom we’ll assign value

of weight to the criteria defined earlier, calculation of the weights of the various

selection criteria by using the geometric mean and finally establish the final

comparison matrix.

• Once the weighting validated by the decision makers, we will proceed to an

analysis PROMETHEE I and II, and GAIA plans. The analytical process consists

in determining a preference and priorities and help us finally to make a decision

about alternatives.

All computation of PROMETHEE approach, have been carried out using the software

visual PROMETHEE Academic v. 1.4.0.0.

Below we give a brief presentation of this approach:


Figure

3. RESULTS AND DISCU

Our case study consist to be able to choose between three alternative of bypass roads around

the Marrakech city in Morocco.

The environment had an importa

importance.

After the investigations of the ground, we have defined four main criteria and thirteen

sub-criteria that will make the distinction between the three alternatives of bypass roads, and

allow us to make the difference between them. This will give us an idea about the good

choice to make, using Multi –

The whole of the main -criteria are defined after:

• MC1: Physical Criteria

• MC2: Biological Criteria

• MC3: Socio economic

• MC4: Project criteria

The whole of the Sub -criteria are defined after:

• SC1.1: River Area “Polygon”,

• SC1.2: Noise,

• SC1.3: Landscape quality,

• SC1.4: Air quality,

• SC2.1: Forest Area “polygon”,



Figure 1 Combined Approach AHP PROMETHEE

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


the Marrakech city in Morocco.

The environment had an important diversity, and includes several issues with a big


criteria that will make the distinction between the three alternatives of bypass roads, and

s to make the difference between them. This will give us an idea about the good

Criteria-Decision-Making.

criteria are defined after:

MC1: Physical Criteria

MC2: Biological Criteria

MC3: Socio economic Criteria

MC4: Project criteria

criteria are defined after:

SC1.1: River Area “Polygon”,

SC1.3: Landscape quality,

SC1.4: Air quality,

SC2.1: Forest Area “polygon”,

[email protected]


nt diversity, and includes several issues with a big


criteria that will make the distinction between the three alternatives of bypass roads, and

s to make the difference between them. This will give us an idea about the good

Using A Combined Approach AHP


• SC2.2: Count of ecological sites,

• SC3.1: Building Area

• SC3.2: Agriculture Area “polygon”,

• SC3.3: Arid Space Area “polygon”,

• SC3.4: human point of view,

• SC4.1: Length of Bypass Road “polyline”,

• SC4.2: No Accessibility,

• SC4.3: Count of intersection with roads.

Figure 2 Decision Hierarchy of Urban Bypass Roads Project Selection Problem

The AHP methodology is used to determine the weight of the criteria, taken into account

in our decision.

We have taken the criteria by pairs, in order to assign a weight for each MC, then for eac

sub criterion SC, in fact the analysis was made to determine the overall weight of each SC, in

order to find the comparison matrix by pairs.

The pairwise comparison matrix for each MC and SC is presented in table

The values obtained from the calculati

Table 3), which demonstrates that we can use the comparison matrix of the criteria.

Table 3 Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Criteria and Results Obtained From AHP Computations

CR: 0,0347

MC1

MC1 1

MC2 0,33

MC3 0,33

MC4 3

Urban

MC-1

W= 0,28

SC – 1.1

W=0,30

SC – 1.2

W=0,48

SC – 1.3

W=0,07

SC – 1.4

W=0,14



SC2.2: Count of ecological sites,

SC3.1: Building Area “polygon”

SC3.2: Agriculture Area “polygon”,

SC3.3: Arid Space Area “polygon”,

SC3.4: human point of view,

SC4.1: Length of Bypass Road “polyline”,

SC4.2: No Accessibility,

SC4.3: Count of intersection with roads.

on Hierarchy of Urban Bypass Roads Project Selection Problem


We have taken the criteria by pairs, in order to assign a weight for each MC, then for eac


order to find the comparison matrix by pairs.

The pairwise comparison matrix for each MC and SC is presented in table

The values obtained from the calculation of the Consistency ratio are all less than 0.1 (see

3), which demonstrates that we can use the comparison matrix of the criteria.

Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Criteria and Results Obtained From AHP Computations

MC2 MC3 MC4 Weight vector

3 3 0,33 0,28

1 0,33 0,2 0,07

3 1 0,2 0,11

5 5 1 0,54

Urban bypass road Project Selection

MC – 2

W=0,08

SC – 2.1

W=0,25

SC – 2.2

W=0,75

MC – 3

W= 0,12

SC – 3.1

W= 0,13

SC – 3.2

W=0,12

SC – 3.3

W=0,61

SC – 3.4

W=0,13

MC – 4

W= 0,52

SC –

W=0,63

SC –

W=0,11

SC –

W=0,26

ternative Project: A Case Study

[email protected]

on Hierarchy of Urban Bypass Roads Project Selection Problem


We have taken the criteria by pairs, in order to assign a weight for each MC, then for each


The pairwise comparison matrix for each MC and SC is presented in table 3.

on of the Consistency ratio are all less than 0.1 (see

3), which demonstrates that we can use the comparison matrix of the criteria.

Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Criteria and Results Obtained From AHP Computations

Weight vector

0,28

0,07

0,11

0,54

W= 0,52

4.1

W=0,63

4.2

W=0,11

4.3

W=0,26



CR: 0,072

SC 1.1 SC 1.2 SC 1.3 SC 1.4 Weight vector

SC 1.1 1 0,33 3 3 0,59

SC 1.2 3 1 5 3 0,59

SC 1.3 0,33 0,2 1 0,33 0,07

SC 1.4 0,333 0,33 3 1 0,20

CR: 0

SC 2.1 SC 2.2 Weight vector

SC 2.1 1 0,33 0,25

SC 2.2 3 1 0,75

CR: 0,0813

SC 3.1 SC 3.2 SC 3.3 SC 3.4 Weight vector

SC 3.1 1 0,333 0,20 1 0,087

SC 3.2 3 1 0,14 0,2 0,093

SC 3.3 5 7 1 7 0,680

SC 3.4 1 3 0,14 1 0,139

CR: 0,0332

SC 4.1 SC 4.2 SC 4.3 Weight vector

SC 4.1 1 5 3 0,64

SC 4.2 0,2 1 0,33 0,10

SC 4.3 0,33 3 1 0,26

Figure 3 Occupancy Map of The First Alternative



Figure 4 Occupancy Map Of The Second Alternative

Figure 5 Occupancy Map Of The Third Alternative



Figure 6 The Field Works of Environment Exploration

Table 4 Evaluation Matrix

Criteria Unit Min/Max Weights Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

SC 1.1 Square meter min 0,07 5694 5224 6789

SC 1.2 min 0,14 average good good

SC 1.3 max 0,02 very good very good bad

SC 1.4 max 0,04 average good bad


SC 2.2 Unit min 0,05 3 3 2



SC 3.3 Square meter max 0,07 56743 76458 32765

SC 3.4 max 0,02 bad good average

SC 4.1 kilometer min 0,35 74729 67970 72243

SC 4.2 min 0,06 bad average bad

SC 4.3 Unit min 0,14 9 8 12

The evaluation matrix is the first act to do for determining the preference functions and

threshold values. They should be determined by considering the nature of the criteria and

features of the alternative of bypass roads project.

The preference function and other characteristic are presented in (Table 5) below:



Table 5: Preference Function

Threshold Values

Criteria

Preference

Function q p s

SC 1.1 V - Shape 1491,86

SC 1.2 Level 0,03 0,25

SC 1.3 Level 1,41 3,41

SC 1.4 Level 0,47 1,8

SC 2.1 V - Shape 0,25

SC 2.2 V - Shape 1,14

SC 3.1 V - Shape 0,25

SC 3.2 V - Shape 2

SC 3.3 V - Shape 39573,22

SC 3.4 Level 0,47 1,8

SC 4.1 linear 2849,49 7355,49

SC 4.2 Level 0,47 1,14

SC 4.3 V - Shape 3,91

The Following step present the result of the evaluation of alternatives via VISUAL

PROMETHEE software, which is used to PROMETHEE computations and analysis.

The positive and negative flow and the net flow are presented in the (Table 6) below:

Table 6 Promethee Flows

Alternatives φ(a) φ+(a) Φ-(a)

Alt 2 0,4168 0,5531 0,1362

Alt 1 0,0062 0,2845 0,2784

Alt 3 -0,4230 0,0934 0,5163

Figure 6 Result of Promethee RAINBOW

The PROMETHEE I and II (partial and complete ranking) analysis illustrate that the

alternative N°2, is the better one that satisfies our preference. The alternative N°2 Present a

positive flow of the order of 0.4168, follow-up of the alternative N°1 with a positive flow of



the order of 0.0062, and in the end comes the third alternative with a negative flow of order of

-0.042. (Figure 7)

Figure 7 Result of PROMETHEE 1& II Computation

In the final step of analysis using GAIA plan “Geometrical Analysis for Interactive Aid,”

all alternatives and criteria are shown by a point and vectors.

In the GAIA plan, all our criteria are positioned in the same direction, but the conflicting

criteria are positioned in the opposite direction.

We conclude that the forest area, the opinion of the population and the road length, are the

criteria which expresses a similar preference, by against the noise and the un-accessibility are

the criteria which oppose the choice of the overall preference.

For the alternative N °3, we note that it has a strong attraction for the criteria SC2.2 and

SC3.2, by against it opposes any other criteria. The alternative No. 1 has an attraction for the

criteria SC 4.2, SC1.2, SC 4.3, SC 3.3, SC1.3, and is opposed to the other criteria. The

alternative No. 2 has an attraction to SC2.1 criteria, SC4.1, and SC3.4, with a considerable

weight.

The figure (Figure 8) below presents the GAIA plan:

Figure 8 GAIA Plane



According to the Gaia plan, we note that the most favorable alternative is the alternative

No. 2, followed by the alternative No1; furthermore, the alternative N°3 is the choice the less

advantageous among the proposed alternatives.

4. CONCLUSION

Project selection is one of the main environmental decisions of road construction companies.

This study aims to propose an integrated approach using the combination of GIS, AHP

and PROMETHEE methods, which may assist the companies and stakes holders in selecting

their roads projects in a more objective, and realistic way.

The proposed approach should be applied in an environmental Study of bypass roads or

any other linear project of civil Engineering.

In the process of environmental impacts assessment of linear projects, this methodology

will assist to decision makers and the stakeholders, for making a good environmental

decision.

REFERENCES

[1] Bennis, K. and Bahi, L. Hybird fuzzy decision making framework for environmental

impact assessment, Tangier, Morocco. Int. J. Eng. Technol., 7(1), 2015, pp. 1–16.

[2] Turcksin, L. Bernardini, A. and Macharis, C. A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach

for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet.

Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., 20, 2011, pp. 954–965.

[3] Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York McGraw-Hill, 1980.

[4] Brucker,K. D. Verbeke,A. and Macharis,C. The Applicability of Multicriteria-Analysis

To the Evaluation of Intelligent Transport Systems (Its).Res. Transp. Econ., 8(4), 2004,

pp. 151–179.

[5] Brans,J. P.Vincke,P. and Mareschal,B. How To Select and How To Rank Projects - the

Promethee Method. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 24(2), 1986, pp. 228–238.

[6] Macharis, C.Verbeke,A. and De Brucker,K. The Strategic Evaluation of New

Technologies Through Multicriteria Analysis: the Advisors Case. Res. Transp. Econ.,

8(4), 2004, pp. 443–462.

[7] T. Ravi Teja and B.G.Rahul, Financial Viability of Bot Road Projects In India.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 382–389.

[8] R. Prasanna Kumar, Afshan Sheikh and SS.Asadi, A Systematic Approach For Evaluation

of Risk Management In Road Construction Projects - A Model Study. International

Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(3), 2017, pp. 888–902.

[9] Brans, J.P. and Mareschal, B.The PROMCALC and GAIA Decision Support System for

Multicriteria Decision Aid. Decision Support Systems, 12, 1994, pp. 297–310.

USING A COMBINED APP ROACH AHP PROMETHEE … is used to rank the alternative urban bypass road...

Documents

Transcript of USING A COMBINED APP ROACH AHP PROMETHEE … is used to rank the alternative urban bypass road...