A SIMULATION-OPTIMIZATION APPROACH FOR EVALUATING AND SELECTING MUNICIPAL PROJECTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

An-Najah National University

Abstract

Municipalities in developing countries often face constrained budgets, institutional limitations, infrastructure instability, and uncertainty when selecting among competing projects. Palestinian municipalities provide a relevant applied context in which these pressures are particularly visible. Conventional project-prioritisation approaches may not adequately differentiate alternatives or represent uncertainty in expert judgement. This thesis proposes and evaluates a three-stage simulation-optimization decision-support approach for evaluating and selecting municipal projects. The approach integrates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a Monte Carlo-based Modified Analytic Hierarchy Process (MAHP), and non-parametric bootstrap inference to produce a deterministic baseline ranking, assess ranking robustness under uncertainty, and evaluate pairwise statistical differences between project scores. A panel of 20 experts performed pairwise comparisons of criteria and performance ratings for three municipal infrastructure projects against four criteria: technological feasibility (C1), economic viability (C2), social impact (C3), and resilience to external constraints (C4). AHP produced deterministic criterion weights and a baseline project ranking. MAHP used K = 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations sampled from the empirical distribution of expert judgements. Bootstrap inference used B = 5,000 replicates and 95% confidence intervals to assess pairwise score differences. The highest-ranking criterion under AHP was C1 (w = 0.514), with an acceptable consistency ratio (CR = 0.047), producing the baseline ranking P3 > P1 > P2. Under MAHP, P3 (Southern Industrial Zone Transfer Station) remained first with a mean score of 0.799, while P2 ranked above P1 under uncertainty. Bootstrap inference showed positive pairwise differences between P3 and P1 (Δ = +0.097) and between P3 and P2 (Δ = +0.079), supporting P3 as the highest-priority project within the analysed case set.

Description

Citation

Collections

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By