研究

Determining the Priority of Transport Policies:
A Korean Case Study using Preference Voting Method
To date, transport policies in Korea have been planned and implemented as part of a larger policy based on
the achievement of economic growth. As a result, previous transport policies have been focused mostly on the
supply of transport infrastructure. The average annual economic growth of six percent and the twelve percent
annual growth in motor vehicles until the late 90s led to an acceleration of the imbalance between the demandand supply of infrastructure. As such, there is a need to establish an innovative transportation policy that canincrease national competitiveness and provide momentum for national growth in the 21st century. This
research has developed strategies and policies based on interviews that were carried out with specialists in thetransport field. The authors identified that the most important issues were the development of an inter-modaltransport system, followed by the need for an integrated service system for public transport, the need to increase
the competitiveness of the transport and logistics industries, and the furthering of transport safety.

Keywords transport policy, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), preference voting

洪 錫晋
HONG, Seockjin

金 兌奎

博（工）仁川大学東北亜物流大学院教授
ボルドー・マネジメント・スクール教授（財）運輸政策研究機構運輸政策研究所研究員

KIM, Taekyu

1―― Introduction
Previous transport policies in Korea have been
focused on the supply of the transport infrastructure, and have been carried out in accordancewith the government's economic growth policy.
Although Korea has invested some 2 percent of
total GDP in the provision of transport infrastructure
over the last 20 years, an average annual economic growth of 6 percent, and a 12 percent
annual increase in the number of automobiles
have combined with the rapid increase in transportdemands to create an imbalance in the supply oftransport. Traffic congestion costs in 2000 were
calculated at 19.5 billion US dollas1), accounting forsome 3.7 percent of GDP. Furthermore, thenational logistics costs arising from the traffic
congestion problems in 2001 were estimated tobe some 67.5 billion US dollas, or 12.4 percent of
GDP. All of these factors have combined to
weaken Korea's industrial competitiveness2).
For the most part, these traffic congestion problems
have originated from the increasing dependence on
automobiles, which in turn stems from the failure toestablish adequate public transport systems inmajor cities, the expansion of residential areas inmetropolitan cities, and the lack of an extended
transport system to cope with the increasing distances traveled.
Existing transport policies have primarily been
concentrated on carrying out the simple functionsof transporting people and cargo. However, there is

研究a need to establish an innovative transport policy inorder to improve national competitiveness andcreate the engines needed to bring about economic growth in the 21st century. During the
economic development drive, transport policies
were regarded as a core element in the constructionof the economy, and much focus was placed on
supplying transport facilities. However, as a result ofenvironmental and safety issues, and of thegrowing difficulties associated with securing thenecessary financial resources, emphasis has
increasingly been placed on assuring appropriate
levels of investment and on the proper management of existing transport facilities. As such, inthe future, transport policies should be designed toachieve the harmonization of efficiency and equity.
This research has identified four objectives oftransport policymaking and developed 3-4 different
transport policy measures for each. The objectives and measures based on interviews with specialists, practitioners and case studies of developed countries. The analytical method is adopted
preference voting method employed in the Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Moreover, the author
got responses from the specialists of urban transport, road, railroad, air and maritime. This research
was able to suggest implementation measuresand to prioritize the transport policies that Korea
should adopt. The DEA is usually used to analyze
the efficiency of a decision making unit (DMU).
This research used an analysis model that isbased on the preference voting method developed by Cook and Kress in 1990 (hereafter

Vol.12 No.1 2009 Spring 運輸政策研究021

referred to as the CK model). The CK model has
been widely used as a decision management
measurement technique to balance the shortcomings of traditional techniques based on preference voting, in which the ranked voting data canbe changed depending on the weight value.
Noguchi, Ogawa, and Ishii (2002) developed apriority determination model based on the concept of multiple purposes voting, and suggested ananalytical model (the NOI model) for when multiple decision management factors exist. In keepingwith this, an analytical study was carried out todetermine the transport policy priorities, using
the NOI model.

Subject to

sr = weight value of output r, r= 1,2,…
yrj = the size of output r of the DMU j
ti = weight value of input i, i = 1,2,…
xij = the size of input i of the DMU j
2.2 The DEA using preference votingThis paper is composed of the five chapters.
Chapter 2 explains the DEA. Chapter 3 introduces
the transport policies that Korea should adopt by
2020, based on the present state of transport policies and the benchmarking of the cases of othercountries. In Chapter 4, the priority that should
be given to the transport policies identified in
Chapter 3 using the DEA preference voting
method.

2――Data Envelopment Analysis(DEA)
2.1 Measurement of technical efficiency using the DEA

The DEA is a nonparametric approach which wasdeveloped by Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (CCR)
in 1978, that is calculated using linear programming
to measure the comparative efficiency (technicalefficiency) of a DMU's series of outputs to inputs.
Technical efficiency refers to the ratio of the sum of
the weight values of the output to input. The
weight values represent the comparative importance of the evaluation factors. In this paper, theweight values, sr and ti satisfy the non-negative
condition, and the value of the efficiency is given a
value ranging from 0 to 1. A DMU can be interpreted as having the highest efficiency when avalue of 1 is assigned to it.
The weight value of DMU j0 is calculated in (1) at
the level needed to maximize efficiency under
the given conditions. The CCR model found in(1) is formed once maximization has beenachieved using linear programming. This is
known as cross-efficiency.
The CCR Multiplier Model making it possible to calculate an optimal solution using the Simplex
Method of linear programming.
（1）

022

運輸政策研究Vol.12 No.1 2009 Spring

The DEA, as mentioned above, has emerged as oneof the most precise methods of measuring theefficiency of the inputs and outputs of a DMU3). In
addition, the DEA can also process input andoutput variables that do not share common measuring factors. Therefore, the DEA is capable ofsimultaneously analyzing different units of inputs or
outputs. The (2) of the CK model can be
employed to identify the best policies, projects,
products, or even the most outstanding professional athletes4), by making use of the preference
voting by specialists or consumers, which in turnmakes use of the advantages of the DEA, that is,
the use of the maximized weight value to calculate
evaluation factor preferences5).
（2）

Subject to

（3）
（4）

vij = the number of jth place votes of candidate i(i= 1,…, m, j = 1,…, k)d(・,ε) = discrimination intensity function
The (3) is conditioned on the fact that the weightvalue Wj of vj should be bigger that the weight value Wj＋1 of vj＋1. By setting the weight value of the
top evaluation factor candidate higher than orequal to the weight values of the second andlower candidates, each evaluation factor is optimized. This is known as the Assurance Region.
The (3) and (4) of the CK model indicate that theweight should not be assigned minus values. εindicates an unlimited small number and thenon-negative condition has been satisfied. Thed(・,ε) called the discrimination intensity function, isnonnegative and non-decreasing inε, and satisfiesd(・, 0) = 0. The model NOI is used to classify the

研究weak ordering and strong ordering found in (5) and
(6).
（12）

（5）

（13）
（6）

However, the NOI model has certain built-in
flaws in that the ordering can be changed based on
the size of e. The weak ordering is advantageousfor its ease of calculation, while a strong ordering
can separate the top evaluation factors from theother orderings. In (7) the NOI model is applied
using the strong ordering method, and in (8)usingε.
（7）（8）

n: number of respondents
k: number of evaluation criteriaWith regards to priority ordering using the traditional method seen in Table 1, the possibility of acontradiction occurring in the analysis cannot be
ruled out as the priority ordering can be changed
based on the weight values (Wi=5, 3, 1 for i= 1, 2,3) that are selected6). v1j in Table 1 indicates thenumber of votes that evaluation candidate factor i
received. When unifying evaluation factors, as isdone in Table 1, that is to say, when specialists
select their priorities with regards to criteria I, II,
and III, evaluation methods based on (2) will
emerge. However, as multiple evaluation factors
have been added7), as seen in Table 2, thisresearch suggested (9) of the NOI model to calculate the importance rate φR (10). By multiplying
this number with ΛMR (11) and dividing by R
(number of evaluation factors), we arrive at (12) as
the ideal model with which to select the optimized candidate.

According to aM and amr, the importance rate ofevaluation criteria candidates 1, 2 and 3 can be calculated, as can the final ordering through the use ofweight values. The priority ordering can bechanged even when the CK and NOI models areused depending on whether weak or strong
orderings are employed. When applying the
weak ordering method, the priority ordering can bechanged in accordance with the size ofε.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that precise
ordering can be assured when (8), which isbased on strong ordering, is applied to thesemodels, and that subjectivity can be done awaywith by using the scientific approach, unlike
Table 1, which is based on the traditional analyticalmethod. These models can be used as a decision
management technique through which transport
policies can be prioritized by applying linear programming to calculate the importance rate based on
the optimized weight values of the evaluation
factors.
■ Table―1

Traditional method of determining priority ordering

Weights

w2

w3

Candidate1

w1v11

w2v12

w3v13

wiv1j

Candidate2

w1v21

w2v22

w3v23

wiv2j

Candidate3

w1v31

w2v32

w3v33

wiv3j

■ Table―2

（i＝1，
2，
3）

Applying multiple evaluation factors

Evaluation Criteria
H1

（9）
H2

Subject toOrdering

w1

H3

Evaluation factors
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Candidate 3
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Candidate 3
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Candidate 3

λmr
λ11
λ12
λ13
λ21
λ22
λ23
λ31
λ32
λ33

Note: λmr are score of respondents for certain evaluation criteria and factors

（10）

（11）

…

研究

3――Objectives of 21st Century
Korean Transport Policies
and Related Implementation
Measures

As seen in Figure 1, based on the benchmarking of
the transport policies of the USA, England, andVol.12 No.1 2009 Spring 運輸政策研究023

Japan, and the collection of specialists' opinions,this research has identified the preferred objectives for Korean transport policies in the 21st
century, as well as related implementation measures. Our analysis of the U.S. ISTEA (Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act), and TEA21 (Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21stCentury), of England's SAFETEA (Safe, Accountable,
Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act),and of Japan's “Comprehensive Transport Policies
for the 21st Century”, revealed that, rather thanfocusing on the expansion of existing transportfacilities and increasing the efficiency of individualtransport systems, developed countries haveattempted to bring about the effective usage of
IT-applied facilities, the actualization of the intermodality system, and the achievement of sustainable transport policies focused on the environment and safety.
The selection of objectives for Korean transport
policies was based on the need to provide fast,
convenient, and safe transport services, and on
the need to contribute to the eventual achievement of national integration by promoting balanced development among regions and increasing
the equity between the social classes. With
regards to the intermodality system, this paper
introduced measures to achieve intermodality
between such modes of transportation using theinformation and communication systems. This
intermodality system will help invigorate theeconomy, facilitate international exchanges, andto decrease the traffic congestion and air pollution
problems caused by the excessive use of roads
and highways to deliver goods.
With regards to the achievement of a sustainabletransport system, this research selected the reduction of air pollutant emissions as the main objective
for transport policies, and attempted to introduce
related measures to achieve this objective. The
main policy measures are: the strengthening of
regulations concerned with emission gases, thegranting of support for the development of low-fuelconsumption technologies, as well as theachievement of a reduction in the demand forroad transportation through the implementationof polluter pays principles, such as the imposition of a carbon tax, gas guzzler tax, congestion
pricing, collection of parking fees, and carpooling exemptions. By easing traffic congestion
problems, measures to decrease vehicles' air pollutant emissions can be used to establish a sustainable transport system.
As a result of the rapid advent of an aging society,the traffic congestion stemming from the increase in024

運輸政策研究Vol.12 No.1 2009 Spring

the elderly population's activities is expected toworsen in the future. In the case of the developed countries, safe transport measures havealready been established for the elderly. The
development of IT related technologies encourages the development of new transport systems inwhich the safety, comfort, and speed aspects aremuch improved. As it has become increasingly
possible to apply these new transport technologies
to the actual field, many developed countries
have adopted IT related technologies within theirtransport systems.
This research also focused on the developmentof traffic technologies that can effectively manage
the transportation of passengers and cargo
between transport modes, such as ships/railroads
and trains/trucks. New approaches to resolving
traffic related problems have increasingly been
introduced as a result of the development ofenvironmentally-friendly low energy and pollution traffic methods related to the transport technologies, the strengthening of environmental regulations and the development of the Intelligent
Transport System (ITS); which includes the development of high-tech applied automobiles and theconstruction of a new-generation road environment and the establishment of safe transportfacilities/management technologies brought about by
successfully changing the attitudes of vehicle
manufacturers and road builders. Rapid globalization has increased the need to provide one-stop
administrative services with regards to the transportof international passengers and cargo, to increase
the on-line service system and paperless documentation for trade related matters, such as bills of
lading (B/L). In the case of airports, which areclosely related to globalization, the number ofinternational passengers and the demand for air cargo has risen rapidly. Until the middle of the
1970s, U.S. transport policy was influenced byeconomic controls, such as the regulation ofprices and of the approach to cities, and by the
relation between labor and management. However,of late its transport policies have been focusedon easing regulations, as well as on implementing
safety and environment-oriented measures.

4――Transport Policy Priorities andRelated Analysis

From July 18th to July 27th, 2003 a survey was
conducted with the objective of assessing the priority order and rate of importance that should begiven to the objectives and implementation measures for the Korean transport policies of the 21st
century that have been identified in this paper,

研究and found in Figure 1. The survey was sent to
1,200 specialists in the urban traffic, road, railroad, air transport, maritime transport, and logistics
fields. 205 respondents returned which translates
into a 17.1 percent response rate.

the importance rates (φR andΛMR) of policy objectives I, II, III, and IV, which were included in theevaluation criteria found in Figure 1, rather than by
selecting the optimized candidates based on theevaluation criteria found in Table 2

75 percent of the survey participants were specialists who had in excess of 5 years of experiencein their chosen field. 47.5 percent of the participants
worked for research institutes, thus indicating acertain bias in the composition of the specialists.
Additionally, although four implementation measures were selected for policy objective “III.
Promotion of competitive transport and logistics
industries”, the participants were found to haveconfused policy objective III with measure “III.1
Strengthening the national competitiveness of thetransport and logistics industries”.

First of all, the weight values of the evaluation
factors must be calculated by applying (2), which isbased on linear programming. By calculating theefficiencies and geometric means of the evaluation factors based on these acquired weight values,
this research produced the results seen in Tables 5,6, 7, 8 and 9. When applying linear programming, this paper, to simplify the calculation, followed the weak ordering method found in (8)and substituted it for d (k,ε）= 0.00001,ε= 0.0001.

This research produced the transport policy priorities identified by the specialists, by multiplying

Let us take a look at the results of the survey.
With regards to policy objective “I. Establishment ofan effectively integrated transport system”, theparticipants prioritized the implementation mea-

■ Table―3■ Table―4

Responses of the specialists with regards to thepolicy objectives

Order
1
Policy objective
I. Establishment of an effectively
106
integrated transport system
II. Provision of speedy and comfortable
32
transport services
III. Promotion of competitive transport
32
and logistics industries
IV. Construction of a sustainable, and34
human oriented transport environment
V. Other
1

2

3

4

5

39

37

23

0

61

75

36

1

62

48

63

0

44

43

83

1

0

1

0 203

Note: V. The other category includes suggestions of the respondents orcases where no answer was given.
■ Table―5

Orders
Implementation Measures
I.1 Establishment of transport networks to
prepare for unification and Korea's role as aNortheast Asian hub
I.2 Establishment of an intermodality system
I.3 Establishment of a public transport
centered transport system
I.4 Rationalization of the provision of financial
resources and of an investment system
I.5 Other5

29 40 39 89

8

91 60 40 140

43 46 64 51

1

40 57 59 48

1

5

3

2

2 194

0.1
1.00000.99450.99350.2
1.00000.99470.99830.3
1.00000.99470.99830.4
1.00000.99470.99840.5
1.00000.93790.8250G.M.
1.00000.98300.9600Rank
1
2
3

0.9916

0.9941

0.9941

0.99410.73370.9350

4

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

G.M.

Rank

0.99970.58060.99970.99970.99970.896741.00000.99981.00000.68351.00000.99981.00000.99981.00000.99981.00000.92661
3

0.99930.72430.99930.99930.99930.934722.4
1.00000.84130.69700.91822.5
1.00000.84130.69690.9182G.M.
0.99970.87980.76700.9383

Rank
1
3
4
2

Result of the application of (2), (3) and (4) to the policy objective
II. Provision of speedy and comfortable transport services found in Table 10

II. Provision of speedy and comfortable transport services
II.1. Establishment of an integrated public trans-port service system v1j
II.2. Strengthening of traffic demand related management measures v2j
II.3. Establishment of an intelligent transport (ITS) system v3j
II.4. Promotion of the efficiency of the management of transport facilities v4j

研究

4

2

2

Result of the application of (2), (3) and (4) to the policy objective
I. Establishment of an effectively integrated transport system found in Table 4

I. Establishment of an effectively integrated transport system
I.1. Establishment of transport networks to pre-pare for unification and
Korea's role as a Northeast Asian hub v1j
I.2. Establishment of an inter-modality system v2j
I.3. Establishment of a public transport centered transport system v3j
I.4. Rationalization of the provision of financial resources and of aninvestment system v4j■ Table―7

1

Result of the application of (9) to the policy objectives found in Table 3

Objectives of the transport policies
I. Establishment of an effectively integrated trans-port system x1s
II. Provision of speedy and comfortable transport services x2sIII. Promotion of competitive transport and logistics industries x3sIV. Construction of a sustainable, and human oriented transport
environment x4s■ Table―6

Results of the survey on policy objective I.
Establishment of an effectively integrated
transport system

2.1
1.00000.88690.7841
0.94162.2
1.00000.84130.69700.91822.3
0.99850.99841.00000.9976Vol.12 No.1 2009 Spring 運輸政策研究025

■ Table―8

Result of the application of (2), (3) and (4) to the policy objective
III. Promotion of competitive transport and logistics industries found in Table 11

III. Promotion of competitive transport and logistics industries
III.1. Strengthening of the national competitiveness of the transport andlogistics industries v1jIII.2. Establishment of an integrated carriage system of goods v2j
III.3. Establishment of a hub system for airport and harbor facilities v3j
III.4. Privatization of transport facilities management v4j■ Table―9

Result of the survey on policy objective
II. Provision of speedy and comfortabletransport services

Ordering
Implementation Measures
II.1 Establishment of an integrated
public transport service system
II.2 Strengthening of traffic demand
related management measures
II.3 Establishment of an intelligent
transport (ITS) system
II.4 Promotion of the efficiency of the
management of transport facilities
II.5 Other

3.3

3.4

3.5

G.M.

Rank

1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001

0.9096
0.71670.46911.00000.9996
0.97100.99990.99980.97250.9096
0.71670.47430.9096
0.71670.47430.94470.81870.6305

2
3
4

1

2

3

4

5

70

60

45

28

2

52

45

51

55

2

27

40

62

76

0

53

60

45

44

3

3

0

2

2 198

Where policy objective “IV. Construction of asustainable, and human oriented transport environment” is concerned, the participants priori-

運輸政策研究Vol.12 No.1 2009 Spring

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

G.M.

Rank

0.99960.88860.99960.99950.97062

1.00000.99051.00000.40391.00000.99821.00000.99821.00000.7946

1
3■ Table―11

sures in the following order: establishment of anintermodality system, rationalization of the provisionof financial resources and of an investment system,
establishment of a public transport centered transportsystem, and establishment of transport networks to
prepare for unification and Korea's role as aNortheast Asian hub. With regard to policy objective“II. Provision of speedy and comfortable transport
services”, the participants prioritized the implementation measures in the following order: establishment of an integrated public transport service
system, promotion of the efficiency of the management of transport facilities, strengthening of
the management of traffic demand related measures, and establishment of an intelligent transport (ITS) system. In the case of policy objective“III. Promotion of competitive transport andlogistics industries,” the participants prioritized
the implementation measures in the following
order: strengthening of the national competitivenessof the transport and logistics industries, establishment of an integrated carriage system of cargo,establishment of a hub system for airport andport facilities, and privatization of transport facilities
management.

026

3.2

Result of the application of (2), (3) and (4) to the policy objective
IV.Construction of a sustainable, and human oriented transport environment found in Table 12

IV. Construction of a sustainable, and human oriented transport environment
IV.1. Development of a low energy consuming and environmentally friendly
transport system v1j
IV.2. Improvement of the transport safety system v2j
IV.3. Assurance of the mobility rights of pedestrians v3j■ Table―10

3.1

Result of the survey on policy objective
III. Promotion of competitive transport andlogistics industries

Ordering
1
Implementation Measures
III.1 Strengthening of the national
competitiveness of the transport and105
logistics industries
III.2 Establishment of an integrated
58
carriage system of goods
III.3 Establishment of a hub system for
33
airport and harbor facilities
III.4 Privatization of transport facilities
7
management
III.5 Other
2

2

3

4

5

51

30

19

0

76

57

14

0

54

82

36

0

21

35 135

7

3

1

1 198

tized the implementation measures in the following
order: improvement of the transport safety system, development of a low energy and environmental-friendly transport system, and assuranceof the mobility rights of pedestrians.
■ Table―12

Result of the survey on policy objective
IV. Construction of sustainable, and humanoriented transport environment

Ordering
Implementation Measures
IV.1 Development of a low energy andenvironmentally-friendly transport system
IV.2 Improvement of the transport safetysystemIV.3 Assurance of the mobility rights ofpedestrians
IV.4 Other

1

2

3

4

83

64

56

2

97

81

25

2

22

57 122

4

2

3

2 198

Based on (9), the results of the analysis of theevaluation criteria (transport policy objectives)
are the same as those found in Table 5: I.
Establishment of an effectively integrated transport system, II. Provision of speedy and comfortable transport services, III. Promotion of competitive transport and logistics industries, and IV.
Construction of a sustainable, and human oriented
transport environment.

研究The importance rate, Hr of the policy objectives
using (10) can be found in Table 13. The total
efficiency λmr of the implementation measures
based on (11) can be found in Table 14. The
importance rates of the evaluation factors based on(13) using Hr and λmr are found in Table 15.
This paper selected those policy candidates thatapplied (12), which is the NOI model, to theevaluation criteria. However, in the case of thepriority of the implementation measures, (13)
was applied as in this case, priority indicates therate of importance of the evaluation factors.
Figure 1 exhibits the importance (circled number) of
all evaluation factors by ordering the priority of thepolicies based on the importance of the implementation measures.
■ Table―13

Importance rates of the policy objectives basedon (10)

Policy objectives
I.
II.
III.
VI.
Rate of importanceHr
1.0000 0.9830 0.9600 0.9350■ Table―14

The importance rates of the implementation
measures based on (11)Policy objectives
Rate of importance
λ1r
λ2r
λ3r
λ4r
λ5r
■ Table―15

Priority
a1r
a2r
a3r
a4r
a5r

I

II

III

VI

0.89671.00000.9266
0.93740.75250.99970.87980.76700.93830.48771.00000.94470.81870.63050.28230.97261.00000.7946
0.4616−The importance rates of the implementation
measures based on the importance rates ofthe policy objectives using (13)10.89671.00000.9266
0.93740.752520.98270.86480.75400.92230.479430.96000.90690.78600.60530.271040.90750.93500.74300.4316−

5――Conclusion

grated public transport service system, thestrengthening of the national competitiveness of thetransport and logistics industries, and theimprovement of the transport safety system.
Meanwhile, the policy measure, assurance of themobility rights of pedestrians, which most developed countries place top priority on, was given thelowest priority of its group of measures, a fateshared by the measures establishment of transport networks to prepare for unification and
Korea's role as a Northeast Asian hub, and theprivatization of transport facilities management.
With regards to policy objective “I. Establishment ofan effectively integrated transport system,” which
received the highest points in our analysis of theresults of the transport policies, the implementation
measure, establishment of transport networks to
prepare for unification and Korea's role as aNortheast Asian hub, was given the lowest priorityof all. Conversely, the implementation measure,establishment of an integrated public transport
service system, which was attached to policy
objective “II. Provision of speedy and comfortable transport services” was given the highest priority within this group. More specifically, theauthors revealed that there is an urgent need toestablish passenger and cargo transport exchangesystems, an intermodality system centering on the
traffic node, and an intermodality system involving
air and road transport. Although the survey was
focused on the polling of specialists, the results of
the analysis were focused on the expansion oftransport facilities, rather than on the effective
usage of existing transport facilities.
Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the University of
Incheon Research Grant in 2007.

The optimized solutions can usually be changed
depending on the given conditions The solution
can be utilized to set management priorities, byidentifying the influence caused by changes inthe value of the specified factor using a sensitivity
analysis technique. However, this research did
not include a sensitivity analysis technique whenanalyzing the surveys.

Notes
1) The exchange rate is based at the rate of 2000.
2) The Korea Transport Institute, 2002 National Transport DB
Project3) Seiford [1996]
4) Noguchi et al. [2002]
5) Green et al. [1996]
6) Noguchi et al. [2002]
7) In the case of the selection of a DMU representative by the personnel committee, this analytical method has been applied to
candidate preference voting and evaluation criteria alike.

As a result of applying the DEA technique withpreference voting to the Korean transport policies that should be implemented by 2020, the following policy measures were identified as being themost urgently needed: the establishment of anintermodality system, establishment of an inte-

References
1) Adler N., Friedman L. and Sinuany-Stern Z. [2002], “Review ofranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context”,
European Journal of Operational Research 140, pp. 249-265．
2) Cook. W. D. and Kress. M. [1990], “A Data Envelopment Modelfor Aggregating Preference Rankings”, Management Science,Vol. 36, No. 11, pp. 1302-1310．

研究Vol.12 No.1 2009 Spring 運輸政策研究027

Ⅰ.1 Establishment of transport networks to prepare forunification and Korea's role as a Northeast Asian hub⑩

Ⅰ.2 Establishment of an intermodality system①

Ⅰ.3 Establishment of a public transport centeredtransport system⑥

Ⅰ.4 Rationalization of the provision of financial
resources and of an investment system④

Ⅱ.1 Establishment of an integrated public transport
service system②

Ⅱ.2 Strengthening of traffic demand related management
measures⑪

Ⅱ.3 Establishment of an intelligent transport system⑬

Ⅱ.4 Promotion of the efficiency of the management oftransport facilities⑦

Ⅲ.1 Strengthening of the national competitiveness of thetransport and physical distribution industries③

Ⅲ.2 Establishment of an integrated carriagesystem of
goods

⑨

Ⅲ.3 Establishment of a hub system for airport and harbor
facilities⑫

Ⅲ.4 Privatization of transport facilities management⑮

Ⅳ.1 Development of a low energy andenvironmentally-friendly transport system⑧

human orien-ted transport environment

Ⅳ.2 Improvement of the transport safety system⑤④

Ⅳ.3 Assurance of the mobility rightsof pedestrians⑭

Ⅰ. Establishment of an effectively

integrated transport system①

Ⅱ. Provision of speedy and comfortabletransport services②

Ⅲ. Promotion of competitive transport andLogistics industries③

Ⅳ. Construction of a sus-tainable, and■ Figure―1

Priority ordering of policy objectives and implementation measures3) Green R. H., Doyle J. R. and Cook W. D. [1996], “Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation”,
European Journal of Operational Research 90, pp. 461-472．
4) Noguchi H., Ogawa M. and Ishii H. [2002], “The appropriate total
ranking method using DEA for multiple categorized purposes”,
Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 146, pp. 155166．
5) Obata T. and Ishii H. [2003], “A method for discriminating efficient candidates with ranked voting data”, European Journal ofOperational Research 151, pp. 233-237．
6) Seiford, L. M. [1996], “Data Envelopment Analysis: The Evolutionof the State of the Art (1978-1995)”, Journal of Productivity
Analysis, Vol. 7 No. 2-3, pp. 99-137．
7) OECD [2001], “Sustainable Transport Policies”．
8) Transport Canada [2001], “Sustainable Development Strategy
2001-2003”．
9) UK DETR [1998], “A New Deal for Transport”．
10) USDOT [2000], “The Changing Face of Transportation”．
11) USDOT [2001], “Vision 2050: An Integrated National Transportation
System”．
（原稿受付 2008年1月23日）

交通政策優先順位設定に関する研究 ―DEAの選好投票技法を用いた韓国におけるケーススタディー―

韓国において今までの交通政策は，経済成長の達成というより大きな政策目標の達成のための一部分として計画・実行されてきたことがあり，主に交通インフラの供給に重点が置かれてきた．しかし，1990年代後半まで年平均6％の経済成長率，年平均12％の自動車保有率の上昇が続いたことにより，インフラの需要と供給におけるアンバランスが生じている．それゆえ，今後は，国の競争力強化及び発展に寄与できるような革新的な交通政策を樹立する必要がある．この研究は，交通分野に従事する専門家を対象に行われたインタビュー及びアンケート調査を基に，DEAの選好投票手法を用いて，今後導入すべき交通政策の優先順位を導出している．分析の結果，総合交通体系の構築，公共交通の統合サービス体系の構築，財源調達及び投資体系の合理化などが高く評価され，交通弱者の移動権確保や交通施設の民営化推進などは相対的に低く評価されている
ことが示されている．
キーワード ; 交通政策，包絡分析法（DEA），選好投票

この号の目次へ http://www.jterc.or.jp/kenkyusyo/product/tpsr/bn/no44.html
028

運輸政策研究Vol.12 No.1 2009 Spring

研究