## 1 Introduction  
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) has been widely used in various fields of study and for real-world problems and complex problems in the decision-making process [1]. MCDM is considered effective at unraveling issues that involve conflicts between parties [2] and that are difficult to measure with certainty [3]. MCDM is different from the decision-making (DM) approach, which was originally used for optimal problem solving [3], in that it applies quantitative surveys [4]. MCDM focuses on making decisions that are most likely to be carried out by many parties based on the problem's structure, taking all influential aspects into account [5]. Regarding its theoretical basis, MCDM was developed based on a systems approach. A systems approach is defined as a holistic view of a complex and interdisciplinary problem to achieve system goals [6]. MCDM is implemented with an understanding of the system under study, as well as the subsystems and their interrelationships, in order to achieve the objectives. Subsystem abstractions and interrelationships are actually expressed in the multi-criteria-based model; therefore, it is commonly called a multi-criteria decision model [7]. Research using human knowledge (expert knowledge) is quite useful in the field of transportation [8] and sustainability studies [9]. In the later development of MCDM, attention was paid to multiple actors [7], which was considered important in its evolution. This then became known as multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA). In MAMCA, the opinions of various stakeholders become input for the decision-making process. This is especially important for developing and densely populated countries such as Indonesia, where there are many stakeholders involved in transportation issues. The involvement of stakeholders in decision making is participatory [10]. Their involvement can balance and integrate the various dimensions of sustainability [11]. It is recommended that stakeholder involvement be carried out in working groups [12]. However, in the field, this is not easy to implement. The weighting of criteria given by stakeholders uses an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [13; 14; 15; 16]. Stakeholders are people who have an interest in or an influence, financially or otherwise, on the impact of each decision made [17]. Stakeholder analysis is a tool for precisely identifying the various stakeholders that need to be involved and the views that should be considered in the evaluation process. In the scientific literature, several methods are described that can be used to obtain an appropriate list of stakeholders. Documentation along with legislative and administrative analysis, complemented by in-depth interviews with citizens and other interested parties, can create lists of the stakeholders involved [18]. After specific stakeholders have been identified, they are asked who should be involved. Poli-cymakers must include all affected actors in the list of stakeholders [12; 19]. Because their participation can potentially influence decisions, stakeholders must be involved throughout the planning and management processes [20]. As many stakeholders as possible should view the decision-making process as fair so that they will support the decision [20]. Stakeholder involvement in sustainability assessment is an important issue, because it can improve the quality of decision making, allow for the consideration of diverse values, promote social learning, and build trust [21; 22]. In this study, in order to normalize the presence of stakeholders who feel powerful and have a lot of interest while others feel less important when, according to the other party, the interests are actually very important, additional analysis is carried out by weighting the stakeholders. In this method, each stakeholder assesses the weights of the other stakeholders. The tool used for this peer valuation is AHP.