PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 19, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Analysis of Road Damage Handling Priorities Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method in Bandung City

View Full Paper
MMMalewa Mgaiwa MalewaRPRani Gayatri Kusumawardhani PAOAdrianto Oktavianus

Key Points

  • To develop a risk-informed prioritization model for assessing road segment maintenance needs in Bandung City.
  • Utilized Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with geometric-mean aggregation across a panel of seven experts.
  • Evaluated five decision criteria: IRI, AADT, Road Function, Safety Risk, and Rehabilitation Cost.
  • Achieved a Consistency Ratio of 0.036, confirming the superiority of group-based AHP over single-expert evaluations.
  • Identified three Critical segments warranting immediate rehabilitation based on prioritization model.
  • Safety Risk was the highest-ranked criterion with a weight of 0.467, followed by IRI with 0.234.
  • Demonstrated that condition-only approaches could lead to materially different segment rankings.

Abstract

Urban road authorities in rapidly motorizing cities must allocate scarce maintenance budgets across competing segments under multi-criteria pressure. This study develops an objective, multi-expert, risk-informed prioritization model for the 36 national road segments of Bandung City, Indonesia, using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with geometric-mean aggregation across a seven-expert panel drawn from government, academia, and practice. Five decision criteria are evaluated: International Roughness Index (IRI), Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), Road Function, a composite Safety Risk (operationalized as the interaction of normalized IRI and AADT), and a length-based Rehabilitation Cost proxy. The aggregated pairwise-comparison matrix attains a Consistency Ratio of 0.036, a 58.6% improvement over the single-expert benchmark (0.087), confirming the methodological superiority of group-based AHP. The aggregated weights place Safety Risk first (0.467), followed by IRI (0.234), AADT (0.187), Cost (0.068), and Function (0.044). Applied through weighted-linear synthesis, the model identifies three Critical segments warranting immediate rehabilitation; their designation is robust across five sensitivity scenarios. A key analytical finding is that the most physically damaged segment (Bts. Cileunyi–Nagreg I, IRI = 8.0 m/km) ranks seventh because its lowest network AADT reduces composite risk exposure, demonstrating that risk-informed multi-criteria prioritization produces materially different rankings from condition-only approaches.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Malewa et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a34dec865a5b0777af2e1cfhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20725663
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Infrastructure Development Priority Analysis of Road Networks Using the AHP Method (Study Case: Inter-District Capital Connector in Mesuji Regency, Lampung)2025 · 2 citations
  2. 2Determining Road Management Priorities Using PKRMS and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): A Case Study of Palembang, Indonesia2026
  3. 3Analysis of the Determination of the Priority Level of Road Handling Based on the Multi-Criteria Analysis Method (MCA) on Provincial Roads in Sidoarjo2025
  4. 4Road vulnarability damage level using visual model: Analysis for medium traffic loading in dense area2025
  5. 5A Safety-Oriented Road Maintenance Prioritization Analytical Framework under Methodological Uncertainty2025