sustainability
Article
Low-Cost Pavement Management System for
Developing Countries
Shabir Hussain Khahro 1,2, * , Zubair Ahmed Memon 2 , Lillian Gungat 3 , Muhamad Razuhanafi Mat Yazid 1 ,
Abdur Rahim 4 , Muhammad Mubaraki 5 and Nur Izzi Md. Yusoff 1, *






Citation: Khahro, S.H.; Memon, Z.A.;
Gungat, L.; Yazid, M.R.M.; Rahim, A.;
Mubaraki, M.; Md. Yusoff, N.I.
Low-Cost Pavement Management
System for Developing Countries.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13115941
Academic Editor: Adelino Jorge
Lopes Ferreira
Received: 29 April 2021
Accepted: 19 May 2021
Published: 25 May 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115941
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Malaysia; razuhanafi@ukm.edu.my
2 Department of Engineering Management, College of Engineering, Prince Sultan University,
Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia; zamemon@psu.edu.sa
3 Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu 88400, Malaysia; lillian@ums.edu.my
4 Department of Transportation Engineering and Management, University of Engineering & Technology
Lahore, Lahore 39161, Pakistan; rahim@uet.edu.pk
5 Faculty of Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia; mmubaraki@jazanu.edu.sa
* Correspondence: shkhahro@psu.edu.sa or P99955@ukm.edu.my (S.H.K.); izzi@ukm.edu.my (N.I.M.Y.)
Abstract: Governments face numerous challenges in sustaining road network conditions. This is
attributed to road authorities’ shortages of financial and physical infrastructure. As a result, low-cost
automated solutions are being pursued to solve these problems and provide people with appropriate
road conditions. Several attempts have been made to improve these technologies and incorporate
them into a Pavement Management System (PMS) but limited attempts are made for developing
countries. This study aimed to design a low-cost pavement management system for flexible pavement
maintenance. A detailed literature review has been carried out, followed by a qualitative assessment
of the various indicators considered for PMS. The priority ranks of the PMS indicators were made
using an Analytical Network Process (ANP) and each rank was validated by a sensitivity assessment
test using the Super Decision-Making tool. This paper also provides the conceptual framework
for the low-cost PMS, followed by a fishbone diagram of the indicators and sub-indicators. It is
concluded that an emergency maintenance plan with an ANP weight of (0.41) is one of the most
significant plans for a low-cost PMS, followed by a routine with an ANP weight of (0.39) and periodic
maintenance plans with a (0.20) ANP weight. Moreover, the functional indicators with an ANP
weight of (0.32) are the most significant indicators for a low-cost PMS, followed by structural (0.26),
safety (0.24), and serviceability(0.18) indicators. This model will assist the road planners in making
better decisions on pavement maintenance management plans. The model will suggest the pavement
sections on a higher priority to be added in the maintenance plans, especially where the maintenance
budget is limited.
Keywords: pavement management system; pavement maintenance; low-cost maintenance; analytical
network process; multi-criteria decision making
1. Introduction
Roads form an integral part of transport infrastructure. All other modes of transporta-
tion require road connectivity to supplement them. Maintaining roads and their better
condition will improve rapid access between regional and rural communities, help in
reducing poverty and, ultimately, enhance the socio-economic growth and development of
any country [1,2]. Pakistan’s transport sector contributes around 10% to its Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) annually. It creates around 2.3 million jobs (5.9% of the employed labor
force). It is reported that due to the deprived conditions of roads, reckless driving, avoiding
safety guidelines, and few other reasons, the fatality rate is 38 in 10,000 in Pakistan, which
is very high compared with other countries [3].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 2 of 17

Road reliability refers to a road’s ability to meet traffic and environmental demands
over the course of its operation and serviceability to users. Road maintenance plans include
road repair and rehabilitation to keep a healthy condition of roads within budgetary con-
straints. As a result of declines in road maintenance funding and growing environmental
challenges, road management authorities are in tough circumstances to make road repair
and reconstruction decisions [4]. To meet this gap, the concept of a Pavement Management
System (PMS) has been introduced. A PMS is a system used by road authorities to prioritize
road sections for repair and reconstruction [5–8]. It can be defined as a systematic tool for
managing, planning, and allocating budgets and scheduling all pavement maintenance
work to help road agencies make decisions [9–11].
It is reported that roads are subjected to environmental and traffic load degradation,
which requires regular and periodic maintenance of roads to keep them running. These
processes must be improved based on upcoming challenges [12,13]. All the asphalted
roads deteriorate with time, mainly due to the load of traffic and inclement weather [14].
Maintenance programs are administered using a criterion of challenges that includes
commercial intervention based on limited resources, the local climate, the type of road
classification, and political considerations. Normally, the level of roughness and the
useful life of the surface indicators determines the time and type of maintenance work [5].
It has also been reported in recent studies that developing countries’ road authorities
have shifted their focus from the design and construction of new roads to the repair and
control of the existing roads [15]. In contrast, other countries prefer to spend on modern
infrastructure, but their pace has been slow in the last decade. While it is commonly known
that road maintenance funds will be spent excessively on improving road performance,
every country, nevertheless, dedicates considerable resources to keep the roads functional
and running [16,17]. If roads are not properly and timely repaired, then the repair costs
may increase. Road maintenance plans are either overlooked or given low importance [18].
The environmental and social effects of deferred maintenance are considerable because it
affects the costs of maintenance.
The maintenance and recovery of roads are expensive. In 2008, the United States
invested an estimated USD 182 billion in federal highway infrastructure upgrades and
upkeep. Although billions are invested per year, many people believe it is inadequate [19].
According to reports, between 2008 and 2028, USD 101 billion in annual infrastructure
investments would be required to maintain all of the United States’ highways in their
current conditions. Therefore, road networks are declining further every year [20]. Early
identification of pavement distresses and preventative repair can be achieved with the
aid of technology, rather than the costlier corrective maintenance activities that would be
expected after the pavement has collapsed [21,22]. With road management authorities,
a pre-determined maintenance schedule for the life cycle of the pavement is typically
defined, depending on the area’s survey and available funds. As a consequence, limited
preventive maintenance is done to prolong the pavement life cycle, saving money for the
authority. They essentially choose the worst-case scenario, allowing the pavements to
deteriorate to the point of collapse without any preventative steps in place. To support
good decision-making, a PMS requires an accurate and efficient pavement deterioration
prediction model [23]. In addition to the prediction model, an optimization process is
needed as a basic component of a PMS to guarantee the best possible pavement conditions.
Thus, prediction models forecast future pavement conditions, allowing for the design of
optimal maintenance strategies during the service life, and thereby reducing life-cycle
costs [24].
A good PMS must be able to gather data in a reliable and repeatable way. Manual sur-
veys were used in the past for data collection, which was time-consuming and ineffective.
Automated data collection technologies, on the other hand, have been developed and con-
tinue to be a significant field of study [25]. As a deterministic regression prediction model,
regression analysis is one of the most commonly utilized instruments in several research
fields. It is also possible that many explanatory factors control the process of pavement
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 3 of 17

degradation. The usage of a multiple regression model for pavement deterioration would
be more useful [26].
The low-cost models placed tremendous stress on PMSs, which aim to align budgets
with the optimum conditions for road users. PMSs are extremely data-dependent and it can
be expensive and time-consuming to collect this data unless it can be efficiently automated.
As a consequence, road agencies are usually limited to the use of traditional manual condi-
tional surveys for identifying and tracking road network conditions [3]. This contributes to
inefficient interventions in procedures and policies. There is a clear correlation between
the number of injuries and the surface conditions [27]; hence, a common goal for all main-
tenance activities is to extend the life of the pavement. Pavement preservation activities
used to improve pavement performance prolong the life of the pavement and improve
safety. The collection and coordination of maintenance tasks is an important feature of
cost-effective maintenance during the pavement life cycle. As a multi-attribute problem,
such cases can be solved using an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a Fuzzy Analytical
Hierarchy Process (FAHP), an Analytical Network Process (ANP), and an Analytical Neural
Network (ANN) as Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Aids (MCDAs) [28].
Therefore, this study uses an ANP due to its appropriateness and finesse for such
decision-making problems. This research focuses on the design of a low-cost pavement
management system to make better decisions based on various flexible pavement health
indicators and sub-indicators discussed in the coming sections of this paper. This model can
be used in both conditions of data collection—either auto or manual road health detection.
This model will guide the decision-maker in developing countries to make rapid decisions
on pavement maintenance management work with the optimal treatment approach.

2. Research Methodology
A thorough literature review has been made for this research. The possible types
of defects that normally occur during flexible pavement maintenance management were
identified through the literature. A questionnaire was designed to get the experts’ feedback
on the most common types of defects that occur in flexible pavements. The reason for
expert input was to access the performance of the literature and field experience and to
prioritize the defects based on local conditions. In the next phase, the possible pavement
maintenance approach was also identified and reviewed by an expert in the same process
for defects. The data was collected from experts working with the National Highway
Authorities in Pakistan and the data covers all provinces of Pakistan. The questionnaire
was distributed to 65 experts via email and hard copy. Around 52 questionnaires were
successfully received from experts. Based on the nature of questions and scope, this is quite
an acceptable number for data analysis [29]. There are limited experienced staff working
on road maintenance plans and the questions were in the nature of who needs qualified
experienced staff to respond. Most of the experts were project managers, program directors,
program coordinators, directors, and site engineers. The questionnaire has three sections.
In the first section, the experts were requested to share their feedback on the PMS criteria
and alternatives using an ANP Scale, as shown in Table 1, in a pairwise matrix format.

Table 1. Scale for pairwise comparison [30].

Intensity of Importance Definition

1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between adjacent scale values
 7 Very strong importance
97 Extreme
Very strongimportance
importance
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 2, 4,96, 8 Intermediate values between adjacent scale values4 of 17
Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between adjacent scale values
In the second and third sections, the experts were requested to share their feedback
on the most
In the commonly
second occurring
and third sections, defects andwere
the experts theirrequested
possible tolow-cost treatments,
share their feedback
In the second
respectively, using and
twothird sections,
different the
scales, experts
as shown were
in requested
Figures 1 to
and share
2.
on the most commonly occurring defects and their possible low-cost treatments, their feedback on
the most commonly occurring defects and their possible low-cost
respectively, using two different scales, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. treatments, respectively,
using two different scales, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Scale for defect frequency of occurrence.

Figure 1. Scale for defect frequency of occurrence.
Figure 1. Scale for defect frequency of occurrence.

Figure 2. Scale for defect low-cost treatment type.

Figure 2. Scale for defect low-cost treatment type.
2.1. Data
Figure Collection
2. Scale and Sample
for defect low-costSize
treatment type.
2.1. Data Collection and Sample Size
The significance of calculating sample sizes is underrated. The core population is
a2.1. Data
community Collection
The significance andofSample
of experts Size with
engaged
calculating numerous
sample sizes ispavement
underrated. maintenance schemes [27].
The core population is a
The estimation
community of of a sample
experts size
engaged is often
with an important
numerous phase
pavement in the preparation
maintenance
The significance of calculating sample sizes is underrated. The core population is a schemesof research
[27]. The
studies.
estimation
community Insufficient
ofofaexperts
sampleorengaged
limited sampling
size is often sizes can
an important
with numerous make itin
phase
pavement difficult to show
the preparation
maintenance the desired
of research
schemes [27]. The
difference
studies.
estimation or to reliably
Insufficient
of a sample predict
or limited the occurrence
size is sampling of the
sizes can make
often an important event of interest.
phaseitindifficult A broad
to show the
the preparation sample
desired
of research
size couldInsufficient
difference
studies. increase the
or to reliablyorstudy’s
predictcomplexity
limited and related
the occurrence
sampling sizes of the
can costs,
make it making
event ittounfeasible.
of interest.
difficult A broad
show Any
the sample
desiredof
these
size scenarios
could increase
difference are inappropriate
the study’s
or to reliably predict and can
complexity be stopped
and related
the occurrence by the
of thecosts, investigator.
eventmaking Table 2 shows
it unfeasible.
of interest. A broad Any the
sampleof
confidence
these level
scenarios of
are the sample
inappropriate size collection
and can be for this
stopped research.
by the investigator.
size could increase the study’s complexity and related costs, making it unfeasible. Any of Table 2 shows
the confidence
these scenarioslevel of the sample and
are inappropriate size collection for this
can be stopped byresearch.
the investigator. Table 2 shows
Table 2. Sample size with confidence levels [31].
the confidence level of the sample size collection for this research.
Table 2. Sample size with confidence levels [31].
Confidence = 95% Confidence = 96%
Table 2. Sample size with confidence levelsof
Margin [31].
Population Size Confidence =Error
95% Margin of Error
Confidence = 96%
Population Size Margin
3.5% of Error
5.0%Confidence =2.5%
95% 1.0% Margin
3.5% of 2.5%
5.0% Confidence Error
= 96% 1.0%
Population10 Size 5.0% 10 3.5%
Margin10 of2.5%
Error
10 1.0%10 5.0%10 3.5%
Margin
10 2.5%
of Error
10 1.0%
10
1020 10
5.0% 19 10
3.5% 20 10
2.5% 20 10
1.0%20 1019
5.0% 20
10
3.5% 20
10
2.5% 20
10
1.0%
2030 19 28 20 29 20 29 2030 1929 29
20 30
20 30
20
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
50 44 47 48 50 47 48 49 50
30
2075
28
1963 29
2069 29
2072 30
2074
29
1967
29
20
71
30
20
73
30
20
75
50
30
100 44
2880 47
2989 48
2994 50
3099 47
2987 48
29
93 49
30
96 50
30
99
75
150
50 63
44108 69
47126 72
48137 74
148
50 67
122
47 71
135
48 73
142
49 75
149
50
200
100
75 80
63132 89
69160 94
72177 196
99
74 154
87
67 174
93
71 186
96
73 198
99
75
250 152 190 215 244 182 211 229 246
150
100 108
80 126
89 137
94 148
99 122
87 135
93 142
96 149
99
300 169 217 251 291 207 246 270 295
200
150 132
108 160
126 177
137 196
148 154
122 174
135 186
142 198
149
250
200 152
132 190
160 215
177 244
196 182
154 211
174 229
186 246
198
The300
data has been 169analyzed217 by an ANP 251 using291
Super Decisions
207 Version 270
246 2.10. The295ANP
250 152 190 215 244 182 211 229 246
analysis details are given in the next sections.
300 169 217 251 291 207 246 270 295
The data has been analyzed
2.2. Analytic Network Process (ANP) by an ANP using Super Decisions Version 2.10. The ANP
analysis
Thedetails
data has arebeen
given in the next
analyzed by ansections.
ANP using Super Decisions Version 2.10. The ANP
The ANP is an extension of T. Saaty’s well-known decision-making tool, the AHP.
analysis details are given in the next sections.
The ANP is a dependencies-focused generalized form of the AHP. The ANP approach is
2.2. Analytic Network Process (ANP)
a more generalized version of the AHP, which takes into account internal and external
2.2. Analytic
The ANP Network Process (ANP)
is an extension of T. Saaty’s well-known decision-making tool,deals
the AHP.
dependencies among the decision model’s elements and alternatives. The ANP with
The ANP is
The of
all forms a
ANPdependencies-focused
is an extension
dependencies and of generalized
T. Saaty’s
inputs form
in thewell-known of the AHP. The
decision-making
output framework ANP approach
tool, the
in a structured is a
AHP.
manner.
The
The ANP is a dependencies-focused
well-known AHP method is a subset generalized form of
of the ANP, the AHP.
which can beThe ANP approach
extremely helpfulisina
integrating linkages into a system. The ANP model’s composition is made up of clusters of
elements that are connected by their interdependence. A cluster is a collection of elements
that share a set of characteristics. Each of these clusters has at least one variable that is
linked to another cluster. The movement of control between the elements is shown by these
relations [32]. Since it can cope with all sorts of input and dependency while modeling
 all forms
all forms of of dependencies
dependencies and and inputs
inputs in in the
the output
output framework
framework in in aa structured
structured manner.
manner. The The
well-known AHP method is a subset of the ANP,
well-known AHP method is a subset of the ANP, which can be extremely helpful inwhich can be extremely helpful in
integrating linkages
integrating linkages into into aa system.
system. The The ANP
ANP model’s
model’s composition
composition is is made
made up up of
of clusters
clusters
of elements that are connected by their interdependence.
of elements that are connected by their interdependence. A cluster is a collection of A cluster is a collection of
elements that share a set of characteristics. Each of these clusters
elements that share a set of characteristics. Each of these clusters has at least one variable has at least one variable
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 5 of 17
that is
that is linked
linked to to another
another cluster.
cluster. The The movement
movement of of control
control between
between the the elements
elements is is shown
shown
by these
by these relations
relations [32].
[32]. Since
Since itit can
can cope
cope with
with allall sorts
sorts of
of input
input andand dependency
dependency while while
modeling aa dynamic
modeling dynamic decision
decision environment,
environment, the the ANP
ANP model
model cancan offer
offer aa more
more precise
precise tool
tool
for
a better
dynamic understanding
decision the
environment, essence the of
ANP trade-offs
model between
can offer
for better understanding the essence of trade-offs between different parameters than a different
more parameters
precise tool for than
better
traditional
understanding
traditional selection
selection approaches.
the approaches. In aa multi-objective
essence of trade-offs
In multi-objective and multi-stakeholder
between different
and multi-stakeholder
parameters than context, the
traditional
context, the
selection
ANP is approaches.
useful for dealingIn awith
multi-objective
interdependent and multi-stakeholder
relationships [33]. context,
Modeling thedependencies
ANP is useful
ANP is useful for dealing with interdependent relationships [33]. Modeling dependencies
forfeedback
and dealing with interdependent
between relationships
network components
components [33]. Modeling
is rendered
rendered more dependencies
easily with theand
with the ANP.feedback
As aa
and feedback between network is more easily ANP. As
between
result, the network
the ANP
ANP is components
is oneone of of theis rendered
the most more
most effective easily with
effective decision-makingthe ANP.
decision-making tools As a result,
tools [34]. the
[34]. These ANP
These
result,
is one of the most
dependencies, effective
also known
known as decision-making
feedbacks, may may bebetools [34]. These
modeled using thedependencies,
the ANP method;
method; also known
they are
dependencies, also as feedbacks, modeled using ANP they are
as feedbacks,
more realistic mayasbea modeled
and, result, using the
provide moreANP method;
reliable they are
outcomes. moredependencies
Since realistic and,will as a
more realistic and, as a result, provide more reliable outcomes. Since dependencies will
result,
exist provide
between all more
of the reliable
elements outcomes.
in the Since dependencies
judgment problem will
(i.e., exist between
alternatives, all of the
parameters,
exist between all of the elements in the judgment problem (i.e., alternatives, parameters,
elements inand
sub-criteria, the judgmentgoal), problem
the goal), the model
model (i.e.,
is alternatives,
no longer
longer linearparameters,
linear thesub-criteria,
like the AHP (Figure
(Figure and3),the goal),
which
sub-criteria, and the the is no like AHP 3), which
the model
arranges the is no
the elements longer
elements in linear
in tiers.
tiers. The like
The ANP the AHP
ANP model (Figure
model doesdoes not3), which
not need arranges
need aa hierarchy the
hierarchy since elements
since clusters
clusters in
arranges
tiers. The
replace levels ANP
levels and model
and each does
each cluster not
cluster includes need
includes nodes a hierarchy
nodes or since
or components. clusters
components. The replace
The clusters levels
clusters are and
are linked
linked by each
by aa
replace
cluster
line, includes
indicating nodes
that the or components.
elements or nodes The clusters
inside them areare
linked
linked.by a line, indicating that the
line, indicating that the elements or nodes inside them are linked.
elements or nodes inside them are linked.

Figure 3.3.AHP
Figure3. and
AHPand ANP
andANP decision
ANPdecision processes
decisionprocesses [35].
processes[35].
[35].
Figure AHP

Similarly, Figure
Figure444shows
Similarly,Figure
Similarly, shows the
showsthe influence
theinfluence matrix
influencematrix of
matrixof the
ofthe ANP
theANP model.
ANPmodel. ItItis
model.It isisthe
the generic
thegeneric
generic
thorium
thorium that
thatshows
shows the
the numeric
numeric calculation
calculationmatrices
matricesof
ofthe
theANP
ANPmodel.
thorium that shows the numeric calculation matrices of the ANP model.model.

Figure
Figure4.4.ANP
ANPinfluence
influencematrix
matrix[35].
[35].
Figure 4. ANP influence matrix [35].
There are two layers of pairwise contrast. The cluster weights are determined using
the eigenvector derived from the cluster level comparison for the control criteria. As
a consequence, each of the matrix’s columns adds up to unity. If every block in the
supermatrix comprises a column of zero elements, the column must be normalized after
being weighted by the cluster’s weights to guarantee that the column sum is unity. The
concept is similar to the Markov Chain, in which the sum of the probabilities of all states
is equal to one. This matrix is called the stochastic matrix or weighted supermatrix. The
weighted supermatrix is raised to a limiting power, such as in Equation (1), to get the global
priority vectors [33].
lim
Wk (1)
k→∞
 is equal to one. This matrix is called the stochastic matrix or weighted supermatrix. The
weighted supermatrix is raised to a limiting power, such as in Equation (1), to get the
global priority vectors [33].
lim (1)
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 6 of 17
→∞
If the supermatrix has the effect of cyclicity, there may be two or more N limiting
supermatrices. In this case, the Cesaro sum is calculated as in Equation (2) to get the
average priority
If theweights [33]. has the effect of cyclicity, there may be two or more N limiting
supermatrix
supermatrices. In this case, the Cesaro sum is calculated as in Equation (2) to get the
average priority weights [33]. 1
lim   n
1
(2)
→
lim ∑ Wi
k → ∞ N i =1
k
(2)

3. Pavement Maintenance
3. Pavement Management
Maintenance Categories
Management of the Proposed
Categories PMS PMS
of the Proposed
The PMS Theoffers
PMSreliable evidence
offers reliable and valuable
evidence data interpretation
and valuable to render
data interpretation clear, clear,
to render
cost-effective, and defensible
cost-effective, decisions
and defensible at the
decisions level
at the levelofof the networkand
the network andproject
project on
on pavement
pavement protection.
protection. The main
The main component
component of theis the
of the PMS PMSpavement’s
is the pavement’s
functional,functional,
structural, safety,
andsafety,
structural, serviceability assessments
and serviceability utilizing performance
assessments metrics. As
utilizing performance shownAs
metrics. inshown
Figure 5, this
in Figure 5, this model incorporates all forms of maintenance features needed inpavement
model incorporates all forms of maintenance features needed in a comprehensive a
maintenance
comprehensive program.
pavement maintenance program.

Figure 5.Figure 5. PMS framework

PMS framework for the PMM.
for the PMM.

3.1. Routine Maintenance (RM)

3.1. Routine Maintenance (RM)
The RM refers to a process of maintaining the foundations of pavements, shoulders,
The RM refers to a process of maintaining the foundations of pavements, shoulders,
embankments, hydraulic frameworks, drainage systems, and road furniture against the
embankments, hydraulic frameworks, drainage systems, and road furniture against the
combined effects of traffic, climate, and topography to avoid premature failures by en-
combined effects of traffic, climate, and topography to avoid premature failures by
suring the duration of road project construction existence and by providing the proactive
ensuring the duration of road project construction existence and by providing the
maintenance activities needed every year before deterioration [36]. Most preventive main-
tenance is regular maintenance. It is carried out to enhance or increase a pavement’s usable
existence. It is a surface treatment and operational technique planned to delay incremental
deficiencies and to reduce the need for regular repair and service operations.

3.2. Periodic Maintenance (PM)

The PM indicates the procedure of rebuilding pavement structures, shoulders, em-
bankments, hydraulic structures, drainage systems, and road surfaces to some minimum
appropriate structural, functional, and safety standards. It requires the remedial main-
tenance activities specified in the standard operating procedure required in any given
year following structural, functional, and safety deficiencies [36]. Periodic repair is often
a corrective treatment, and it is long-term. It is carried out after a pavement deteriorates,
such as friction failure, mild to extreme rutting, or significant cracking occurs.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941
minimum appropriate structural, functional, and safety standards. It requires the
remedial maintenance activities specified in the standard operating procedure required in
any given year following structural, functional, and safety deficiencies [36]. Periodic
repair is often a corrective treatment, and it is long-term. It is carried out after a pavement
deteriorates, such as friction failure, mild to extreme rutting, or significant cracking7 of 17
occurs.

3.3. Emergency Maintenance (EM)

3.3. Emergency Maintenance (EM)
Maintenance for emergencies is often unplanned, serious, and often detrimental. It is
always Maintenance
a mere act offordesign
emergencies is often
that causes unplanned,
the need serious, and
for maintenance often
in an detrimental.
emergency. The It is
always
whole a mere act
transport of design
network may be that causesby
affected the need for
extreme maintenance
rain, in an emergency.
mudslides, floods, hurricanes, The
whole
or transport
tropical storms.network
Emergenciesmay are
be affected by extreme
life-threatening rain,maintenance
and road mudslides, floods,
agencies hurricanes,
need
orprovide
to tropicalanstorms. Emergencies
evacuation plan for are
when life-threatening
they arise, butandtheyroad maintenance
do not arise often.agencies
It may also need to
provide
be an evacuation
an emergency planthat
condition for when
requiresthey arise,repair,
urgent but they do as
such nota arise often.
blowout or Ita may also be
serious
an emergency condition that requires urgent repair, such as a blowout
pothole. Temporary procedures intended to keep the surface together before more or a serious pothole.
Temporary
extensive procedures
repairs intended toare
can be performed keep theidentified.
often surface together before more extensive repairs
A success
can be model
performed arefor totalidentified.
often discomfort is used in several of the pavement management
schemes produced
A success by numerous
model highway organizations.
for total discomfort is used in severalThisofisthe
largely attributable
pavement to
management
knowledge scarcity and
schemes produced by data unavailability
numerous highway in each pavement segment
organizations. This is relevant to the past to
largely attributable
results of thescarcity
knowledge distress.and
Similarly, a PMS also depends
data unavailability in each on the classes
pavement and severity
segment relevant levels of past
to the
various defects
results of the pavement
the distress. encounters.
Similarly, a PMS also In this study, we
depends on designed
the classesa fishbone indicator
and severity levels of
and sub-indicator
various defects thediagram
pavement for various
encounters.categories
In thisofstudy,
defects
weconsidered
designed ainfishbone
this PMS, as
indicator
shown in Figure 6.
and sub-indicator diagram for various categories of defects considered in this PMS, as
shown in Figure 6.

ility 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

Pavementmaintenance
Figure6.6.Pavement
Figure maintenance indicators
indicators fishbone
fishbone diagram.
diagram.

4.
4.Design
DesignofofANP
ANPDecision
DecisionModel
Modelforfor
PMSPMS
The basic ANPThe model isANP
basic completed
model by specific sub-networks.
is completed The sub-networks
by specific sub-networks. are
The sub-networks are
used to model used
the key features of the problem. The most important features of the PMS
to model the key features of the problem. The most important features of the PMS
for maintenance formanagement
maintenanceof this study are
management shown
of this in are
study an ANP-based
shown in anframework
ANP-basedwithframework with
criteria and alternatives,
criteria andasalternatives,
shown in Figure 7. in Figure 7.
as shown

Figure 7. ANP model for the proposed

Figure PMS.
7. ANP model for the proposed PMS.

5. Results and Discussion

As discussed in the last sections, we assessed and evaluated each respondent’s
feedback in this research. Based on a similar methodology, each respondent’s feedback
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 8 of 17

5. Results and Discussion

As discussed in the last sections, we assessed and evaluated each respondent’s feed-
back in this research. Based on a similar methodology, each respondent’s feedback was
assessed in an ANP using the Super Decisions software tool, and the final ranking tables
were generated for criteria and alternatives. Table 3 shows the synthesized results of each
respondent’s feedback.

Table 3. Synthesized indicator values of each respondent.

Indicators
Normalized Cluster Values of
Each Respondent Functional Safety Serviceability Structural
Emergency Periodic Routine
Indicators Indicators Indicators Indicators
Q1 0.2381 0.5038 0.1478 0.1102 0.4230 0.17313 0.4038
Q2 0.6101 0.2302 0.0601 0.0996 0.3012 0.3868 0.3120
Q3 0.5123 0.1502 0.0194 0.3181 0.5520 0.0338 0.4142
Q4 0.2910 0.2112 0.1067 0.3911 0.2914 0.0965 0.6121
Q5 0.2120 0.4367 0.1101 0.2412 0.3021 0.1872 0.5107
Q6 0.2381 0.5038 0.1478 0.1102 0.4230 0.21037 0.3665
Q7 0.3130 0.2101 0.1478 0.3290 0.4931 0.1513 0.355
Q8 0.2910 0.2112 0.2712 0.2266 0.5119 0.1523 0.3358
Q9 0.4123 0.1502 0.0613 0.3762 0.3389 0.2601 0.4010
Q10 0.3130 0.2101 0.1478 0.3290 0.4021 0.1891 0.4088
Q11 0.4101 0.2302 0.0601 0.2996 0.3899 0.1594 0.4507
Q12 0.2381 0.3038 0.1478 0.3102 0.4479 0.1847 0.3674
Q13 0.5123 0.1502 0.3120 0.0255 0.6033 0.0934 0.3033
Q14 0.4381 0.3038 0.1478 0.1102 0.5581 0.1204 0.3215
Q15 0.3356 0.2112 0.2975 0.1557 0.4230 0.17313 0.4038
Q16 0.2381 0.2038 0.1478 0.4102 0.5076 0.1035 0.3889
Q17 0.3905 0.1105 0.2408 0.2582 0.7142 0.0347 0.2511
Q18 0.5123 0.1502 0.3120 0.0255 0.4495 0.1277 0.4228
Q19 0.2381 0.0714 0.1784 0.5120 0.4230 0.1731 0.4038
Q20 0.2910 0.2112 0.0986 0.3992 0.2148 0.2040 0.5812
Q21 0.6101 0.2302 0.0601 0.0996 0.3330 0.2815 0.3855
Q22 0.3913 0.1502 0.3120 0.1465 0.4495 0.1277 0.4228
Q23 0.3130 0.2101 0.1478 0.3290 0.5581 0.1204 0.3215
Q24 0.5123 0.1502 0.104 0.2328 0.3899 0.1594 0.4507
Q25 0.6101 0.2302 0.0601 0.0996 0.4230 0.1731 0.4038
Q26 0.1770 0.2873 0.1556 0.3800 0.3012 0.3868 0.3120
Q27 0.2910 0.2112 0.0266 0.4712 0.6033 0.0934 0.3033
Q28 0.3939 0.3124 0.0206 0.2731 0.4230 0.1731 0.4038
Q29 0.4101 0.2302 0.0601 0.2996 0.7142 0.0347 0.2511
Q30 0.2381 0.2038 0.1962 0.3618 0.4230 0.1731 0.4038
Q31 0.4950 0.1502 0.0428 0.312 0.2914 0.0965 0.6121
Q32 0.2018 0.2401 0.1478 0.4102 0.3389 0.2601 0.4010
Q33 0.2910 0.2112 0.4712 0.0266 0.3330 0.2815 0.3855
Q34 0.2381 0.2017 0.1478 0.4123 0.3012 0.3868 0.3120
Q35 0.6101 0.2302 0.0601 0.0996 0.6033 0.0934 0.3033
Q36 0.2381 0.2804 0.1478 0.3336 0.2914 0.0965 0.6121
Q37 0.3770 0.2873 0.1556 0.1800 0.4230 0.2103 0.3665
Q38 0.5123 0.1502 0.3120 0.0255 0.2914 0.0965 0.6121
Q39 0.2381 0.2686 0.1478 0.3454 0.5119 0.1523 0.3358
Q40 0.6101 0.2302 0.0601 0.0996 0.4479 0.1847 0.3674
Q41 0.2381 0.2038 0.1478 0.4102 0.6033 0.0934 0.3033
Q42 0.2910 0.2112 0.0712 0.4266 0.7142 0.1204 0.1654
Q43 0.2381 0.3038 0.1478 0.3102 0.4495 0.1277 0.4228
Q44 0.5123 0.1502 0.3120 0.0255 0.2148 0.2040 0.5812
Q45 0.3881 0.2302 0.0601 0.3216 0.2914 0.0965 0.6121
Q46 0.3770 0.2873 0.1556 0.1800 0.4230 0.1847 0.3922
Q47 0.2910 0.2112 0.3732 0.1246 0.5210 0.0493 0.4297
Q48 0.2381 0.2907 0.1478 0.3233 0.3012 0.3868 0.3120
Q49 0.2381 0.2038 0.1478 0.4102 0.4230 0.2103 0.3665
Q50 0.2193 0.1502 0.3120 0.3185 0.7142 0.0347 0.2511
Q51 0.2700 0.2112 0.1287 0.3901 0.2148 0.2040 0.5812
Q52 0.3101 0.2302 0.1423 0.3174 0.4423 0.1204 0.4373
Overall Average 0.3539 0.2291 0.1566 0.2602 0.4333 0.1659 0.4006
Overall Average in % 35.39 22.91 15.66 26.02 43.33 16.59 40.06
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 9 of 17

The above table shows the 52 respondents’ feedback on the criteria and indicators
for the PMS. Cumulative aggregated weights were generated for each category separately
using the Micro Soft Excel tool. Table 4 shows the synthesized weights of each criterion
and alternative considered in this study for the PMS.

Table 4. Final synthesized weights of the PMS.

Normalized by Normalized by
Goal PMS Indicators
Cluster Cluster %
Emergency 0.40727 40.727
Periodic 0.20424 20.424
Criteria
Routine 0.38849 38.849
Criterion Weight Sum 1 100%
Functional Indicators 0.323934442 32.39344423
Safety Indicators 0.23799 23.799
Alternative Serviceability Indicators 0.17797 17.797
Structural Indicators 0.26011 26.011
Alternative Weight Sum 1 100%

It was determined that the emergency plan is a significant plan for any low-cost
pavement management system for a developing country because it assures safe traffic flow,
as it is also reported by [37–39]. Due to road conditions, numerous accidents take place, and,
in such cases, the road network gets blocked and prompt emergency response is required
from all the state service-providing agencies, including the road management authority.
Such cases should be covered under emergency pavement maintenance management plans.
The recommencement of traffic flow is the key consideration of any road management
authority in such cases, and therefore, emergency pavement maintenance management
plans are given higher preferences by the experts. Second, routine maintenance plans are
given priority, as also reported by [37,38]. The routine maintenance plans are short-term
plans and can be managed within limited finances, as the pavement maintenance activities
are normal, low-cost, and their scale is also limited. The periodic maintenance plans
are third in priority; they are long-term plans and they require higher finances because
pavement maintenance activities are of higher scope, time, and cost, as reported in [37,38].
These are long-term plans that include major rehabilitation of the affected sections and
other activities.

6. Sensitivity Analysis of the Ranks

The objective of sensitivity analysis is to determine how changes in the numerical
information of an ANP decision model affect the weight of the model’s alternatives. The
numerical data involved could be information directly supplied to the model, such as
pairwise data [40]. The ANP’s sensitivity study is more sophisticated and accurate than the
AHP’s. Each node in the ANP may be connected to another node, while in the AHP, only
one criterion weight can be changed; an isolated node must be specified to a parent node.
Sensitivity tests look at how a model responds to various sources of variance, such as the
input dataset, the parameters chosen, and the predictions created [41]. Such assessments
enable decision-makers to assess a degree of trust in the model performance, allowing
them to consider and calculate confidence intervals in the modeling results [42]. In a
multi-criteria decision problem, they may also expose the relationships between input and
output parameters [43]. Sensitivity analysis can be done by Super Decision. The sensitivity
test is conducted phase-wise and the different incremental percentage is added in the
decision to observe the possible variations in the overall decision indicators. As per the
ANP sensitivity thorium, the variations in the indicators should be observed at different
percentage increments in the main indicator, which is the PMS in this case. Figure 8 shows
the results of 10% and 20% increments in the model.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941
allowing them to consider and calculate confidence intervals in the modeling results [42].
In a multi-criteria decision problem, they may also expose the relationships between input
and output parameters [43]. Sensitivity analysis can be done by Super Decision. The
sensitivity test is conducted phase-wise and the different incremental percentage is added
in the decision to observe the possible variations in the overall decision indicators. As per 10 of 17
the ANP sensitivity thorium, the variations in the indicators should be observed at
different percentage increments in the main indicator, which is the PMS in this case.
Figure 8 shows the results of 10% and 20% increments in the model.

P M S I N D I C ATORS
Functional Indicator Structural Indicator
Safety Indicator Serviceability Indicator

0.327
0.326
0.324

0.26

0.26

0.26
0.238

0.237
0.236

0.178

0.176

0.175
ANP SCORE

0% INCREMENT 10% INCREMENT 20% INCREMENT

SENSITIVITY INCREMENT

Figure
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Sensitivityassessment
8. Sensitivity
Figure 8. assessment of the
of the PMS.
PMS. 11 of 18

The generic sensitivity overall model for the PMS is a normalized model, as the
parameter is zero.
The generic So, in theoverall
sensitivity first phase,
model afor 10%theincrement
PMS is a was added model,
normalized in the main
as theindicator
and the possible variations in the sub-indicators were observed. It has
parameter is zero. So, in the first phase, a 10% increment was added in the main indicator been observed that
there
and thewas no variation
possible variations in in
thethedecisions. In contrast,
sub-indicators it was determined
were observed. that thethat
It has been observed functional
and
thereserviceability indicators
was no variation had some
in the decisions. In changes inwas
contrast, it the determined
weights, which
that thewere minor because
functional
there was no change
and serviceability in thehad
indicators ranks.
someAll the ranks
changes in the were
weights,thewhich
samewereand minor
there because
was no change
there
in thewas no change
indicator in the
ranks, soranks.
it canAllbethe ranks were
concluded thethe
that same and there
decision wasfine,
was no change in was no
as there
the indicator
variation ranks, in
observed so the
it can be concluded At
sub-indicators. that the decision
a 20% was there
increment, fine, as
was there was novariation
no major
variation observed
observed. in the sub-indicators.
It was determined that theAt a 20% increment,
functional, safety,there
and was no major variation
serviceability indicators had
observed. It was determined that the functional, safety, and
some minor changes in the weights but there was no change in the ranks. serviceability indicators
Allhad
final ranks
some minor changes in the weights but there was no change in the ranks. All final ranks
were the same and there was no change in the sub-indicator ranks. Figure 9 shows the
were the same and there was no change in the sub-indicator ranks. Figure 9 shows the
ANP model for the emergency phase.
ANP model for the emergency phase.

E M E RG E N C Y P H A S E
Functional Indicator Structural Indicator
Safety Indicator Serviceability Indicator
0.332
0.331
0.33

0.261

0.261

0.26

0.238
0.237

0.237
0.172

0.172
ANP SCORE

0.17

0% INCREMENT 10% INCREMENT 20% INCREMENT

SENSITIVITY INCREMENT

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Sensitivity
Sensitivityassessment of the
assessment emergency
of the phase.
emergency phase.

The generic
The genericsensitivity overall
sensitivity model
overall modelfor the
foremergency phase phase
the emergency is a normalized model, model,
is a normalized
as the parameter is zero. So, in the first phase, a 10% increment was added in the main
as the parameter is zero. So, in the first phase, a 10% increment was added in the main
indicator and the possible variations in the sub-indicators were observed. It has been
indicator and the possible variations in the sub-indicators were observed. It has been
observed that there was no variation in the decisions. In contrast, it was determined that
observed thatand
the functional there was no variation
serviceability indicators in
hadthe decisions.
some changes inInthe
contrast,
weights, it waswere
which determined
that
minor because there was no change in the ranks. All the ranks were the same and there which
the functional and serviceability indicators had some changes in the weights,
were
was no minor
changebecause there was
in the indicator nosochange
ranks, it can bein the ranks.
concluded All decision
that the the rankswaswere the same
fine, as
there was no variation observed in the sub-indicators. At a 20% increment, there was no
major variation observed. It was determined that the functional, safety, and serviceability
indicators had some minor changes in the weights but there was no change in the ranks.
All final ranks were the same and there was no change in the sub-indicators rank. Figure
10 shows the ANP model for the periodic phase.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 11 of 17

and there was no change in the indicator ranks, so it can be concluded that the decision
was fine, as there was no variation observed in the sub-indicators. At a 20% increment,
there was no major variation observed. It was determined that the functional,
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 ofsafety,
19 and
serviceability indicators had some minor changes in the weights but there was no change
in the ranks. All final ranks were the same and there was no change in the sub-indicators
rank. Figure 10 shows the ANP model for the periodic phase.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

PE R IODIC PH ASE
PER
Functional IODIC
Indicator PStructural
HA S E Indicator
Functional
Safety Indicator
Indicator Structural Indicator
Serviceability Indicator

0.3310.331
Safety Indicator Serviceability Indicator
0.33 0.33

0.33 0.33
0.2610.261

0.26 0.26

0.26 0.26
0.2370.237

0.2350.235

0.2350.235
0.1730.173

0.1730.173
0.1720.172
SCORE
SCORE
ANPANP

0% INCREMENT 10% INCREMENT 20% INCREMENT

0% INCREMENT SENSITIVITY
1 0 % I N C RINCREMENT
EMENT 20% INCREMENT
SENSITIVITY INCREMENT

Figure Sensitivityassessment
10. Sensitivity
Figure 10. assessment of the
of the periodic
periodic phase.
phase.
Figure 10. Sensitivity assessment of the periodic phase.
The genericsensitivity
The generic sensitivityoverall
overall model
model forfor
thethe periodic
periodic phase
phase is a normalized
is a normalized model, model, as
the parameter
as the
Theparameter is at zero. It has
is at zero.overall
generic sensitivity been
It hasmodel observed
been observed that there
that there
for the periodic was
phasewas no
is anovariation in
variation model,
normalized the
in the decisions
at
asathe
10%parameter
decisions increment.
at a 10% In zero.
contrast,
increment.
is at In
It hasit was
been determined
contrast, it was that
determined
observed that onlywas
there theno
that functional
onlyvariation indicators
the functional
in the had
indicators
some
decisions had
changes
at some
in the
a 10% changes
weights,
increment. inIn
the
whichweights,
were
contrast, itwhich
minor
was were minor
and,
determined thus,and,
that thus,
there
only wasthere
the nowas
change
functionalno in the
change
ranks. in the
All
indicators the
had ranks.
ranks
some All the ranks
were
changes the were
same
in the the
and
weights,same andwas
there
which thereno
were was noand,
change
minor change
in in there
the
thus, the indicator
indicator
was no ranks, so
ranks,
change
there so
was there
in the was
no ranks. no
variation variation
All the observed
ranks were
observed in the sub-indicators.
thesub-indicators.
in the same and there was It has
no been
It has been
change observed that
in the indicator
observed that there was
there
ranks,
no was
major no major
so there was novariation
variation invariation inobserved
the decisions
the decisions at in 20%at
a the a 20% increment.
sub-indicators.
increment. It has
In In
beencontrast,
contrast, observed
it wasit determined
was
that
determined
there was nothat the variation
major functionalinand the serviceability
decisions at indicators
a 20% had some
increment. In changes it
contrast, in was
the
that the functional and serviceability indicators had some changes in the weights, which
weights, which were minor and, thus, there was no change in thehad
ranks. Allchanges
the ranksinwere
were minor and, thus, there was no change in the ranks. All the ranks were thethe
determined that the functional and serviceability indicators some same and
the same which
weights, and there
werewas minorno change
and, thus,in the sub-indicators
there was no change ranks.
in theFigure
ranks.11 Allshows the ANP
the ranks were
there
model was no routine
forand
the changephase.in the sub-indicators ranks. Figure 11 shows the ANP model for the
the same there was no change in the sub-indicators ranks. Figure 11 shows the ANP
routine phase.
model for the routine phase.
ROUTINE PH ASE
FunctionalROU T I N E PStructural
Indicator H A S E Indicator
Functional
Safety Indicator
Indicator Structural Indicator
Serviceability Indicator
0.3310.331

0.3310.331

Safety Indicator Serviceability Indicator

0.33 0.33

0.2610.261

0.2610.261

0.2610.261
0.2370.237

0.2370.237

0.2370.237
0.1720.172

0.1720.172

0.1710.171
SCORE
SCORE
ANPANP

0% INCREMENT 10% INCREMENT 20% INCREMENT

0% INCREMENT SENSITIVITY
1 0 % I N C RINCREMENT
EMENT 20% INCREMENT
SENSITIVITY INCREMENT
Figure 11. Sensitivity assessment of the routine phase.
Figure 11.
Figure 11. Sensitivity
Sensitivityassessment
assessmentof the routine
of the phase.
routine phase.
The generic sensitivity overall model for the routine phase is a normalized model, as
the parameter
The genericis zero. It has overall
sensitivity been observed
model forthat
thethere wasphase
routine no variation in the decisions
is a normalized at
model, as
the parameter is zero. It has been observed that there was no variation in the decisions at
a 10% increment. In contrast, it was determined that only the functional indicators had
some changes in the weights, which were minor and, thus, there was no change in the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 12 of 17

The generic sensitivity overall model for the routine phase is a normalized model, as
the parameter is zero. It has been observed that there was no variation in the decisions at
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEWa 10% increment. In contrast, it was determined that only the functional 13 ofindicators
18 had
some changes in the weights, which were minor and, thus, there was no change in the
ranks. It has been observed that there was no major variation in the decisions at a 20%
ranks. It has been observed that there was no major variation in the decisions at a 20%
increment.
ranks. It has In observed
contrast, that
it was determined thatvariation
the functional and serviceability
at a 20% indicators
increment. Inbeen
contrast, there
it was determined was nothe
that major
functional andinserviceability
the decisions indicators
had
increment. someIn change
contrast, in
it the
was weights,
determined which
that was
the minor
functional and,
and
had some change in the weights, which was minor and, thus, there was no change in thus, there
serviceability was nothe
indicators change in the
had ranks.
some All
changethe ranks
in the were
weights, the same
which wasand there
minor was
and, no
thus, change
there in
was
ranks. All the ranks were the same and there was no change in the sub-indicators ranks. the
no sub-indicators
change in the ranks. It
is
ranks. concluded
All the ranksthat the
were decision
the same
It is concluded that the decision is valid. is
and valid.
there was no change in the sub-indicators ranks.
In the
It is concluded
In the next
that
next phase,
the
phase, the the
decision assessment
is of decision
valid. of decision
assessment waswas analyzed
analyzed withwith indicators
indicators by by keeping
keepingIn the
one onenext
indicator phase,
indicator as the
as zero, assessment
and
zero, andthethe of decision
effects
effectson otherwas
onother analyzed
indicators
indicators with
were
were indicators
observed
observed at at by
10%10% and 20%
keeping
and 20% one
variations indicator
variations
in the as decision
in the zero, and
decision the effects
weights
weights on selected
on the
on the other indicators
selected indicators.were observed
Figure
indicators. at shows
12 shows
Figure 12 10%
the the ANP
andmodel
ANP 20% variations
model forthe
for in the decision
the functional
functional weights on the selected indicators. Figure 12 shows the
indicators.
indicators.
ANP model for the functional indicators.
REFERENCE INDICATOR (FUNCTIONAL)
REFERENCE INDICATOR (FUNCTIONAL)
0.393

0.357
0.355

0.326
0.393

0.322

0.295
0.357
0.355

0.4

0.326
0.252

0.322
0.229

0.295
0.4

0.210.21
0.252

0.168
0.3
0.229

0.168
0.092
0.3
0.2
0.092

0.2
0.1
0 0

0.1
0
0 0% Increment 10% Increment 20% Increment
0% Increment 10% Increment 20% Increment
Serviceability Indicator Safety Indicator
Serviceability Indicator Safety Indicator
Structural Indicator Functional Indicator
Structural Indicator Functional Indicator
Figure 12. Sensitivity assessment of the functional indicators.
Figure 12. Sensitivity assessment of the functional indicators.
Figure 12. Sensitivity assessment of the functional indicators.
The The generic
generic sensitivity
sensitivity model model
for the for
PMSthe withPMS withreference
specific specific to reference to one selected
one selected
indicator
The and
generic the normalized
sensitivity model model
for the with
PMS weights
with of
specific
indicator and the normalized model with weights of other indicators is given. The other indicators
reference to is
one given.
selected The selected
indicator
indicator will be zero, as its effect will be observed over the other indicators. As per the As per the
and will
the be zero,
normalized as its
model effect
with will
weights be observed
of other over
indicators the
is other
given. indicators.
The selected
ANP ANP
indicator sensitivity
will
sensitivity zero, thorium,
be thorium, as its
theeffectthe
willvariations
variations beinobserved inover
the the
the indicators indicators
other
will will beatobserved
be indicators.
observed per the at different
Asdifferent
ANP sensitivity
percentage
percentage thorium,
increments
increments thein
in the variations
the selected
selected in the
indicator, indicators
indicator,
which was willfunctional
which
the be observed
was at different
the functional
indicator inindicator
this in this
percentage
case. So, in
case. increments
the
So, infirst
thephase,in phase,
first the selected
a 10% indicator,
increment
a 10% which
followed
increment was
by 20%
followedthe functional
increment indicator
was
by 20% increment added inin this
was theadded in the
case. So, indicator
selected
selectedin the first
and
indicator phase,
the
and a the
10%possible
possible increment
variations followed by
in the other
variations 20% increment
indicators
in the other werewas added
wereItinobserved.
observed.
indicators the
was It was
selected
observed indicator
that thereandwasthenopossible
major variations
variation inin the
the other indicators
decisions observed.
observed that there was no major variation in the decisions observed. In contrast, it waswere Inobserved.
contrast, It
it was
observed that
evaluated thatthere
there was
wasno major change
a was
minor variation ininthe the decisions the
weights observed. In contrast,
but theseit new
was
evaluated that there a minor change in the of
weights indicators
of the indicators but these new
evaluated
weights dothat
not there was the
influence a minor change
indicator in the
ranks. Allweights
the ranks ofwere
the indicators
the same and but these
there new
was
weights do not influence the indicator ranks. All the ranks were the same and there was no
weights
no change do not
in theinfluence
indicatorthe indicator
ranks. After ranks. All theatranks
looking were the
the results ofsame and there
the 10% and 20%was
no change
change in
increments,
in the
it the
indicator ranks.
can indicator
ranks. After
be concluded that
After looking
looking at the results
the decisionatisthe
results of the
validated. of
the 10% and
Figure 10% and 20%
13 shows 20%
the
increments,
it can be
increments,results
increment concluded
it canforbethe that
concluded the decisionthe decision is validated. Figure 13 shows the results for
is
that indicator.
serviceability validated. Figure 13 shows the increment
the serviceability indicator.
increment results for the serviceability indicator.
REFERENCE INDICATOR (SERVICEABILITY)
0.399

REFERENCE INDICATOR (SERVICEABILITY)

0.384

0.370.37
0.399
0.315

0.384
0.303

0.291
0.286

0.274

0.264

0.4
0.315

0.303

0.291
0.286

0.274

0.264

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.076

0.2
0.039

0.076

0.2
0.039

0.1
0 0

0.1
0
0 0% Increment 10% Increment 20% Increment
0% Increment 10% Increment 20% Increment
Serviceability Indicator Safety Indicator
Serviceability Indicator Safety Indicator
Structural Indicator Functional Indicator
Structural Indicator Functional Indicator
Figure 13. Sensitivity assessment of the serviceability indicators.
Figure
Figure 13. Sensitivity
13. Sensitivity assessment
assessment of the serviceability
of the serviceability indicators.
indicators.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 13 of 17

So, in the first phase, a 10% increment was added, followed by 20% in the selected
indicator,
So, in and the phase,
the first possible variations
a 10% incrementin the
wasother indicators
added, followedwere by 20% observed. It was
in the selected
So,
observed that
indicator, in the
andthere first
the was phase, a 10%
no variation
possible variationsincrement
in the was
in decisions.added,
the other In followed
contrast, were
indicators by 20% in
it was observed. theIt selected
evaluated that all
was
indicator,
indicatorsthat
observed and
hadtherethe
somewaspossible
changes variations
in the in
no variation in
weights,the other indicators
which were
the decisions. were observed.
minor.itAll
In contrast, wasthe It was
ranks were
evaluated observed
that the
all
thatand
there waswasno variation in the decisions. In contrast,
same
indicators there
had some no change
changes in in the
the indicator
weights, which weresoitminor.
ranks, was
it canevaluated that allthat
be concluded
All the ranks indicators
were the
had
decisionsome
is changes
normalized. in the weights,
Figure 14 which
shows thewere
ANP minor.
modelAllforthe ranks
the safetywere the same
indicators. and there
same and there was no change in the indicator ranks, so it can be concluded that the
was no change in the indicator ranks, so it can be concluded that the decision is normalized.
decision is normalized. Figure 14 shows the ANP model for the safety indicators.
Figure 14 shows the ANP model for the safety indicators.
REFERENCE INDICATOR (SAFETY)
REFERENCE INDICATOR (SAFETY)

0.435

0.387
0.410.41
0.5

0.343
0.435

0.323

0.305
0.387
0.5
0.4

0.343

0.323
0.222

0.209

0.305
0.198
0.4
0.3
0.222

0.209

0.198
0.110.11
0.058
0.3
0.2

0.058
0.2
0.1
0

0.10
0

0 0% Increment 10% Increment 20% Increment

0% Increment 10% Increment 20% Increment
Serviceability Indicator Safety Indicator
Serviceability Indicator
Structural Indicator Safety Indicator
Functional Indicator
Structural Indicator Functional Indicator
Figure 14. Sensitivity assessment of the safety indicators.
Figure 14. Sensitivity assessment of the safety indicators.
Figure 14. Sensitivity assessment of the safety indicators.
So, So,
in the firstfirst
in the phase, a 10%
phase, increment
a 10% increment waswasadded, followed
added, by by
followed 20%20%in the selected
in the selected
indicator,
indicator, and the possible variations in the other indicators were observed. It wasItobserved
So, in and
the the
first possible
phase, a variations
10% incrementin the
was other indicators
added, followed were
by observed.
20% in the was
selected
observed
indicator, that
that there there
andwas was no
thenopossible major variation
variations
major variation observed
in the in
observed other in the decisions.
indicatorsInwere
the decisions. In contrast,
observed.
contrast, It was
it
it was evaluated
evaluated
observed that
that allthat all indicators
there was
indicators hadno had
major
some some changes
variation
changes in the
observed
in the weights
weightsin the
but but all ranks
alldecisions.
ranks were were
In the the
contrast, same.
same. itHence,
was it
Hence,
evaluated
can beit concluded
can
that be concluded
all indicators that
that thehad the decision
some
decision changes
is is the
in
normalized.normalized. Figure
weights15but
Figure 15 shows
all ranks
shows the thesame.
weremodel
ANP the ANP
for the
model
Hence, for theindicators.
it can
structural structural
be concluded indicators.
that the decision is normalized. Figure 15 shows the ANP
model for the structural indicators.
REFERENCE INDICATOR (STRUCTURAL)
0.449

REFERENCE INDICATOR (STRUCTURAL)

0.419

0.394

0.5
0.449

0.419
0.322

0.394
0.281

0.5
0.4
0.3 0.3
0.322
0.229

0.214

0.201
0.281

0.4
0.3
0.229

0.214

0.124
0.201

0.3
0.066

0.2
0.124
0.066

0.2
0.1
0

0.10
0

0 0% Increment 10% Increment 20% Increment

0% Increment 10% Increment 20% Increment
Serviceability Indicator Safety Indicator
Serviceability Indicator
Structural Indicator Safety Indicator
Functional Indicator
Structural
Figure 15. Sensitivity Indicator
assessment Functionalindicators.
of the structural Indicator
Figure 15. Sensitivity assessment of the structural indicators.
So, in the first phase, a 10% increment was added, followed by 20% in the selected
Figure 15. Sensitivity assessment of the structural indicators.
indicator,
So, in the and thephase,
first possible variations
a 10% in thewas
increment other indicators
added, were by
followed observed.
20% in Itthe
was observed
selected
that there
indicator, were no major variations observed in the decisions. In contrast, it was evaluated
So, in and the phase,
the first possible variations
a 10% increment in the
wasother indicators
added, followedwere
by 20% observed. It was
in the selected
that allthat
indicators had no
some changes in theobserved
weights but all decisions.
ranks wereInthe same. itHence, it
indicator, and the possible variations in the other indicators were observed. It was
observed there were major variations in the contrast,
can be concluded
evaluatedthat
thatthere that
all indicatorsthe decision is normalized.
observed were no had some
major changes
variations in the weights
observed but all ranks
in the decisions. were the itsame.
In contrast, was
As
Hence, it can in all possible cases and comparisons, there was no major change observed in the
evaluated thatbeallconcluded
indicatorsthat
hadthe
somedecision
changes is normalized.
in the weights but all ranks were the same.
weight, hence the final decision was fine after the detailed sensitivity assessment, so the
Hence, it can be concluded that the decision is normalized.
final ANP decision ranks were final and validated for the model.
After the ranks validation, the final synchronized model is shown in Figure 16 for the
low-cost PMS for pavement maintenance management proposed in this study.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941
As in all possible cases and comparisons, there was no major change observed in the
weight, hence the final decision was fine after the detailed sensitivity assessment, so the
final ANP decision ranks were final and validated for the model. 14 of 17
After the ranks validation, the final synchronized model is shown in Figure 16 for the
low-cost PMS for pavement maintenance management proposed in this study.

Figure
Figure 16.
16. The
Theproposed
proposedPMS
PMS framework.
framework.

The model
The model was was initiated
initiated with
with aa clear
clear goal
goal to to achieve
achieve thethe optimal
optimal decision
decision on on the
the
priority of the
priority the pavement
pavementsectionsectiontotobebeplaced
placed first, based
first, on on
based thethe
various indicators
various and and
indicators sub-
indicators discussed
sub-indicators discussedin theinearlier sectionssections
the earlier of this paper.
of thisAn updated
paper. An pavement investor is
updated pavement
very important
investor is very to execute to
important this model.this
execute Themodel.
updated Thepavement section details
updated pavement willdetails
section assist
the decision-maker to make the pavement section health assessment
will assist the decision-maker to make the pavement section health assessment and, based and, based on the
pavement condition, indices will be created. The pavement condition
on the pavement condition, indices will be created. The pavement condition indices’ ranks indices’ ranks will be
aligned with the indicators and sub-indicators suggested in
will be aligned with the indicators and sub-indicators suggested in the model in this the model in this paper. The
pavement
paper. Thesections
pavement willsections
be prioritized
will bebased on thebased
prioritized defecton typetheand financial
defect type assessment
and financial of
the requiredofpossible
assessment treatment
the required types treatment
possible of the identified
types defect.
of the In the next defect.
identified phase, the decision
In the next
validation
phase, will takevalidation
the decision place and will if theretakeare major
place and variations
if there areobserved, the decision
major variations will be
observed,
referred back to the section severity assessment phase to revise
the decision will be referred back to the section severity assessment phase to revise the the sections and treatment
strategies.
sections andIntreatment
the case of no majorInchange,
strategies. the casethe of pavement decisionthe
no major change, will be validated
pavement and
decision
forwarded for implementation. It is also fundamental for
will be validated and forwarded for implementation. It is also fundamental for any any decision support model to
observe the performance of the decision, so it is significant to monitor
decision support model to observe the performance of the decision, so it is significant to the decision during
the implementation
monitor the decision phase duringand the in case of any change,
implementation phase proper remedial
and in case of anyaction
change, should
proper be
taken to avoid any major problems on the project. Similarly,
remedial action should be taken to avoid any major problems on the project. Similarly, ifif one pavement section is
properly finalized, it is decent to record the feedback from various
one pavement section is properly finalized, it is decent to record the feedback from various key stakeholders on the
project to improve the performance of the decision support model.
key stakeholders on the project to improve the performance of the decision support
model.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
An efficient pavement management system has the potential to support pavement
management authorities to make optimal decisions in developed countries. This paper
suggests a PMS for making optimal decisions on pavement section selection. The indicators
and sub-indicators in the model are prioritized for low cost and the model will assist in
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 15 of 17

prioritizing the pavement sections, especially in developing countries like Pakistan. It

is concluded in this paper that for a low-cost PMS, the emergency plan is a substantial
plan for any low-cost pavement management scheme for the developing world, as it
ensures safer traffic flow. Numerous accidents occur as a result of poor road conditions,
and in such situations, the road network becomes blocked, necessitating an immediate
emergency response from all state service companies, including the road management
authority. Emergency pavement maintenance control programs should cover all situations.
In such situations, the resumption of traffic flow is the most important concern for any
road management authority, so emergency pavement maintenance management proposals
are given higher priority by experts.
It is also concluded that routine maintenance plans stand as the second main indicator.
Routine maintenance plans are short-term plans and can be managed within limited
finances, as the pavement maintenance activities are normal and low cost, and their scale is
also limited. The periodic maintenance programs, on the other hand, stand third in priority,
and these are long-term plans. They need more funds because pavement maintenance
operations are larger in scale, time, and expense. There are long-term programs that
require a significant portion of recovery as well as other operations. A detailed sensitivity
assessment was carried out for this study and it is concluded that the final ranks of the
indicators and sub-indicators used in the PMS are validated, as there were no significant
differences in the weights observed. So, the final ranks derived from the ANP model
are absolute.
It is recommended that this model is utilized in low-income countries where pavement
management authorities are facing financial challenges to maintain the existing road
network in any country. The indicators of the proposed PMS were selected solely on their
occurrence and the repair techniques or their cost. The repair techniques suggested in
the decisions will be based on the defects and their possible cheap treatments to maintain
road functionality and services. The indicator and sub-indicator ranks may slightly vary
from country to country, but this PMS will assist the decision-makers in prioritizing the
pavement sections in any maintenance plan.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Write up, S.H.K. Software,
Supervision, Z.A.M.; Validation, L.G., Review, Feedback & Editing, M.R.M.Y., A.R., M.M.; Supervision
and Project Administration, N.I.M.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The authors are thankful to Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for providing
financial assistance (Article Processing Charges) and scholarly support for this publication.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy purposes and permissions
from the concerned departments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. The Economic Times. Why Transport Infrastructure Is Most Important for Country’s Progress. 2016. Available online:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/why-transport-infrastructure-is-most-important-for-countrys-progress/articleshow/
50865730.cms (accessed on 10 February 2016).
2. Chandio, I.A.; Matori, A.N.B.; Wanyusof, K.B.; Talpur, M.A.H.; Khahro, S.H.; Mokhtar, M.R.M. Computer Application in Routing
of Road using Least-Cost Path Analysis in Hillside Development. Res. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 4, 907–911.
3. Yusufzai, A. NHA Increases Toll Rates Across Pakistan. 2018. Available online: https://propakistani.pk/2018/08/03/nha-
increases-toll-rates-across-pakistan/ (accessed on 3 August 2018).
4. Manosalvas-Paredes, M.; Roberts, R.; Barriera, M.; Mantalovas, K. Towards more sustainable pavement management practices
using embedded sensor technologies. Infrastructures 2020, 5, 4. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 16 of 17

5. Alam, S.; Kumar, A. “Road Use Phase” Environmental Indicator for Sustainable Pavement Management System. In Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements; Research Publishing: Singapore, 2016;
pp. 756–764.
6. Bernas, M.; Płaczek, B.; Korski, W.; Loska, P.; Smyła, J.; Szymała, P. A survey and comparison of low-cost sensing technologies for
road traffic monitoring. Sensors 2018, 18, 3243. [CrossRef]
7. Roberts, R.; Giancontieri, G.; Inzerillo, L.; Di Mino, G. Towards Low-Cost Pavement Condition Health Monitoring and Analysis
Using Deep Learning. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 319. [CrossRef]
8. Bidgoli, M.A.; Golroo, A.; Nadjar, H.S.; Rashidabad, A.G.; Ganji, M.R. Road roughness measurement using a cost-effective
sensor-based monitoring system. Autom. Constr. 2019, 104, 140–152. [CrossRef]
9. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Pavement Management Guide; American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
10. Merritt, D.K.; Lyon, C.; Persaud, B. Evaluation of Pavement Safety Performance; United States. Federal Highway: McLean, VA,
USA, 2015.
11. Ceylan, H.; Gopalakrishnan, K.; Kim, S.; Taylor, P.C.; Prokudin, M.; Buss, A.F. Highway Infrastructure Health Monitoring Using
Micro-Electromechanical Sensors And Systems (Mems). J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 19, S188–S201. [CrossRef]
12. Henning, T.F.P.; Alabaster, D.; Arnold, G.; Liu, W. Relationship between Traffic Loading and Environmental Factors and
Low-Volume Road Deterioration. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2014, 2433, 100–107. [CrossRef]
13. Inzerillo, L.; Di Mino, G.; Roberts, R. Image-based 3D reconstruction using traditional and UAV datasets for analysis of road
pavement distress. Autom. Constr. 2018, 96, 457–469. [CrossRef]
14. Salas, M.Á.; Pérez-Acebo, H.; Calderón, V.; Gonzalo-Orden, H. Bitumen modified with recycled polyurethane foam for employ-
ment in hot mix asphalt. Ing. Investig. 2018, 38, 60–66. [CrossRef]
15. Xiong, H.; Shi, Q.; Tao, X.; Wang, W. A Compromise Programming Model for Highway Maintenance Resources Allocation
Problem. Math. Probl. Eng. 2012, 2012, 178651. [CrossRef]
16. Lee, E.-B.; Thomas, D.K.; Alleman, D. Incorporating Road User Costs into Integrated Life-Cycle Cost Analyses for Infrastructure
Sustainability: A Case Study on Sr-91 Corridor Improvement Project (Ca). Sustainability 2018, 10, 179. [CrossRef]
17. Giunta, M.; Bressi, S.; D’Angelo, G. Life cycle cost assessment of bitumen stabilised ballast: A novel maintenance strategy for
railway track-bed. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 751–759. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, Y.; Mohsen, J. A Project-Based Sustainability Rating Tool for Pavement Maintenance. Engineering 2018, 4, 200–208.
[CrossRef]
19. Schnebele, E.; Tanyu, B.F.; Cervone, G.; Waters, N.M. Review of remote sensing methodologies for pavement management and
assessment. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2015, 7, 7. [CrossRef]
20. ASCE. Report Card for Infrastructure; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2013.
21. Duong, N.S.; Blanc, J.; Hornych, P.; Bouveret, B.; Carroget, J.; Le feuvre, Y. Continuous strain monitoring of an instrumented
pavement section. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2019, 20, 1435–1450. [CrossRef]
22. Blanc, J.; Hornych, P.; Duong, N.S.; Blanchard, J.-Y.; Nicollet, P. Monitoring of an experimental motorway section. Road Mater.
Pavement Des. 2017, 20, 74–89. [CrossRef]
23. Hassan, R.; Lin, O.; Thananjeyan, A. A comparison between three approaches for modelling deterioration of five pavement
surfaces. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2017, 18, 26–35. [CrossRef]
24. Dong, Q.; Huang, B.; Richards, S.H. Calibration and Application of Treatment Performance Models in a Pavement Management
System in Tennessee. J. Transp. Eng. 2015, 141, 04014076. [CrossRef]
25. Alyami, Z.; Farashah, M.K.; Tighe, S.L. Selection of Automated Data Collection Technologies Using Multi Criteria Decision
Making Approach for Pavement Management Systems. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering, 2012: Leadership in Sustainable Infrastructure, Montreal, QC, Canada, 5–8 June 2012; Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering (CSCE): Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012; pp. 1712–1721.
26. Suharman, H. Development of a Practical Model for Pavement Management Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Kyoto University, Kyoto,
Japan, 2012.
27. Radopoulou, S.C.; Brilakis, I. Improving Road Asset Condition Monitoring. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 3004–3012. [CrossRef]
28. Ozdemir, M.S. Validity and inconsistency in the analytic hierarchy process. Appl. Math. Comput. 2005, 161, 707–720. [CrossRef]
29. Daud, S.M.; Ramli, R.; Kasim, M.M.; Kayat, K.; Razak, R.A. The use of arithmetic average method in identifying critical success
criteria for Homestay Programmes. In Innovation and Analytics Conference and Exhibition (IACE 2015), Proceedings of the 2nd
Innovation and Analytics Conference & Exhibition, Kedah, Malaysia, 29 September–1 October 2015; AIP Conference Proceedings:
College Park, MD, USA, 2015; Volume 1691, p. 050006. [CrossRef]
30. Saaty, T.L. Analytic Network Process. In Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science; Springer: New York, NY,
USA, 2011.
31. Boyd, P.C.; Manheim, P.; Buhsmer, K. The Research Advisors. Available online: https://www.research-advisors.com/tools/
SampleSize.htm (accessed on 29 April 2021).
32. Saaty, T.L. Decision making—The Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2004, 13, 1–35.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5941 17 of 17

33. Piantanakulchai, M. Analytic Network Process Model for Highway Corridor. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Multi-criteria Decision Making, Honolulu, HI, USA, 8–10 July 2005.
34. Kadoić, N.; Red̄ep, N.B.; Divjak, B. Decision Making With the Analytic Network Process. In Proceedings of the 14th International
Symposium on Operational, Bled, Slovenija, 27–29 September 2017; pp. 180–186.
35. Lotfi, S.; Habibi, K.; Koohsari, M.J. Integrating multi-criteria models and Geographical information system for cemetery site
selection (a case study of the Sanandaj city, Iran). Acta Geogr. Slov. 2009, 49, 179–198. [CrossRef]
36. Ministry of Communications, “Gazette Of Pakistan”. Available online: http://nha.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/nha-
code-2005-volume-II.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2016).
37. The University of Birmingham; The University of Nottingham. Selection and Operation of Maintenance Management Systems.
Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d8440f0b649740018e2/R6852B.pdf (accessed on 10
February 2000).
38. Wilde, W.J. Cost-Effective Pavement Preservation Solutions for the Real World; Minnesota Department of Transportation Research
Services & Library: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2014.
39. Mndot. Transportation Asset Management Plan; Minnesota Department of Transportation: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2014.
40. Adams, B. ANP Row Sensitivity. 2011. Available online: http://www.isahp.org/uploads/3_0104_adams.pdf (accessed on 10
May 2011).
41. Tenerelli, P.; Carver, S. Multi-criteria, multi-objective and uncertainty analysis for agro-energy spatial modelling. Appl. Geogr.
2012, 32, 724–736. [CrossRef]
42. Chen, J.; Yang, Y. A Fuzzy ANP-Based Approach to Evaluate Region Agricultural Drought Risk. Procedia Eng. 2011, 23, 822–827.
[CrossRef]
43. Chen, Y.; Khan, S.; Paydar, Z. To retire or expand? A fuzzy GIS-based spatial multi-criteria evaluation framework for irrigated
agriculture. Irrig. Drain. 2009, 59, 174–188. [CrossRef]