C h ap te r 2 1 — I n te g r a te d R o a d s i d e Ve ge tation Manage me nt De cis ion Suppor t Sys te m

21-1

21.0 Integrated Roadside Vegetation

Management Decision Support System

21.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to provide a scientific method of prioritizing roadside vegetation management activities
to optimize the resources available to the vegetation manager. Vegetation managers are often faced with achieving
multiple and competing objectives and the prioritization of finite resources. Dwindling resources and rising public
expectations have recently exacerbated the problem. Many vegetation managers juggle this allocation in ad hoc
fashion, using past experience and current pressures to allocate resources. Vegetation management funding decisions
often rely too heavily upon historical allocation of resources rather than zero baseline budgeting assumptions.

A decision support system can assist vegetation managers in providing greater understanding of benefits, costs,
opportunities, and risks for their program. Such a system will never completely replace experience and intuition,
but can complement, clarify, and improve the decision making process. Decision support systems can be used to
increase the degree of objectivity in the selection of vegetation management practices.

Previous researchers have developed a priority matrix system to assist vegetation managers in prioritizing their
activities (184, 252). This chapter improves upon the current priority matrix model initially developed by the Wash-
ington Department of Transportation. There is a need for approaches that combine available quantitative data with
the more subjective knowledge of experts. Such a tool should enable the vegetation manager to draw up a series of
alternatives and choose the best compromise for their program. The work involved in seeking a compromise solution
requires an adequate assessment method, and there are many multiple-criteria methods available that appear to be
suited to handle this task.

21.2 The Computer-Aided Decision

Decision support systems (DSS) are computerized information systems that support decision making activities.
Among the main advantages of the use of DSS are the following:
 Increased number of alternatives examined
 Better understanding of the vegetation management program
 Fast response to unexpected situations
 Improved communication
 Cost savings
 Better decisions
 More effective teamwork
 Time savings
 Better use of data resources

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 G u i d e l i n e s for Ve ge tation Manage me nt

21-2

Decision support systems can be used to increase the degree of objectivity in the selection of vegetation man-
agement practices. Decision making is a process that enables one to define a problem as completely as possible,
structure the problem as a hierarchy, elicit judgments on the hierarchy, represent those judgments with meaningful
numbers, synthesize the results, and analyze sensitivity to changes in judgment. Effective decision making in vegeta-
tion management requires a multidimensional approach that includes economic, technical, environmental, social,
and political factors.

A decision support system is not intended to provide the final answer to the vegetation manager. It is a tool that
managers can use to assist them in identifying and ranking the most important criteria that must be considered when
making a decision.

21.3 How We Choose a Decision Support System

Little (1970) (309) noted that decision making is often difficult to model because of the unstructured, incomplete,
and sometimes unreliable nature of data facing managers. This certainly holds true for decision making in vegetation
management. There are many multi-criteria models that may be suitable to handle the task of a vegetation manage-
ment support aid. Table 21-1 provides a list of the multi-criteria decision support systems considered in this report.
Each of these mathematical models has strengths and weaknesses as multi-criteria decision support systems. The
models are ranked in order of suitability for a vegetation management decision support aid.

Table 21-1. Multi-Criteria Decision Support Systems Considered for Vegetation Management Programs

Decision Support Model In Brief Suitability

Analytical Hierarchical Process AHP is a technique for converting subjective assess-
(AHP) ments of relative importance into a set of weights.
AHP has been most successful as a decision support
system when decisions involve both qualitative and
quantitative data.
ZAPROS ZAPROS is a multi-criteria support aid based on
qualitative judgments.
Multiple Attribute Utility Theory MAUT is the most comprehensive and complex model
(MAUT) that was investigated. MAUT is based on the hypoth-
esis that in any decision problem, there exists a real
valued function, U, defined on the set of feasible alter-
natives that the decision maker wishes, consciously or
not, to maximize. This function aggregates the criteria
g1, g2, …gk. The role of the decisions maker is to
determine this function.
PREFERENCE CONE Preference cones apply mathematical programming
and utility logic to selection problems.
OUTRANK Outrank methods are used to eliminate alternatives
through a weighting system
AHP has been applied in many different industries with
great success and appears to be the most popular
mathematical model used for decision support sys-
tems. AHP is more desirable than other models as it
not only enables a direct rank ordering of alternatives,
but also provides an actual measurement of the rela-
tive degree to which alternatives forwarded the goal.
At first, ZAPROS appeared to be a good solution for
prioritizing vegetation management objectives. How-
ever, ZAPROS is most suitable for providing decision
support when extremely large sets of alternatives
are available and they are all qualitative. Vegetation
managers require a model that accommodates both
qualitative and quantitative data.
MAUT introduces a level of complexity that would be
unsuitable for the problem at hand.
This approach is only useful if there are a lot of alterna-
tives, and is practical only if there are few criteria.
Outrank also suffers from the fact that there are a large
number of alternatives required for it to be an effective
solution.

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 C h ap te r 2 1 — I n te g r a te d R o a d s i d e Ve ge tation Manage me nt De cis ion Suppor t Sys te m

21-3

After reviewing these mathematical models, the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) (150–152) was chosen as the
most appropriate choice for a vegetation management decision support system, primarily because it is one of the few
models that allow analysis of subjective and objective data within the same model. AHP has been used in thousands
of applications including resource and budget allocation, prioritization/evaluation, benchmarking, quality manage-
ment, public policy, health care, and strategic planning, and is the most widely used decision making approach today
(87). Bender et al. (2000) consider the AHP as “a simple and effective methodology.” According to Kauko (2002),
the method is “technically sophisticated and fully transparent.” Also beneficial is its ability to quantify qualitative
judgments and incorporate behavioral aspects, namely non-rational preferences, perceptions, and agency relation-
ships.

21.4 Introduction to the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

AHP is an approach to decision making that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into a hierarchy, assess-
ing the relative importance of these criteria, comparing alternatives for each criterion, and determining an overall
ranking of the alternatives. The concept of AHP was developed in the 1970s by Dr. Thomas Saaty, an American
mathematician working at the University of Pittsburgh. Saaty identified that humans deal with complexity by hier-
archical structuring into homogenous clusters of factors. Hierarchical classification is the most powerful method of
classification in ordering experience, observations, entities, and information. AHP is particularly useful as it allows
for the analysis of subjective and objective data within the same model, which suits the decisions commonly made
by vegetation managers. Resource allocation decisions in vegetation management include attributes that are not all
measurable in the same units, may not be measureable at all, or cannot be expressed in dollars. Vegetation managers
need to prioritize both quantitative and qualitative criteria. Examples of quantitative criteria are economic factors
and technical factors. Qualitative criteria are factors such as environmental, social, and political factors. All of these
factors must be combined and assessed together to make the best decision.

Like the structuring of a problem by any other method, the design of an analytic hierarchy requires the input of indi-
viduals knowledgeable about the problem in question. What factors are relevant, how they should be grouped, and in
which levels, are issues that need to be resolved. In doing so, the information necessary for sound decision making is
generated and organized. Through AHP, the judgments, personal values, and preferences of the vegetation manager
can be taken into account through explicit “weights.” This allows them to assess the relative importance of multiple
criteria (or multiple alternatives against a given criterion) in an intuitive manner.

Asked to comment on the suitability of AHP in vegetation management, the program’s originator, Dr. Thomas Saaty,
and others who have published on the subject, were uniformly positive as to AHP’s appropriateness. Existing soft-
ware could be used in this regard, marketed under the name “Decision Lens.”

Unfortunately, the cost of Decision Lens is prohibitive (>$60,000 per copy) and the program could be considered
‘overkill’ for what is needed for roadside vegetation management. It was decided to write our own AHP software.
The mathematics behind AHP was programmed in asp.net and SQL server, and a web interface was designed to
provide a simple implementation of AHP.

To check the accuracy of the AHP program, a trial version of Decision Lens was obtained and trial datasets were
entered into our program and the Decision Lens program. Identical results (rankings, ratings, and consistency ratios)

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 G u i d e l i n e s for Ve ge tation Manage me nt

21-4

were obtained with the commercial software and the current model. The main advantage of the commercial software
is the variety and quality of graphical presentations of the results; however, the actual results were identical.

21.5 Integrated Vegetation Management Decision Support System (IRVMDSS)

We have developed an Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Decision Support System based on the Analytical
Hierarchical Process. AHP relies upon prioritizing each of the criteria that are involved in the decision making process
and organizing them into a hierarchy. The concept of priority is necessary to standardize non-unique scales in order to
combine multiple criteria. AHP uses pairwise comparisons to determine the relative importance of criteria.

Pairwise comparisons provide a big step forward in this model compared with the previous vegetation management
matrixes. Pairwise comparisons allow for an objective method of ranking alternatives, and provide for error check-
ing on decisions.

The first step in the Analytical Hierarchical Process is to divide complex problems into elements and order them into
a classification system or “Hierarchy.” For the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Decision Support Sys-
tem (IRVMDSS) the hierarchy is based upon goals, issues, solutions, and actions. The vegetation manager must first
decompose the vegetation management problem into these categories. To do so, iterating from top (the more general
goals) to bottom (the more specific actions), split the problem, which is unstructured at this step, into sub-modules
that will become sub-hierarchies. At the end, the unstructured problem is transformed into a manageable problem
organized both vertically and horizontally into a hierarchy.

Goals: The Top Level of the Hierarchy

First, the vegetation manager would identify categories for top-level goals of the vegetation management program.
For instance, top-level goals may fall under the categories of safety, economics, erosion control, environment, legal
and regulatory, aesthetics, and sustainable transportation.

Issues: The Second Level of the Hierarchy

Below each of the goals will be the next layer, the issues. The vegetation manager would identify the major issues
that could impact the goals. The issues will be different for each of the goals. For instance, the issues for safety may
fall under the categories of safe Recovery zone, hazardous trees, line of sight problems, standing water, herbicide ap-
plications, driver fatigue, and fire potential.

Solutions: The Third Level of the Hierarchy

Below each of the issues will be the next layer, the solutions. Here the vegetation manager needs to identify what
needs to be done to deal with the issues. For instance, under the goal of “safety” one of the issues is “fire potential.”
To deal with fire potential, the solutions may be to reduce fuel and educate the public.

Actions: The Fourth and Final Level of the Hierarchy

Below each of the solutions will be the next layer, the actions. Here we determine what specific actions need to be
done to achieve the solution. So, for the goal of “safety” an issue is “fire potential” and a solution is “reduce fuel”
and then the actions may be mowing, chemical control, controlled burn, hand labor, shoulder-blading, etc.

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 C h ap te r 2 1 — I n te g r a te d R o a d s i d e Ve ge tation Manage me nt De cis ion Suppor t Sys te m

21-5

21.6 Weighting Process

Once the problem has been broken down into the hierarchies of goals, issues, solutions, and actions then each level
must be weighted based on its importance within the level to which it belongs. The goal of AHP is to construct a
matrix expressing the relative values of a set of attributes. For instance, what is the relative importance of safety,
economics, erosion control, legal and regulatory, aesthetics, and sustainable transportation to the overall goal of
vegetation management?

The vegetation manager is asked to compare each pair of choices on a scale, such as that in Table 21-2. Using pair-
wise comparisons and the mathematics provided by AHP, a global priority is computed that quantifies the relative
importance of a criterion within the overall decision model.

Table 21-2. Scale Used for Ranking Criteria Against Each Other

Intensity of Importance Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance
3 Somewhat more important
5 Much more important
7 Very much more important
9 Absolutely more important
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values
Two factors contribute equally to the objective
Experience and judgment slightly favor one over the other.
Experience and judgment strongly favor one over the other.
Experience and judgment very strongly favor one over the other. Its importance is
demonstrated in practice.
The evidence favoring one over the other is of the highest possible validity.
When compromise is needed

Pairwise comparisons are completed for all factors considered. Acceptable values range from –9 (absolutely less
important) to +9 (absolutely more important). For instance, first the vegetation manager would consider which was
more important between safety and economics. In this instance, we have assessed that safety was moderately more
important than economics and it was given a value of 4 (Table 21-3).

Table 21-3. Pairwise Comparisons of the Relative Importance of Vegetation Management Goals

Sustainable
Erosion Environmen- Legal and
Goals Safety Economics Aesthetics Transporta-
Control tal Regulatory
tion
Safety – 4 7 7 5 8 8
Economics – 3 2 2 5 5
Erosion Control – 1 –3 4 3
Environmental – –2 5 3
Legal and Regulatory – 6 3
Aesthetics – –6
Sustainable Transportation –

Once these judgments have been made, the mathematics provided by Dr. Saaty’s Analytical Hierarchical Process is
used to provide the relative importance of each of the criteria. The mathematics has been programmed in asp.net and
SQL server. A consistency ratio is also calculated which helps to determine if the choices made have been consistent.
A consistency ratio of less than 0.10 has been shown in practice to be acceptable. If the consistency ratio is greater
than 0.10, Dr. Saaty suggests that the expert double check their values and assumptions. Figure 21-1 presents a

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 G u i d e l i n e s for Ve ge tation Manage me nt

21-6

screen capture from our program indicating that the consistency ratio is 0.077 when the values are entered for the ex-
ample above. It also shows that for the values we entered, safety is by far the most important criteria for a vegetation
management program, followed by economics, then legal and regulatory aspects.

Figure 21-1. Screen Capture of the AHP Results for the Pairwise Comparisons from Table 21-3

The vegetation manager would continue to use the program to determine the relative importance of each criterion
in the vegetation management program, from the goals right through to the actions. For instance, if we look at the
issues associated with safety, we may have the following: hazardous trees, line of sight problems, safe recovery
zone, driver fatigue, standing water, herbicide applications, and fire potential. Again, at this level, the criteria are put
through the AHP pairwise comparison (Table 21-4).

Table 21-4. Pairwise Comparisons of Safety Issues

Goal: Safety Hazardous Line of Sight Safe Recov- Standing Herbicide

Driver Fatigue Fire Potential
Issues Trees Problems ery Zone Water Applications
Hazardous Trees – 3 2 8 1 9 5
Line of Sight Problems – –2 7 –3 9 7
Safe Recovery Zone – 8 –2 9 5
Driver Fatigue – –9 2 –6
Standing Water – 9 6
Herbicide Applications – –7
Fire Potential –

The numbers presented here are not important; they are intended to show how the calculations are made. Each veg-
etation manager will have different priorities and values for their program, and will have different criteria that he or
she will be trying to evaluate. The program allows the manager to use any criteria, and will automatically calculate
the relative importance of those criteria once the pairwise comparisons have been entered.

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 C h ap te r 2 1 — I n te g r a te d R o a d s i d e Ve ge tation Manage me nt De cis ion Suppor t Sys te m

21-7

Figure 21-2. Screen Capture of the AHP Results for the Pairwise Comparisons from Table 21-4

Given the numbers in the example, the relative importance of the safety issues indicate that standing water and haz-
ardous trees are of prime importance, whilst driver fatigue and herbicide applications were listed as least important
on the safety list. If we were then to move through the hierarchy and follow “fire potential,” which was ranked as 5th
most important, we can look at potential solutions that can be used to reduce the safety issues presented by fire. The
vegetation manager may determine that the ways to reduce the safety issues presented by fire are to reduce the fuel
source and to educate the public (signs encouraging them not to throw out lit cigarettes, etc.). Since there are only
two choices, then pairwise comparison is not necessary and a direct relative importance can be allocated (0.8 for
fuel reduction, 0.2 for signage and public education). The actions to be followed to “reduce fuel” may be mowing,
chemical control, controlled burning, hand labor, or shoulder-blading. Again the pairwise comparisons are used and
the relative importance calculated.

Table 21-5. Pairwise Comparisons of Actions Needed to Reduce Fuel

Goal: Safety
Issue: Fire Potential
Mowing Chemical Control Controlled Burning Hand Labor Shoulder Blading
Solution: Reduce Fuel
Actions
Mowing – –4 2 8 2
Chemical Control – 4 9 6
Controlled Burning – 7 –2
Hand Labor – –8
Shoulder Blading –

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 G u i d e l i n e s for Ve ge tation Manage me nt

21-8

Figure 21-3. Screen Capture of the AHP Results for the Pairwise Comparisons from Table 21-5.

Following the criteria in this example, we can view a very small portion of the program, which shows safety,
through fire potential to reducing fuel and the actions necessary to accomplish this (Table 21-6). This needs to be
completed for the whole program, following each portion of the hierarchies, which will then give the relative impor-
tance of every aspect of the program. It should be obvious that actions such as mowing or chemical control will be
common to many of the solutions for different issues and an overall aggregate of their values will show their overall
importance to the program. The relative importance values can be used to assist managers in selecting the most ap-
propriate actions for their program.

Table 21-6. Snapshot Showing the Relative Importance of Safety, Fire Potential, and the Solutions and Actions
Required to Reduce Fire Potential

Goals Issues Solutions Actions

0.46 Safety 0.28 Hazardous Trees 0.8 Reduce Fuel 0.2 Mowing
Line of Sight Public Education Chemical
0.18 Economics 0.15 0.2 0.52
Problems and Signs Control
Safe Recovery Controlled
0.08 Erosion Control 0.19 0.11
Zone Burning
0.19 Environmental 0.02 Driver Fatigue 0.03 Hand Labor
Legal and Shoulder
0.13 0.29 Standing Water 0.14
Regulatory Blading
Herbicide
0.02 Aesthetics 0.02
Applications
Sustainable
0.05 0.06 Fire Potential
Transportation

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 C h ap te r 2 1 — I n te g r a te d R o a d s i d e Ve ge tation Manage me nt De cis ion Suppor t Sys te m

21-9

21.7 Outcome
This decision support program can assist the vegetation manager in making better management choices. Once com-
pleted, the vegetation manager will have achieved
1. An overall picture of their vegetation management program, from a high level (goals) down to fine details (ac-
tions).
2. A hierarchical listing of all criteria, both tangible and intangible, that may impact their decisions on what ac-
tions to take for their program.
3. An estimate of the relative importance of each part of the program based on an objective analysis using the
analytical hierarchical process and pairwise comparisons.
4. A basis for choosing which actions need to be taken to conduct their program.
5. A consistency ratio indicating how consistent the ranking process has been. If the consistency ratio is not suf-
ficiently low, then it indicates that the manager is not making rational comparisons between choices and further
analysis needs to be done.

21.8 Conclusion
Vegetation managers have finite resources and need to allocate these resources to achieve multiple and competing
objectives. Experienced vegetation managers often do an adequate job of allocating resources by relying upon expe-
rience, current pressures, and prior budget allocations. However, those new to vegetation management do not have
a wealth of experience to manage resources in such a way, and a formal process of allocating resources, such as this
decision support system, can assist them. In addition, experienced vegetation managers may also benefit from this
decision support system to increase the degree of objectivity in the selection of vegetation management practices.

© 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.