예비타당성조사에서 시행되는 AHP의 적용과 특성에 대한 고찰

This study identifies that, contrary to the conventional understanding that the Comprehensive Evaluation (a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, MCDA) of preliminary feasibility studies is conducted using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), various weighting methods are actually applied in a mixed manner. This finding implies that the results of the comprehensive evaluation may vary depending on the weighting method used, thereby highlighting the need to enhance the reliability and fairness of the evaluation system. The main findings are as follows: First, the pairwise comparison in AHP for determining the weights of evaluation criteria is limited to the policy-effectiveness criteria, resulting in relatively low weight values of 17.5–22.9% for these criteria. Second, while AHP is recognized as an effective technique for comparing multiple criteria, preliminary feasibility studies generally involve comparisons among only 2–4 criteria, which may undermine the effectiveness of the pairwise comparison method. Third, the method of converting weights for economic feasibility and regional underdevelopment into standardized scores risks diminishing the relative influence of these variables. This study underscores the necessity of addressing the inconsistency between the theoretical foundation of AHP and its practical application in the comprehensive evaluation system of preliminary feasibility studies. Improvements in this area can contribute to a more rational and reliable decision-making process for public investment projects.