IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/terumm/v9y2014i3p18-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

pRAGMATIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF 30-KM/H POLICY MEASURES: THE BRUSSELS’ PENTAGON CASE

Author

Listed:
  • Levi VERMOTE

    (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, MOBI, Mobility, Logistics and Automotive Technology Research Centre, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Cathy MACHARIS

    (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, MOBI, Mobility, Logistics and Automotive Technology Research Centre, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Koen PUTMAN

    (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, I-CHER, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium)

Abstract

Increasing social, economic and ecological impactof motorised mobilityrequiresanidentification of sustainable mobility policies, as well as a clear evaluation of the impact of such measures. Still, there is a lack ofpractical orienteddecision-supporting instruments to assist decision-makersin the sustainability assessment of mobility policies. The present paper proposes a pragmaticassessment framework, includingproceduralSustainability Assessment (SA) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) constituents,to determine the sustainabilityof traffic safety policies.Thecompositeframework formatprovides decision-makersnotonly technical details ontheassets and the limitations of the alternative policies, but offers procedures to reach and implementassessment decisions as well. The paper applies the pragmatic framework for the specific case of the present 30-km/h scenario in the Brussels’ pentagon, of which the sustainability performance is compared to four general 30-km/h policy alternatives, i.e. 30-km/h speed regimes, speed reducing devices, (re-)constructing roads and junctions and (re-)constructing active mode infrastructure. Results show that the sustainability performance of the Brussels’ pentagon scenario can be enhanced by complementary active mode infrastructure and speed reducing devices, which benefit traffic safety, incite emission-free mobility and provide access to a larger quantity of travellers. The proposed framework bridges the gap between policy impact assessment framework design and use, while specifying the assessment attributes according the basic dimensions of sustainable development. Both are beneficiary fordecision-processes towards sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Levi VERMOTE & Cathy MACHARIS & Koen PUTMAN, 2014. "pRAGMATIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF 30-KM/H POLICY MEASURES: THE BRUSSELS’ PENTAGON CASE," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(3), pages 18-54, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:rom:terumm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:18-54
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://um.ase.ro/no93/2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sébastien Damart & Bernard Roy, 2009. "The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France," Post-Print hal-00414462, HAL.
    2. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Sensitivity analysis of technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 788-798, March.
    3. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, September.
    4. Doukas, Haris Ch. & Andreas, Botsikas M. & Psarras, John E., 2007. "Multi-criteria decision aid for the formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic variables," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 844-855, October.
    5. Brans, Jean-Pierre, 1996. "The space of freedom of the decision maker modelling the human brain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 593-602, August.
    6. Bell, Michelle L. & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Ellis, Hugh, 2003. "The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 289-316, December.
    7. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    8. Cole, Rachel & Burke, Matthew & Leslie, Eva & Donald, Maria & Owen, Neville, 2010. "Perceptions of representatives of public, private, and community sector institutions of the barriers and enablers for physically active transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 496-504, November.
    9. Damart, Sébastien & Roy, Bernard, 2009. "The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 200-212, August.
    10. Brouwer, Roy & van Ek, Remco, 2004. "Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 1-21, September.
    11. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 778-787, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    2. Maxim, Alexandru, 2014. "Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 284-297.
    3. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Milutinović, Biljana & Stefanović, Gordana & Đekić, Petar S. & Mijailović, Ivan & Tomić, Mladen, 2017. "Environmental assessment of waste management scenarios with energy recovery using life cycle assessment and multi-criteria analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 917-926.
    5. Parajuli, Ranjan & Dalgaard, Tommy & Jørgensen, Uffe & Adamsen, Anders Peter S. & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman & Birkved, Morten & Gylling, Morten & Schjørring, Jan Kofod, 2015. "Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 244-263.
    6. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    7. Tobias Witt & Matthias Klumpp, 2021. "Multi-Period Multi-Criteria Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Renewable Energy Transition Case from Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
    8. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    9. Marleau Donais, Francis & Abi-Zeid, Irène & Waygood, E. Owen D. & Lavoie, Roxane, 2019. "Assessing and ranking the potential of a street to be redesigned as a Complete Street: A multi-criteria decision aiding approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-19.
    10. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Participatory selection of sustainability criteria and indicators for bioenergy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 92-102.
    11. Shen, Yung-Chi & Lin, Grace T.R. & Li, Kuang-Pin & Yuan, Benjamin J.C., 2010. "An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4604-4616, August.
    12. Mainali, Brijesh & Silveira, Semida, 2015. "Using a sustainability index to assess energy technologies for rural electrification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1351-1365.
    13. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    14. Liu, Gang, 2014. "Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 611-621.
    15. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Including management and security of supply constraints for designing stand-alone electrification systems in developing countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 359-369.
    16. Koo, Jamin & Park, Kyungtae & Shin, Dongil & Yoon, En Sup, 2011. "Economic evaluation of renewable energy systems under varying scenarios and its implications to Korea's renewable energy plan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 2254-2260, June.
    17. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    18. Abdul, Daud & Wenqi, Jiang & Tanveer, Arsalan, 2022. "Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1018-1032.
    19. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    20. Manley, Dawn K. & Hines, Valerie A. & Jordan, Matthew W. & Stoltz, Ronald E., 2013. "A survey of energy policy priorities in the United States: Energy supply security, economics, and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 687-696.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rom:terumm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:18-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Colesca Sofia (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ccasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.