IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i2p435-d306674.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Approach for a Sustainability Evaluation of Developing System Interchange: The Case Study of the Sheikhfazolah-Yadegar Interchange, Tehran, Iran

Author

Listed:
  • Aydin Shishegaran

    (Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 16846-1114, Iran)

  • Arshia Shishegaran

    (Transportation Engineering Faculty, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch, Pounak square, Tehran 19877-45815, Iran)

  • Gabriella Mazzulla

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy)

  • Carmen Forciniti

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy)

Abstract

To resolve environmental and social problems and traffic congestion, a sustainability evaluation of transportation infrastructure should be done for current and proposed situations. The aim of the present investigation is to evaluate the sustainability of infrastructure project on system interchange and assess their results with respect to sustainable development indicators. Based on interviews with experts, intensive observation, and development infrastructure related to the case study, six proposed scenarios are proposed to improve traffic condition of the Sheikhfazolah-Yadegar interchange in Tehran. The proposed scenarios are modeled and calibrated in AIMSUN 8.0, then the value of all indicators are determined through an indirect and direct procedure by AIMSUN results. A technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method is used to integrate the results of proposed indicators. Although the weight of each indicator specifies its effect in sustainability evaluation, changes intensity of indicator value was not applied in sustainability evaluation by the previous methods of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). In this study, for the first time, a simplified approach is defined and used to evaluate sustainable development of all scenarios that can apply the effect of changes intensity in sustainability evaluation. This method is named the applied effect of changes intensity in each indicator (AECIEI). According to the purposes of Tehran vision in 2025, all proposed scenarios are ranked based on TOPSIS results and the simplified approach, and then results of these methods are compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Aydin Shishegaran & Arshia Shishegaran & Gabriella Mazzulla & Carmen Forciniti, 2020. "A Novel Approach for a Sustainability Evaluation of Developing System Interchange: The Case Study of the Sheikhfazolah-Yadegar Interchange, Tehran, Iran," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:435-:d:306674
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/2/435/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/2/435/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Svante Mandell, 2013. "Carbon Emissions and Cost Benefit Analyses," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2013/32, OECD Publishing.
    2. Michael Freudenberg, 2003. "Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/16, OECD Publishing.
    3. Jeon, Christy Mihyeon & Amekudzi, Adjo A. & Guensler, Randall L., 2013. "Sustainability assessment at the transportation planning level: Performance measures and indexes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 10-21.
    4. P.C. Bueno & J.M. Vassallo & K. Cheung, 2015. "Sustainability Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Review of Existing Tools and Methods," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(5), pages 622-649, September.
    5. Tudela, Alejandro & Akiki, Natalia & Cisternas, Rene, 2006. "Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 414-423, June.
    6. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    7. Todd Litman & David Burwell, 2006. "Issues in sustainable transportation," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(4), pages 331-347.
    8. Heggie, I.G. & Vickers, P., 1998. "Commercial Management and Financing of Roads," Papers 409, World Bank - Technical Papers.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rosa Puertas & Luisa Marti & Jose-Maria Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, 2020. "Food Supply without Risk: Multicriteria Analysis of Institutional Conditions of Exporters," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-20, May.

    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. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2019. "A review of cost–benefit analysis and multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of sustainable transport in project evaluation," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 327-358, November.
    2. Maurici Ruiz-Pérez & Joana Maria Seguí-Pons, 2020. "Transport Mode Choice for Residents in a Tourist Destination: The Long Road to Sustainability (the Case of Mallorca, Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-31, November.
    3. Artur Czech & Jerzy Lewczuk & Leonas Ustinovichius & Robertas Kontrimovičius, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Assessment of Transport Sustainability in Chosen European Union Countries: A Dynamic Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Isabelle Nicolaï & Rémy Le Boennec, 2018. "Smart mobility providing smart cities," Post-Print halshs-01794612, HAL.
    5. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    6. Anu P. Alex & V. S. Manju & V. Hima & Leema Peter, 2023. "Assessment of sustainable mobility indicators for an emerging satellite city in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 10447-10463, September.
    7. Rabello Quadros, Saul Germano & Nassi, Carlos David, 2015. "An evaluation on the criteria to prioritize transportation infrastructure investments in Brazil," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 8-16.
    8. Rémy Le Boennec & Isabelle Nicolaï & Pascal da Costa, 2018. "Implementing a two-step decision-aid tool for the assessment of new mobility offers in a spatial framework," Post-Print halshs-01942700, HAL.
    9. Le Boennec, Rémy & Nicolaï, Isabelle & Da Costa, Pascal, 2019. "Assessing 50 innovative mobility offers in low-density areas: A French application using a two-step decision-aid method," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 13-25.
    10. Ubaid Illahi & Mohammad Shafi Mir, 2021. "Sustainable Transportation Attainment Index: multivariate analysis of indicators with an application to selected states and National Capital Territory (NCT) of India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 3578-3622, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Mandic, Dragomir & Jovanovic, Predrag & Bugarinovic, Mirjana, 2014. "Two-phase model for multi-criteria project ranking: Serbian Railways case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 88-104.
    13. Jonas Ammenberg & Sofia Dahlgren, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part I—A Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    14. Meng Li & Guowei Hua & Haijun Huang, 2018. "A Multi-Modal Route Choice Model with Ridesharing and Public Transit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    15. Guimarães, Vanessa de Almeida & Leal Junior, Ilton Curty & da Silva, Marcelino Aurélio Vieira, 2018. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban passenger transportation by Monte Carlo simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 732-752.
    16. David Staš & Radim Lenort & Pavel Wicher & David Holman, 2015. "Green Transport Balanced Scorecard Model with Analytic Network Process Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    18. Cherchye, Laurens & Knox Lovell, C.A. & Moesen, Wim & Van Puyenbroeck, Tom, 2007. "One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 749-779, April.
    19. Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2011. "Do Cost--Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010--21," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 29-48, April.
    20. Chaoren Lu, 2014. "The role of sustainability policy in influencing service innovation. a case study of Changzhou BRT system," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(3), pages 167-168.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:435-:d:306674. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.