IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i17p13086-d1229115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Decision-Making Framework to Evaluate Rail Transport Development Projects Considering Sustainability under Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Morteza Noruzi

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 14778-93855, Iran)

  • Ali Naderan

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 14778-93855, Iran)

  • Jabbar Ali Zakeri

    (School of Railway Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 16846-13114, Iran)

  • Kamran Rahimov

    (Department of Roads and Transportation, Payam Noor University, Tehran 19556-43183, Iran)

Abstract

One of the constant concerns in public and private organizations is choosing a project from among the multitude of potential projects to be implemented. Due to the limited resources in different sectors, projects should be prioritized in order to obtain the maximum benefit. In national and government projects, it is not necessarily important to pay attention to financial components, and more dimensions should be considered. Sustainability is a component that considers various economic, environmental, and social aspects in the evaluation of projects. In this regard, in this study, the main goal is to evaluate and select rail transportation projects according to sustainability criteria. In general, 15 indicators were identified in three economic, environmental, and social sectors, which were weighted using the best–worst fuzzy method (FBWM). The most important indicators in the evaluation of projects are the investment cost, the rate of internal return from a national perspective, and the lesser impact of the plan on environmental destruction. According to the weighted indicators, the stochastic VIKOR approach is developed for the first time in this article, which was evaluated according to two scenarios of demand changes and cost changes of candidate projects. In the stochastic VIKOR approach, to deal with uncertainty, different scenarios are defined, through which it is possible to respond to different conditions and evaluate projects more realistically. Validation of this method is compared to other multi-criteria decision-making methods. The main contribution of this study is presenting the stochastic VIKOR approach for the first time and considering the uncertainty in project evaluation. The findings show that the projects that have the most economic gains from the national and environmental aspects are selected as the best projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Morteza Noruzi & Ali Naderan & Jabbar Ali Zakeri & Kamran Rahimov, 2023. "A Novel Decision-Making Framework to Evaluate Rail Transport Development Projects Considering Sustainability under Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-26, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:13086-:d:1229115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13086/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13086/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gholamreza Haseli & Reza Sheikh & Jianqiang Wang & Hana Tomaskova & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2021. "A Novel Approach for Group Decision Making Based on the Best–Worst Method (G-BWM): Application to Supply Chain Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee & Zahra Dashtian & Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber & Hana Tomaskova & Mehdi Soltani & Nasim Sadat Mousavi, 2021. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Green Supplier Selection in an Agri-Food Supply Chain: Threshold of Robustness Worthiness," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-30, June.
    3. Nitidetch Koohathongsumrit & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon, 2022. "An integrated FAHP–ZODP approach for strategic marketing information system project selection," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1792-1809, September.
    4. Candas, Mehmet Ferhat & Kutanoglu, Erhan, 2020. "Integrated location and inventory planning in service parts logistics with customer-based service levels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(1), pages 279-295.
    5. Svetla Stoilova & Nolberto Munier, 2021. "Analysis of Policies of Railway Operators Using SWOT Criteria and the SIMUS Method: A Case for the Bulgarian Railway Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    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. Sabina Kordana-Obuch & Michał Wojtoń & Mariusz Starzec & Beata Piotrowska, 2023. "Opportunities and Challenges for Research on Heat Recovery from Wastewater: Bibliometric and Strategic Analyses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-36, September.
    2. Loske, Dominic & Klumpp, Matthias, 2021. "Human-AI collaboration in route planning: An empirical efficiency-based analysis in retail logistics," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    3. Parisa Rafigh & Ali Akbar Akbari & Hadi Mohammadi Bidhandi & Ali Husseinzadeh Kashan, 2022. "A sustainable supply chain network considering lot sizing with quantity discounts under disruption risks: centralized and decentralized models," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 1387-1432, October.
    4. Željko Stević & Dillip Kumar Das & Rade Tešić & Marijo Vidas & Dragan Vojinović, 2022. "Objective Criticism and Negative Conclusions on Using the Fuzzy SWARA Method in Multi-Criteria Decision Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Han, Bing & Zhang, Ying & Wang, Song & Park, Yongshin, 2023. "The efficient and stable planning for interrupted supply chain with dual‐sourcing strategy: a robust optimization approach considering decision maker's risk attitude," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    6. Fathi, Mahdi & Khakifirooz, Marzieh & Diabat, Ali & Chen, Huangen, 2021. "An integrated queuing-stochastic optimization hybrid Genetic Algorithm for a location-inventory supply chain network," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    7. Somarin, Aghil Rezaei & Sharma, Pankaj & Tiwari, Sunil & Chen, Songlin, 2023. "Stock reallocation policy for repairable service parts in case of supply disruptions due to extreme weather events," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    8. Chin-Tsai Lin & Cheng-Yu Chiang, 2022. "Development of Strategies for Taiwan’s Corrugated Box Precision Printing Machine Industry—An Implementation for SWOT and EDAS Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Ardavan Babaei & Majid Khedmati & Mohammad Reza Akbari Jokar & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2022. "Performance Evaluation of Omni-Channel Distribution Network Configurations considering Green and Transparent Criteria under Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Harshitha Urs Ajjipura Shankar & Udaya Kumara Kodipalya Nanjappa & M. D. Alsulami & Ballajja C. Prasannakumara, 2022. "A Fuzzy AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Urged Baseline Aid for Execution Amendment of an Online Food Delivery Affability," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(16), pages 1-24, August.
    11. Sina Nayeri & Mahdieh Tavakoli & Mehrab Tanhaeean & Fariborz Jolai, 2022. "A robust fuzzy stochastic model for the responsive-resilient inventory-location problem: comparison of metaheuristic algorithms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(2), pages 1895-1935, August.
    12. Li, Zhuyue & Zhao, Peixin & Han, Xue, 2022. "Agri-food supply chain network disruption propagation and recovery based on cascading failure," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 589(C).
    13. Changlu Zhang & Jian Zhang & Qiong Yang, 2022. "Identifying Critical Risk Factors in Green Product Certification Using Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:13086-:d:1229115. 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.