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.
    6. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    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. Snežana Tadić & Aida Kalem & Mladen Krstić & Nermin Čabrić & Adisa Medić & Miloš Veljović, 2025. "Benchmarking Analysis of Railway Infrastructure Managers: A Hybrid Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Grey Best–Worst Method (G-BWM), and Assurance Region Data Envelopment Analysis (AR-DEA) Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, March.

    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. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    4. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Guo, Mengzhuo & Zhang, Qingpeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Chen, Frank Youhua & Zeng, Daniel Dajun, 2021. "A hybrid machine learning framework for analyzing human decision-making through learning preferences," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    7. Nejla Ould Daoud Ellili, 2024. "Bibliometric analysis of sustainability papers: Evidence from Environment, Development and sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 8183-8209, April.
    8. Junli Zhang & Guoteng Wang & Zheng Xu & Zheren Zhang, 2022. "A Comprehensive Evaluation Method and Strengthening Measures for AC/DC Hybrid Power Grids," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.
    9. Hamzeh Soltanali & Mehdi Khojastehpour & Siamak Kheybari, 2023. "Evaluating the critical success factors for maintenance management in agro-industries using multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 949-968, June.
    10. Yossi Hadad & Baruch Keren & Dima Alberg, 2023. "An Expert System for Ranking and Matching Electric Vehicles to Customer Specifications and Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Ebrahim Sharifi & Saman Hassanzadeh Amin & Liping Fang, 2025. "Assessing sustainability of food supply chains by using a novel method integrating group multi-criteria decision-making and interval Type-2 fuzzy set," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 3665-3705, February.
    12. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    13. Ridvan Ertugrul Yildirim & Aziz Sisman, 2025. "Spatial Decision Support for Determining Suitable Emergency Assembly Places Using GIS and MCDM Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-28, March.
    14. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    15. Negin Salimi & Jafar Rezaei, 2016. "Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1911-1938, December.
    16. Chun-Chieh Tseng & Jun-Yi Zeng & Min-Liang Hsieh & Chih-Hung Hsu, 2022. "Analysis of Innovation Drivers of New and Old Kinetic Energy Conversion Using a Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Model in the Post-COVID-19 Era: A Chinese Case," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(20), pages 1-25, October.
    17. Tavana, Madjid & Khalili Nasr, Arash & Mina, Hassan & Michnik, Jerzy, 2022. "A private sustainable partner selection model for green public-private partnerships and regional economic development," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    18. Jairo Ortega & Sarbast Moslem & János Tóth & Tamás Péter & Juan Palaguachi & Mario Paguay, 2020. "Using Best Worst Method for Sustainable Park and Ride Facility Location," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    19. Vineet Kaushik & Ashwani Kumar & Himanshu Gupta & Gaurav Dixit, 2022. "Modelling and prioritizing the factors for online apparel return using BWM approach," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 843-873, September.
    20. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mar Arenas-Parra & Raquel Quiroga-García & Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2022. "An extended best–worst multiple reference point method: application in the assessment of non-life insurance companies," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5323-5362, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.