IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i24p16743-d1298152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the Transport Environmental Effects of an Urban Road Network in a Medium-Sized City in a Developing Country

Author

Listed:
  • Warunvit Auttha

    (Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development Center (SIRDC), Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Pongrid Klungboonkrong

    (Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development Center (SIRDC), Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

Abstract

A decision support model (DSM) involving a combination of five different prediction models for the environmental effects of transport and the powerful HMADM approach was introduced for the first time to assess the multiple criteria environmental effects of transport in an urban road network of the Khon Kaen Metropolitan Municipality (KKMM) in Khon Kaen City, Thailand. Five mathematical models were adopted to quantify the CO 2 emissions (CO2Es), PM 2.5 concentration (PM2.5C), CO concentrations (COCs), noise levels (NOLs), and pedestrian accident risk (PAR) values of all road segments in the study area. The FAHP, FSM, and TOPSIS were integrated into the HMADM to estimate the composite transport environmental effect scores (CTEESs) of each road segment. The FAHP was applied to determine the relative weights of each environmental criterion for three land use types, and the FSM was utilized to transform linguistic (fuzzy) scores into numerical (crisp) scores. Both the FAHP and FSM are principally used to deal with uncertain, incomplete, and ambiguous (fuzzy) information that appears during decision-making processes. Finally, TOPSIS was used to estimate the CTEESs of each road segment. An integrated DSM was applied to comprehend and evaluate each individual environmental criterion and the combined environmental criteria for each road segment in the study area. The DSM was employed to rank the problematic locations of all road segments. For instance, the ranking of the top 12 road segments with the greatest CTEESs was 75, 80, 48, 89, 76, 5, 64, 59, 60, 16, 65, and 62. In addition, this DSM can also be used to identify the possible causes of such locations and allocate limited government budgets for the implementation of appropriate remedial measures for resolving such environmental problems due to transport in an urban road network in the study area.

Suggested Citation

  • Warunvit Auttha & Pongrid Klungboonkrong, 2023. "Evaluation of the Transport Environmental Effects of an Urban Road Network in a Medium-Sized City in a Developing Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-35, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16743-:d:1298152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16743/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16743/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Nathaniel R. Fold & Mary R. Allison & Berkley C. Wood & Pham T. B. Thao & Sebastien Bonnet & Savitri Garivait & Richard Kamens & Sitthipong Pengjan, 2020. "An Assessment of Annual Mortality Attributable to Ambient PM 2.5 in Bangkok, Thailand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    4. Mahmoud Z. Mistarihi & Ghazi M. Magableh, 2023. "Prioritization of Supply Chain Capabilities Using the FAHP Technique," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Ni Sheng & Zherui Xu & Min Li, 2015. "The Performance of CRTN Model in a Motorcycle City," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2015, pages 1-7, May.
    6. Zapata, Christina & Yang, Christopher & Yeh, Sonia & Ogden, Joan & Kleeman, Michael J., 2018. "Estimating Criteria Pollutant Emissions Using the California Regional Multisector Air Quality Emissions (CA-REMARQUE) Model v1.0," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt87p8r455, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    7. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    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. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    2. Caprioli, Caterina & Bottero, Marta, 2021. "Addressing complex challenges in transformations and planning: A fuzzy spatial multicriteria analysis for identifying suitable locations for urban infrastructures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Klaus D. Goepel, 2019. "Comparison of Judgment Scales of the Analytical Hierarchy Process — A New Approach," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 445-463, March.
    4. Kaixuan Liu & Jiayu Zhao & Chun Zhu, 2022. "Research on Digital Restoration of Plain Unlined Silk Gauze Gown of Mawangdui Han Dynasty Tomb Based on AHP and Human–Computer Interaction Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Kaya, İhsan, 2012. "Evaluation of outsourcing alternatives under fuzzy environment for waste management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 107-118.
    6. Mukund Pratap Singh & Pitam Singh & Priyamvada Singh, 2019. "Fuzzy AHP-based multi-criteria decision-making analysis for route alignment planning using geographic information system (GIS)," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 395-432, September.
    7. Jahanifar, Komeil & Amirnejad, Hamid & Azadi, Hossein & Adenle, Ademola A. & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2019. "Economic analysis of land use changes in forests and rangelands: Developing conservation strategies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. D. Bajić & D. Polomčić & J. Ratković, 2017. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the Purposes of Groundwater Control System Design," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(15), pages 4759-4784, December.
    9. Miodrag Čelebić & Dragoljub Bajić & Sanja Bajić & Mirjana Banković & Duško Torbica & Aleksej Milošević & Dejan Stevanović, 2024. "Development of an Integrated Model for Open-Pit-Mine Discontinuous Haulage System Optimization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    10. Panagiotis K. Marhavilas & Michael G. Tegas & Georgios K. Koulinas & Dimitrios E. Koulouriotis, 2020. "A Joint Stochastic/Deterministic Process with Multi-Objective Decision Making Risk-Assessment Framework for Sustainable Constructions Engineering Projects—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    11. Vecihi Yiğit & Nazlı Nisa Demir & Hisham Alidrisi & Mehmet Emin Aydin, 2020. "Elicitation of the Factors Affecting Electricity Distribution Efficiency Using the Fuzzy AHP Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.
    12. Shang, Delei & Yin, Guangzhi & Li, Xiaoshuang & Li, Yaoji & Jiang, Changbao & Kang, Xiangtao & Liu, Chao & Zhang, Chi, 2015. "Analysis for Green Mine (phosphate) performance of China: An evaluation index system," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P2), pages 71-84.
    13. PrasannaVenkatesan, S. & Goh, M., 2016. "Multi-objective supplier selection and order allocation under disruption risk," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 124-142.
    14. Pasura Aungkulanon & Walailak Atthirawong & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon, 2023. "Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process for Strategic Decision Making in Electric Vehicle Adoption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, April.
    15. Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo & Barbara Scozzi, 2016. "Capturing the Stakeholders’ View in Sustainability Reporting: A Novel Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, April.
    16. Vicente Rodríguez Montequín & Joaquín Manuel Villanueva Balsera & Marina Díaz Piloñeta & César Álvarez Pérez, 2020. "A Bradley-Terry Model-Based Approach to Prioritize the Balance Scorecard Driving Factors: The Case Study of a Financial Software Factory," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Badreya Gharib Khamis Mohammed Alblooshi & Syed Zamberi Ahmad & Matloub Hussain & Sanjay Kumar Singh, 2022. "Sustainable management of electronic waste: Empirical evidences from a stakeholders' perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1856-1874, May.
    18. Muhammad Mohsin & Yin Hengbin & Zhang Luyao & Li Rui & Qian Chong & Ana Mehak, 2022. "An Application of Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis for Risk Prioritization and Management: A Case Study of the Fisheries Sector in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Nyimbili, Penjani Hopkins & Erden, Turan, 2020. "GIS-based fuzzy multi-criteria approach for optimal site selection of fire stations in Istanbul, Turkey," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    20. Van Thac Dang & Jianming Wang & Wilson Van-Thac Dang, 2019. "An Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Assess Sustainable Urban Development in an Emerging Economy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-20, August.

    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:24:p:16743-:d:1298152. 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.