IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i11p4731-d1407246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empowering Urban Public Transport Planning Process for Medium-Sized Cities in Developing Countries: Innovative Decision Support Framework for Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Natthapoj Faiboun

    (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)

  • Rungsun Udomsri

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

  • Sittha Jaensirisak

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ubon Ratchathani University, Ubon Ratchathani 34190, Thailand)

Abstract

The challenges resulting from rapid economic growth, urbanization, and increased motorization in developing nations necessitate a comprehensive and sustainable approach to urban public transport planning. While sustainable urban public transport (SUPT) planning offers a solution, the complexity of choosing suitable policy measure options remains a challenge. This study first introduces a decision support framework (DSF) that integrates the sustainable urban public transport manual (SUPTM) adopted for generating the potential SUPT policy measure options, the KonSULT knowledge base applied for providing the performance scores of each measure option for all determined criteria, and the HMADM (including FAHP, FSM, and TOPSIS) technique to create, rank, and select SUPT policy measure options tailored to medium-sized urban areas in developing nations. A case study of Khon Kaen City, Thailand, illustrates the practical application of the framework, resulting in a set of 31 (91.2%) out of the total of 34 ranked policy measure options. Comparing these prioritizations with the city’s existing plan reveals a substantial agreement, which suggests the potential applicability of the DSF. Overall, the DSF marks a significant advancement in SUPT planning, which is crucial for shaping efficient, equitable, and environmentally conscious urban mobility in developing countries, which are undergoing transformative change.

Suggested Citation

  • Natthapoj Faiboun & Pongrid Klungboonkrong & Rungsun Udomsri & Sittha Jaensirisak, 2024. "Empowering Urban Public Transport Planning Process for Medium-Sized Cities in Developing Countries: Innovative Decision Support Framework for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-28, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4731-:d:1407246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4731/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4731/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luis Pérez-Dominguez & Sara-Nohemí Almeraz Durán & Roberto Romero López & Iván Juan Carlos Pérez-Olguin & David Luviano-Cruz & Jesús Andrés Hernández Gómez, 2021. "Assessment Urban Transport Service and Pythagorean Fuzzy Sets CODAS Method: A Case of Study of Ciudad Juárez," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Loganathan, Nanthakumar & Muzaffar, Ahmed Taneem & Ahmed, Khalid & Ali Jabran, Muhammad, 2016. "How urbanization affects CO2 emissions in Malaysia? The application of STIRPAT model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 83-93.
    3. 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.
    4. Pradeep Chaitanya Jasti & V. Vinayaka Ram, 2019. "Sustainable benchmarking of a public transport system using analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy logic: a case study of Hyderabad, India," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 457-485, October.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    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. 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 1-34, December.
    2. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    5. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    6. Lupo, Toni, 2015. "Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 249-259.
    7. Bojan Srdjevic & Yvonilde Medeiros, 2008. "Fuzzy AHP Assessment of Water Management Plans," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(7), pages 877-894, July.
    8. Łatuszyńska Anna, 2014. "Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Topsis Method For Interval Data In Research Into The Level Of Information Society Development," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 63-76, July.
    9. Deng, Yanfei & Xu, Jiuping & Liu, Ying & Mancl, Karen, 2014. "Biogas as a sustainable energy source in China: Regional development strategy application and decision making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 294-303.
    10. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    11. Peyman Mohammady & Amin Amid, 2011. "Integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR model for supplier selection in an agile and modular virtual enterprise," Fuzzy Information and Engineering, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 411-431, December.
    12. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Tarik Agouti & Abdessadek Tikniouine, 2017. "A new integrated methodology using modified Delphi-fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE for Geospatial Business Intelligence selection," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 897-925, November.
    13. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Abderrafie El Maknissi & Abdessadek Tikniouine & Tarik Agouti, 2016. "Decision making under uncertainty using PEES–fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for landfill location selection," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 351-367, December.
    14. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    15. Concetta Manuela La Fata & Toni Lupo & Tommaso Piazza, 2019. "Service quality benchmarking via a novel approach based on fuzzy ELECTRE III and IPA: an empirical case involving the Italian public healthcare context," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 106-120, March.
    16. Ping-Lung Huang & Bruce C.Y. Lee & Chen-Song Wang & Chi-Te Sun, 2017. "Relative Importance of the Factors under the ISO-10015 Quality Management Guidelines that Influence the Service Quality of Certification Bodies," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 13(1), pages 105-137, February.
    17. Rahimdel, Mohammad Javad & Noferesti, Hossein, 2020. "Investment preferences of Iran's mineral extraction sector with a focus on the productivity of the energy consumption, water and labor force," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Muhammad Ikram & Qingyu Zhang & Robert Sroufe, 2020. "Developing integrated management systems using an AHP‐Fuzzy VIKOR approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2265-2283, September.
    19. María Carmen Carnero & Andrés Gómez, 2019. "Optimization of Decision Making in the Supply of Medicinal Gases Used in Health Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-31, May.
    20. Yibin Zhang & Kevin W. Li & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Prioritization and Aggregation of Intuitionistic Preference Relations: A Multiplicative-Transitivity-Based Transformation from Intuitionistic Judgment Data to Priority Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 409-436, March.

    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:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4731-:d:1407246. 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.