IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/irs/cepswp/2013-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multicriteria decision making for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects

Author

Listed:
  • AWASTHI Anjali
  • OMRANI Hichem
  • GERBER Philippe

Abstract

Confronted with negative environmental impacts, rising fuel costs and increas-ing congestion, many cities are implementing sustainable mobility measures to improve the flow of passenger and goods. Examples of these measures are use of public transport, cycling, walking, energy efficient vehicles, biofuels. The challenge before transport decision makers is which one(s) to choose for im-plementation as often there is no or limited quantitative data available on the subject. Moreover, the context of each city, its geographic and transport condi-tions restrict the generalization of results obtained in experienced cities. In this paper, we investigate four multicriteria decision making (MCDM) techniques namely TOPSIS, VIKOR, SAW and GRA for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects under qualitative data and demonstrate their application through a numerical example.

Suggested Citation

  • AWASTHI Anjali & OMRANI Hichem & GERBER Philippe, 2013. "Multicriteria decision making for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects," LISER Working Paper Series 2013-01, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
  • Handle: RePEc:irs:cepswp:2013-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.liser.lu/publi_viewer.cfm?tmp=2587
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonsson, R. Daniel, 2008. "Analysing sustainability in a land-use and transport system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 28-41.
    2. Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2011. "A methodology for evaluating transit service quality based on subjective and objective measures from the passenger's point of view," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 172-181, January.
    3. A. Awasthi & H. Omrani, 2009. "A hybrid approach based on AHP and belief theory for evaluating sustainable transportation solutions," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(3), pages 212-226.
    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. Ilaria Henke & Armando Cartenì & Clorinda Molitierno & Assunta Errico, 2020. "Decision-Making in the Transport Sector: A Sustainable Evaluation Method for Road Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Maja Kiba-Janiak & Jarosław Witkowski, 2019. "Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans: How Do They Work?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-15, August.

    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. Awasthi, Anjali & Omrani, Hichem & Gerber, Philippe, 2018. "Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 247-259.
    2. Gal-Tzur, Ayelet & Grant-Muller, Susan M. & Kuflik, Tsvi & Minkov, Einat & Nocera, Silvio & Shoor, Itay, 2014. "The potential of social media in delivering transport policy goals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 115-123.
    3. Rafal Stachyra & Kamil Roman, 2021. "Analysis of Accessibility of Public Transport in Warsaw in the Opinion of Users," Postmodern Openings, Editura Lumen, Department of Economics, vol. 12(3), pages 384-403, August.
    4. Hickman, Robin & Chen, Chia-Lin & Chow, Andy & Saxena, Sharad, 2015. "Improving interchanges in China: the experiential phenomenon," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 175-186.
    5. 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.
    6. Hongjun Cui & Mingzhi Li & Minqing Zhu & Xinwei Ma, 2023. "Investigating the Impacts of Urban–Rural Bus Service Quality on Rural Residents’ Travel Choices Using an SEM–MNL Integration Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Link, Heike, 2019. "The impact of including service quality into efficiency analysis: The case of franchising regional rail passenger serves in Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 284-300.
    8. Ying Zhou & Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Chengju Gong, 2019. "Evaluation of City Sustainability from the Perspective of Behavioral Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Pavol KRAL & Katarina JANOSKOVA & Tomas KLIESTIK, 2018. "Key Determinants Of The Public Transport User’S Satisfaction," REVISTA ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2018(31), pages 36-51, December.
    10. Mokonyama, Mathetha & Venter, Christoffel, 2013. "Incorporation of customer satisfaction in public transport contracts – A preliminary analysis," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 58-66.
    11. Mulley, Corinne & Clifton, Geoffrey Tilden & Balbontin, Camila & Ma, Liang, 2017. "Information for travelling: Awareness and usage of the various sources of information available to public transport users in NSW," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 111-132.
    12. Celik, Erkan & Aydin, Nezir & Gumus, Alev Taskin, 2014. "A multiattribute customer satisfaction evaluation approach for rail transit network: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 283-293.
    13. Ahmed Derbel & Younes Boujelbene, 2023. "Performance classification of Tunisian public transport operators," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 535-574, June.
    14. Zhang, Kai & Zhou, Kan & Zhang, Fangzhou, 2014. "Evaluating bus transit performance of Chinese cities: Developing an overall bus comfort model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 105-112.
    15. Quy Nguyen-Phuoc, Duy & Nguyen, Teron & Ngoc Su, Diep & Thi Le, Phuong & Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar, 2022. "How do social cues from other passengers affect word-of-mouth and intention to continue using bus services? A second-order SEM approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 302-320.
    16. Carreira, Rui & Patrício, Lia & Natal Jorge, Renato & Magee, Chris & Van Eikema Hommes, Qi, 2013. "Towards a holistic approach to the travel experience: A qualitative study of bus transportation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 233-243.
    17. Shuli Luo & Sylvia Y He, 2021. "Using data mining to explore the spatial and temporal dynamics of perceptions of metro services in China: The case of Shenzhen," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(3), pages 449-466, March.
    18. Juan de Oña & Rocio de Oña, 2015. "Quality of Service in Public Transport Based on Customer Satisfaction Surveys: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Approaches," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 605-622, August.
    19. Ittamalla, Rajesh & Srinivas Kumar, Daruri Venkata, 2021. "Determinants of holistic passenger experience in public transportation: Scale development and validation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    20. Daniel (Jian) Sun & Shukai Chen & Chun Zhang & Suwan Shen, 2016. "A bus route evaluation model based on GIS and super-efficient data envelopment analysis," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 407-423, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Multicriteria decision making; GRA; Urban Mobility; SAW; Sustainability Evaluation; Fuzzy Numbers; TOPSIS; VIKOR;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C60 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - General
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • R40 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:irs:cepswp:2013-01. 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: Library and Documentation (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepsslu.html .

    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.