IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v172y2023ics0965856423000873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability performance analysis of micro-mobility solutions in urban transportation with a novel IVFNN-Delphi-LOPCOW-CoCoSo framework

Author

Listed:
  • Ecer, Fatih
  • Küçükönder, Hande
  • Kayapınar Kaya, Sema
  • Faruk Görçün, Ömer

Abstract

Almost all megacities worldwide are under pressure from environmental pollution and excessive resource usage due to rapid urbanization and increasing urban population. Within this scope, micro-mobility solutions (MMSs), an extension to the primary urban transportation network, have become even more critical recently. However, when we executed a preliminary investigation concerning MMSs' sustainability, we noted some critical theoretical and managerial gaps: (1) the number of studies assessing MMSs using decision-making approaches is excessively scarce, (2) no paper in the literature deals with the MMSs' sustainability performance, and (3) there are no commonly accepted criteria set to assess the sustainability of the MMSs in the literature. The current study aims to present a practical and robust decision-making framework that can overcome excessively complicated uncertainties to evaluate the sustainability performance of MMSs. Further, it suggests a novel methodological framework, i.e., Delphi, LogarithmicPercentageChange-DrivenObjectiveWeighting (LOPCOW), and Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) methods with interval-valued fuzzy neutrosophic number (IVFNN) information, which can be defined as a reconciliation tool to set the criteria affecting the assessment processes. Findings present that computing time, scenic adoption, and accidents are the foremost criteria, whereas mini-electric VH, powered standing scooter, and powered seated scooter are the most promising MMSs, respectively. Findings reveal that computing time, scenic adoption, and accidents are the critical factors for the sustainability assessment of MMSs, whereas mini-electric VH, powered standing scooter, and powered seated scooter are the most promising MMSs, respectively. The current paper's overall outcomes and findings can assist practitioners and policy-makers in the urban transportation industry in setting sustainability policies and investing in the more rational and sustainable MMSs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ecer, Fatih & Küçükönder, Hande & Kayapınar Kaya, Sema & Faruk Görçün, Ömer, 2023. "Sustainability performance analysis of micro-mobility solutions in urban transportation with a novel IVFNN-Delphi-LOPCOW-CoCoSo framework," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:172:y:2023:i:c:s0965856423000873
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856423000873
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103667?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fatih Ecer, 2022. "Multi-criteria decision making for green supplier selection using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study of a home appliance manufacturer," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 199-233, March.
    2. Jelle Van Cauwenberg & Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij & Peter Clarys & Bas de Geus & Benedicte Deforche, 2019. "E-bikes among older adults: benefits, disadvantages, usage and crash characteristics," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2151-2172, December.
    3. Esztergár-Kiss, Domokos & Tordai, Dániel & Lopez Lizarraga, Julio C., 2022. "Assessment of travel behavior related to e-scooters using a stated preference experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 389-405.
    4. McKenzie, Grant, 2019. "Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 19-28.
    5. Páraic Carroll, 2022. "Perceptions of Electric Scooters Prior to Legalisation: A Case Study of Dublin, Ireland, the ‘Final Frontier’ of Adopted E-Scooter Use in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-13, September.
    6. Luca D’Acierno & Matteo Tanzilli & Chiara Tescione & Luigi Pariota & Luca Di Costanzo & Salvatore Chiaradonna & Marilisa Botte, 2022. "Adoption of Micro-Mobility Solutions for Improving Environmental Sustainability: Comparison among Transportation Systems in Urban Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Liu, Wenqiu & Liu, He & Liu, Wei & Cui, Zhaojie, 2021. "Life cycle assessment of power batteries used in electric bicycles in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    8. Esther Salmeron-Manzano & Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro, 2018. "The Electric Bicycle: Worldwide Research Trends," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Ecer, Fatih, 2021. "A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    10. De Keyser, Wim & Peeters, Peter, 1996. "A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 457-461, March.
    11. Johanna Camargo Pérez & Martha Carrillo & Jairo Montoya-Torres, 2015. "Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 69-87, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Georgia Ayfantopoulou & Josep Maria Salanova Grau & Zisis Maleas & Alexandros Siomos, 2022. "Micro-Mobility User Pattern Analysis and Station Location in Thessaloniki," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, May.
    14. Gabriel Dias & Elisabete Arsenio & Paulo Ribeiro, 2021. "The Role of Shared E-Scooter Systems in Urban Sustainability and Resilience during the Covid-19 Mobility Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Nassereddine, M. & Eskandari, H., 2017. "An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 427-439.
    16. Liang, Hanwei & Ren, Jingzheng & Lin, Ruojue & Liu, Yue, 2019. "Alternative-fuel based vehicles for sustainable transportation: A fuzzy group decision supporting framework for sustainability prioritization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 33-43.
    17. Panagiotis G. Tzouras & Lambros Mitropoulos & Katerina Koliou & Eirini Stavropoulou & Christos Karolemeas & Eleni Antoniou & Antonis Karaloulis & Konstantinos Mitropoulos & Eleni I. Vlahogianni & Kons, 2023. "Describing Micro-Mobility First/Last-Mile Routing Behavior in Urban Road Networks through a Novel Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, February.
    18. Sarbast Moslem & Tiziana Campisi & Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz & Szabolcs Duleba & Kh Md Nahiduzzaman & Giovanni Tesoriere, 2020. "Best–Worst Method for Modelling Mobility Choice after COVID-19: Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Vladimir Shepelev & Alexandr Glushkov & Olga Fadina & Aleksandr Gritsenko, 2022. "Comparative Evaluation of Road Vehicle Emissions at Urban Intersections with Detailed Traffic Dynamics," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, May.
    20. Gössling, Stefan & Choi, Andy & Dekker, Kaely & Metzler, Daniel, 2019. "The Social Cost of Automobility, Cycling and Walking in the European Union," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 65-74.
    21. Yunus Emre Ayözen & Hakan İnaç & Abdulkadir Atalan & Cem Çağrı Dönmez, 2022. "E-Scooter Micro-Mobility Application for Postal Service: The Case of Turkey for Energy, Environment, and Economy Perspectives," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-22, October.
    22. Michał Adam Kwiatkowski & Elżbieta Grzelak-Kostulska & Jadwiga Biegańska, 2021. "Could It Be a Bike for Everyone? The Electric Bicycle in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-19, August.
    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. Pedro Reyes-Norambuena & Javier Martinez-Torres & Alireza Nemati & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2024. "Towards Sustainable Urban Futures: Integrating a Novel Grey Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Optimal Pedestrian Walkway Site Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-24, May.

    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. Lisa Kraus & Heike Proff, 2021. "Sustainable Urban Transportation Criteria and Measurement—A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-21, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Bretones, Alexandra & Marquet, Oriol, 2022. "Sociopsychological factors associated with the adoption and usage of electric micromobility. A literature review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 230-249.
    4. Alexandra König & Laura Gebhardt & Kerstin Stark & Julia Schuppan, 2022. "A Multi-Perspective Assessment of the Introduction of E-Scooter Sharing in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    5. Kim, Minju & Puczkowskyj, Nicholas & MacArthur, John & Dill, Jennifer, 2023. "Perspectives on e-scooters use: A multi-year cross-sectional approach to understanding e-scooter travel behavior in Portland, Oregon," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Sławomira Hajduk, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Decision-Making Approach for the Linear Ordering of Urban Transport Based on TOPSIS Technique," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-30, December.
    7. Jadwiga Biegańska & Elżbieta Grzelak-Kostulska & Michał Adam Kwiatkowski, 2021. "A Typology of Attitudes towards the E-Bike against the Background of the Traditional Bicycle and the Car," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Sujae Kim & Sangho Choo & Gyeongjae Lee & Sanghun Kim, 2022. "Predicting Demand for Shared E-Scooter Using Community Structure and Deep Learning Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Colovic, Aleksandra & Prencipe, Luigi Pio & Giuffrida, Nadia & Ottomanelli, Michele, 2024. "A multi-objective model to design shared e-kick scooters parking spaces in large urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    10. Paweł Ziemba & Izabela Gago, 2022. "Compromise Multi-Criteria Selection of E-Scooters for the Vehicle Sharing System in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-26, July.
    11. Wojciech Sałabun & Krzysztof Palczewski & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2019. "Multicriteria Approach to Sustainable Transport Evaluation under Incomplete Knowledge: Electric Bikes Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Georgia Ayfantopoulou & Josep Maria Salanova Grau & Zisis Maleas & Alexandros Siomos, 2022. "Micro-Mobility User Pattern Analysis and Station Location in Thessaloniki," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, May.
    13. Pietro Folco & Laetitia Gauvin & Michele Tizzoni & Michael Szell, 2023. "Data-driven micromobility network planning for demand and safety," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(8), pages 2087-2102, October.
    14. Mehzabin Tuli, Farzana & Mitra, Suman & Crews, Mariah B., 2021. "Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 164-185.
    15. Veronika Harantová & Ambróz Hájnik & Alica Kalašová & Tomasz Figlus, 2022. "The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Traffic Flow Characteristics, Emissions Production and Fuel Consumption at a Selected Intersection in Slovakia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    16. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Cao, Zhejing & Zhang, Xiaohu & Chua, Kelman & Yu, Honghai & Zhao, Jinhua, 2021. "E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: A Singapore case," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 177-196.
    18. Shah, Nitesh R. & Ziedan, Abubakr & Brakewood, Candace & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Shared e-scooter service providers with large fleet size have a competitive advantage: Findings from e-scooter demand and supply analysis of Nashville, Tennessee," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    19. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    20. Meng, Zhiyi & Li, Eldon Y. & Qiu, Rui, 2020. "Environmental sustainability with free-floating carsharing services: An on-demand refueling recommendation system for Car2go in Seattle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).

    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:eee:transa:v:172:y:2023:i:c:s0965856423000873. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.