IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i2p715-d721209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smart Urban Mobility System Evaluation Model Adaptation to Vilnius, Montreal and Weimar Cities

Author

Listed:
  • Simona Zapolskytė

    (Department of Roads, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Martin Trépanier

    (Department of Mathematics and Industrial Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, QC H3C 3A7, Canada
    Interuniversitary Research Centre on Enterprise Networks, Logistic and Transportation (CIRRELT), Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada)

  • Marija Burinskienė

    (Department of Roads, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Oksana Survilė

    (Department of Environment Protection and Water Engineering, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

To date, there is no developed and validated way to assess urban smartness. When evaluating smart city mobility systems, different authors distinguish different indicators. After analysing the evaluation indicators of the transport system presented in the scientific articles, the most relevant and influential indicators were selected. This article develops a hierarchical evaluation model for evaluating a smart city transportation system. The indicators are divided into five groups called “factors”. Several indicators are assigned to each of the listed groups. A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method was used to calculate the significance of the selected indicators and to compare urban mobility systems. The applied multi-criteria evaluation methods were simple additive weighting (SAW), complex proportional assessment (COPRAS), and technique for order preference by similiarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The significance of factors and indicators was determined by expert evaluation methods: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), direct, when experts evaluate the criteria as a percentage (sum of evaluations of all criteria 100%) and ranking (prioritisation). The evaluation and comparison of mobility systems were performed in two stages: when the multi-criteria evaluation is performed according to the indicators of each factor separately and when performing a comprehensive assessment of the smart mobility system according to the integrated significance of the indicators. A leading city is identified and ranked according to the smartness level. The aim of this article is to create a hierarchical evaluation model of the smart mobility systems, to compare the smartness level of Vilnius, Montreal, and Weimar mobility systems, and to create a ranking.

Suggested Citation

  • Simona Zapolskytė & Martin Trépanier & Marija Burinskienė & Oksana Survilė, 2022. "Smart Urban Mobility System Evaluation Model Adaptation to Vilnius, Montreal and Weimar Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:715-:d:721209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/715/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/715/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gülay Demir & Milanko Damjanović & Boško Matović & Radoje Vujadinović, 2022. "Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility by Using Fuzzy-FUCOM and Fuzzy-CoCoSo Methods: The Case of the SUMP Podgorica," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-27, April.
    2. Douglas Mitieka & Rose Luke & Hossana Twinomurinzi & Joash Mageto, 2023. "Smart Mobility in Urban Areas: A Bibliometric Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.

    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:14:y:2022:i:2:p:715-:d:721209. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.