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 1-34, 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. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. Wendong Jiang, 2024. "Key Selection Factors Influencing Animation Films from the Perspective of the Audience," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Amir Hossein Salimi & Amir Noori & Hossein Bonakdari & Jafar Masoompour Samakosh & Ehsan Sharifi & Mohammadreza Hassanvand & Baharam Gharabaghi & Mehdi Agharazi, 2020. "Exploring the Role of Advertising Types on Improving the Water Consumption Behavior: An Application of Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-33, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Song, Yongze & Thatcher, Dominique & Li, Qindong & McHugh, Tom & Wu, Peng, 2021. "Developing sustainable road infrastructure performance indicators using a model-driven fuzzy spatial multi-criteria decision making method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. 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.
    6. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    9. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    10. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    11. Ezgi Güler & Süheyla Yerel Kandemir, 2024. "Analysis of PM 10 Substances via Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making and Statistical Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-23, September.
    12. 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).
    13. Styliani Karamountzou & Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2023. "Suitability and Sustainability Assessment of Existing Onshore Wind Farms in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    14. Kuldeep Kavta & Arkopal K. Goswami, 2021. "A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3059-3084, December.
    15. Rudimar Caricimi & Géremi Gilson Dranka & Dalmarino Setti & Paula Ferreira, 2022. "Reframing the Selection of Hydraulic Turbines Integrating Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy VIKOR Multi-Criteria Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-26, October.
    16. Daniel Jugend & Hugo Henrique dos Santos & Susana Garrido & Regiane Máximo Siqueira & Jaime A. Mesa, 2024. "Circular product design challenges: An exploratory study on critical barriers," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 4825-4842, July.
    17. Priscila Celebrini de Oliveira Campos & Tainá da Silva Rocha Paz & Letícia Lenz & Yangzi Qiu & Camila Nascimento Alves & Ana Paula Roem Simoni & José Carlos Cesar Amorim & Gilson Brito Alves Lima & Ma, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision Method for Sustainable Watercourse Management in Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Dragan Pamučar & Ibrahim Badi & Korica Sanja & Radojko Obradović, 2018. "A Novel Approach for the Selection of Power-Generation Technology Using a Linguistic Neutrosophic CODAS Method: A Case Study in Libya," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-25, September.
    20. 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.

    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.