Advertisement

Sustainability Evaluation of Transportation Policies: A Fuzzy-Based Method in a “What to” Analysis

  • Riccardo Rossi
  • Massimiliano Gastaldi
  • Gregorio Gecchele
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 223)

Abstract

The widely debated concepts of sustainability and sustainable development represent nowadays an essential aspect in transportation studies, in particular for the analyses of interactions between transportation and land-use systems. In this paper the three-dimensional concept of sustainability (social, economic and environmental sustainability) is formalized by a Fuzzy-Based Evaluation Method, which has already been applied for evaluating the sustainability of alternative transportation policies. The method is tested as a tool to interpret the preferences expressed by the decision makers, to identify the most important characteristics of alternative transportation policies and to support the design of hypothetical transportation services, following a “What to” analysis.

Keywords

Sustainability  Evaluation Fuzzy system theory 

References

  1. 1.
    Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L.A., Kouikoglou, V., Phillis, Y.: Evaluating strategies for sustainable development: fuzzy logic reasoning and sensitivity analysis. Ecol. Econ. 48, 149–172 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Omrani, H.: Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 12270–12280 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Browne, D., O’Regan, B., Moles, R.: Use of ecological footprinting to explore alternative policy scenarios in an Irish cityregion. Transp. Res. Part D 13, 315–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cornelissen, A.M.G., van den Berg, J., Koops, W.J., Grossman, M., Udo, H.M.J.: Assessment of the contribution of sustainability indicators to sustainable development: a novel approach using fuzzy set theory. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 86, 173–185 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dalal-Clayton, B., Bass, S.: Sustainable Development Strategies, 1st edn. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, p. 358 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory. An approach to computerized processing of uncertainty. Plenum Ed, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunn, E.G., Keller, J.M., Marks, L.A., Ikerd, J.E., Gader, P.D., Gosey, L.D.: Extending the application of fuzzy sets to the problem of agricultural sustainability. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Uncertainty Modelling and Analysis (ISUMA ’95), pp. 497–502. IEEE Computer Society, Washington DC (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ECMT: Assessment and decision making for sustainable transport. European Conference of Ministers of Transportation, Organization of Economic Coordination and Development (2004) http://www.oecd.org
  9. 9.
    Guine, J.B.: Handbook on life cycle assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standard. Kluwer, London, p. 704 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haghshenas, H., Vaziri, M.: Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison. Ecol. Indic. 15, 115–121 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iannucci, G., Ottomanelli, M., Sassanelli, D.: A fuzzy logic-based methodology for ranking transport infrastructures. AISC 96, 369–377 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    INFRAS, CE Delft, ISI, University of Gdansk: Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector. Report for the European Commission, Produced within the Study Internalisation Measures and Policies for All External Costs of Transport (IMPACT)(2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klir, G.J., Yuan, B.: Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic. Theory and Applications. Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kouikoglou, V.S., Phillis, Y.A.: On the monotonicity of hierarchical sum-product fuzzy systems. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 160(24), 3530–3538 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A.: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd edn. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kunreuther, H., Grossi, P., Seeber, N., Smith, A.: A Framework for Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. Columbia University, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lozano, R.: Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean Prod. 16, 1838–1846 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mori, K., Christodoulou, A.: Review of sustainability indices and indicators: towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ. Impact. Assess. Rev. 32, 94–106 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Munda, G.: Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment. Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munda, G.: Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158(3), 662–677 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): Towards sustainable transportation. OECD Proceedings of the Vancouver Conference, OECD (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phillis, Y., Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L.A.: Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecol. Econ. 37, 435–456 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rassafi, A.A., Vaziri, M.: Sustainable transport indicators: definition and integration. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21, 83–96 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Vescovi, R.: A methodological approach to evaluating the sustainability level of a transportation service. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 4(2), 411–424 (2009) WITPress, ISBN: 978-1-84564-181-8Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Gecchele, G., Vescovi, R.: An improvement of a fuzzy three-level model to evaluating transport systems sustainability considering decision maker’s attitude. Proceedings of the XIII EWGT Meeting, Padova, Italy, 23–25 September 2009, Padova University Press, ISBN: 978-88-903541-4-4 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Gecchele, G., Vescovi, R.: Using a fuzzy approach for evaluating sustainability of transportation system pollution-reducing policies: a case study. Proceedings of TRB 89th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 10–14 January 2010. CD-ROM (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Gecchele, G.: Fuzzy systems approach versus possibility theory approach for representing customers’ stated preferences on freight transport services. In: Mussone, L., Crisalli, U. (eds.) Transport Management and Land-Use Effects in Presence of Unusual Demand. Selected Papers, vol. 1797.38, pp. 275–296. Franco Angeli, Milan, ISBN: 978-88-568-4174-9 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rossi, R., Gastaldi, M., Gecchele, G.: Comparison of fuzzy-based and AHP methods in sustainability evaluation: a case of traffic pollution-reducing policies. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2012) In Press doi: 10.1007/s12544-012-0086-5
  30. 30.
    Roy, B., Hugonnard, D.: Ranking of suburban line extension projects on the Paris Metro System by a multi-criteria method. Transp. Res. Rec. 16A(4), 301–312 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Russo, F., Comi, A.: Measures for sustainable freight transportation at urban scale: expected goals and tested results. Eur. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 137(2), 142–152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tangari, L., Ottomanelli, M., Sassanelli, D.: Multicriteria fuzzy methodology for feasibility study of transport projects case study of southeastern trans-european transport axes. Transp. Res. Rec. 2048, 26–34 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tao, C.-C., Hung, C.-C.: A comparative approach of the quantitative models for sustainable transportation. J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 5, 3329–3344, http://www.easts.info/2003journal/papers/3329.pdf(2003)
  35. 35.
    Transportation Research Board TRB: Toward a sustainable future; addressing the long-term effects of motor vehicle transportation on climate and ecology. TRB Special Report 251, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wood, C.: Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, vol. 405, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yager, R.R.: Fuzzy decision making including unequal objectives. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 1, 87–95 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu, W.: ELECTRE Tri: Aspects methodologiques et manuels d’utilisation. Document de LAMSADE, 74, Universit Paris-Dauphine (1992)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zito, P., Salvo, G.: Toward an urban transport sustainability index: a European comparison. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 3, 179–195 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zuidgeest, M.H.P.: Sustainable urban transport development: a dynamic optimization approach, Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede. (2005) http://doc.utwente.nl/57439

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Rossi
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Gastaldi
    • 1
  • Gregorio Gecchele
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations