Sustainability assessment of public transportation in Twin Cities of Pakistan: a DEMATEL analysis

Abstract

This study proposed a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) approach for the analysis of public transportation (PT) sustainability factors in Pakistan. After briefly reviewing the related literature, the PT sustainability framework was constructed, and the DEMATEL-based multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDM) approach was developed. The proposed methodology was then applied to evaluate PT in the Twin Cities of Pakistan. The results were presented along with a sensitivity analysis involving six scenarios. The results highlighted the following: 1) Traffic congestion, infrastructure and aesthetics emerged as the most prominent factors for PT sustainability. 2) Air pollution, infrastructure, accident damage, affordability, and aesthetics were among the factors in the cause group. 3) Traffic congestion, accessibility, and human health impact were consistently in the effect group, emphasizing their secondary nature. Their resolution depended on tackling the problems in the cause group. 4) Although environmental factors such as air pollution emerged as the most significant causal factor, they were ranked lower in significance. Therefore, although resolving air pollution was key to improving PT sustainability, its importance was not perceived fully.

Keywords

• Public transportation
• sustainability evaluation
• DEMATEL
• Pakistan

References

1. Afrin, T., & Yodo, N. (2020). A survey of road traffic congestion measures towards a sustainable and resilient transportation system. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114660
2. Al-lami, A., & Torok, A. (2023). Sustainability Indicators of Surface Public Transportation. Sustainability, 15(21), 15289. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115289
3. Almasi, M. H., Oh, Y., Sadollah, A., Byon, Y. J., & Kang, S. (2021). Urban transit network optimization under variable demand with single and multi-objective approaches using metaheuristics: The case of Daejeon, Korea. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(5), 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1821414
4. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Omrani, H. (2011). Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12270–12280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.005
5. Bongardt, D., Schmid, D., Huizenga, C., & Litmann, T. (2011). Sustainable transport evaluation. Developing Practical Tools for Evaluation in the Context of the CSD Process. Eschborn. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=bb1e45d5215ea3123ef371999114c54b1ecf9d e5
6. Boz, E. Y., & Aras, F. (2021). Yeşil araç rotalama problemi araştırması: geçmiş ve gelecekteki eğilimler. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 5(2), 806–821. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jtom/issue/67597/952471
7. Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., & Göçer, F. (2018). Selection of sustainable urban transportation alternatives using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 58, 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.005
8. Chandra, S., & Kumar, V. (2020). Crowdsourcing as a social interaction tool to stimulate sustainable transportation mode use. The Open Transportation Journal, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874447802014010109

9. Chirra, S., & Kumar, D. (2018). Evaluation of supply chain flexibility in automobile industry with fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-018-0195-7 Ciptomulyono, U., Mustajib, M. I., Karningsih, P. D., Anggrahini, D., & Basuki, S. S. A. (2022). A new multicriteria method based on DEMATEL, ANP and grey clustering for quality sorting of incoming cores in remanufacturing systems under epistemic uncertainty: a case study of heavy-duty equipment. Cogent Engineering, 9(1), 2099056. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2099056
10. Demir, E., Ak, M. F., & Sarı, K. (2023). Pythagorean fuzzy based AHP-VIKOR integration to assess rail transportation systems in Turkey. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 25(2), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01404-x
11. Díkmen, C. F., & Taş, Y. (2018). Applying DEMATEL approach to determine factors affecting hospital service quality in a university hospital: a case study. Journal of Administrative Sciences Cilt, 16(32), 11–28. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/comuybd/issue/40668/420465
12. Falatoonitoosi, E., Ahmed, S., & Sorooshian, S. (2014). Expanded DEMATEL for Determining Cause and Effect Group in Bidirectional Relations. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 103846. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/103846
13. Fu, X., Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2012). Evaluating green supplier development programs at a telecommunications systems provider. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.030
14. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland, 1(8), 12–14. https://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=World+problems%2C+an+invitation+to+further +thought+within+the+framework+of+DEMATEL&btnG= Ghoushchi, S. J., Ab Rahman, M. N., Soltanzadeh, M., Rafique, M. Z., Hernadewita, Marangalo, F. Y., & Ismail,
15. A. R. (2023). Assessing Sustainable Passenger Transportation Systems to Address Climate Change Based on MCDM Methods in an Uncertain Environment. Sustainability, 15(4), 3558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043558
16. Güven, A., & Keçeci, B. (2020). ENDÜSTRİ MÜHENDİSLİĞİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN AKILLI ULAŞIM SİSTEMLERİ ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR LİTERATÜR TARAMASI. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 4(1), 378–387. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jtom/issue/56013/672542
17. Haghshenas, H., & Vaziri, M. (2012). Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 115–121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.010
18. Himanen, V., Lee-Gosselin, M., & Perrels, A. (2005). Sustainability and the interactions between external effects of transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 13(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.11.006
19. Hou, X., Lv, T., Xu, J., Deng, X., Liu, F., Lam, J. S. L., Zhang, Z., & Han, X. (2023). Evaluation of urban public transport sustainability in China based on the Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework——A case study of 36 major cities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 103, 107263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107263
20. Jeon, C. M., Amekudzi, A. A., & Guensler, R. L. (2010). Evaluating plan alternatives for transportation system sustainability: Atlanta metropolitan region. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4(4), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310902940209
21. Karjalainen, L. E., & Juhola, S. (2019). Framework for assessing public transportation sustainability in planning and policy-making. Sustainability, 11(4), 1028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041028
22. Keeble, B. R. (1988). The Brundtland report:‘Our common future.’ Medicine and War, 4(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783
23. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Hashemi-Tabatabaei, M., & Ghahremanloo, M. (2021). Sustainable public transportation evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on fuzzy BWM and MABAC. The Open Transportation Journal, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874447802115010031
24. Kijewska, K., Torbacki, W., & Iwan, S. (2018). Application of AHP and DEMATEL Methods in Choosing and Analysing the Measures for the Distribution of Goods in Szczecin Region. Sustainability, 10(7), 2365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072365
25. Kraus, L., & Proff, H. (2021). Sustainable urban transportation criteria and measurement—a systematic literature review. Sustainability, 13(13), 7113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137113
26. Litman, T., & Burwell, D. (2006). Issues in sustainable transportation. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 6, 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2006.010889
27. Nassereddine, M., & Eskandari, H. (2017). An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 106, 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.013
28. Nawaz, S., & Ali, Y. (2020). Analyzing the influence of social, cultural, behavioral traits on cycling and walking in Pakistan. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 7, 100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100182