Vol. 11 No. 1 (2023): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

Measuring sustainability performance in road transport: A comparative analysis

PDF (Turkish)
  • Gül SENİR,
  • Arzum BÜYÜKKEKLİK
Gül SENİR
Assist. Prof. Dr., Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde, Turkiye
Arzum BÜYÜKKEKLİK
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde, Turkiye

Published 2023-03-25

Keywords

  • Karayolu Taşımacılığı, Sürdürülebilirlik, ENTROPİ, WASPAS
  • Road Transport, Sustainability, ENTROPY, WASPAS

How to Cite

Measuring sustainability performance in road transport: A comparative analysis. (2023). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(1), 10-30. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i1.2147

Copyright (c) 2023 Gül SENİR- Arzum BÜYÜKKEKLİK

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Measuring sustainability performance in road transport: A comparative analysis. (2023). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(1), 10-30. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i1.2147

Abstract

Road transport is the backbone of human and freight transport worldwide and is highly used. However, this use also causes significant environmental effects, especially greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and negatively affects sustainability. This study aims to evaluate and compare the sustainability performances of existing road transport systems in selected OECD countries. First, the study determined the criteria' importance levels using ENTROPY, one of the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Then the sustainability ranking of the countries in road transport was made with the WASPAS method. Finally, data used in evaluating sustainability in road transport of OECD countries, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Transport statistics, World Bank statistics and European statistics were obtained from the web addresses. In line with the results obtained, the order of the criteria according to their importance levels was CO2 emissions, fuel consumption and road accidents; Iceland, Turkey and Lithuania were the first three countries with high scores in sustainability performance in road transport.

PDF (Turkish)

References

  1. Akçakanat, Ö.,Eren, H., Aksoy, E. ve Ömürbek, V. (2017). Bankacılık Sektöründe Entropi ve Waspas Yöntemleri ile Performans Değerlendirmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 285-300.
  2. Akı, B. (2015). Sürdürülebilir Ulaşım Planlamaları ve Çevre Üzerindeki Olumsuz Etkileri, 2nd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium, 28 - 30th May 2015-Ankara.
  3. Alper, F. Ö. ve Alper, A. E. (2017). Karbondioksit Emisyonu, Ekonomik Büyüme, Enerji Tüketimi İlişkisi: Türkiye İçin Bir ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı. Sosyoekonomi, 25(33), 145-156.
  4. Arı, A. ve Zeren F. (2011). CO2 Emisyonu ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Panel Veri Analizi, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 2, 37-47
  5. Ayçin E. (2019). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Bilgisayar Uygulamalı Çözümler, Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  6. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S. and Omrani, H. (2011). Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in Evaluating Sustainable Transportation Systems. Expert systems with Applications, 38(10), 12270-12280.
  7. Bıyık, Y. ve Civelekoğlu, G., (2018). Ulaşım Sektöründen Kaynaklı Karbon Ayak İzi Değişiminin İncelenmesi. Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research, 2 (2), 157-166.
  8. Black, W. R. (2010). Sustainable Transportation: Problems and Solutions. Guilford Press, New York. https://www.guilford.com/excerpts/black2.pdf Erişim tarihi: 16.10.2022.
  9. Bojković, N., Anić, I. and Pejčić-Tarle, S. (2010). One Solution for Cross-Country Transport-Sustainability Evaluation Using a Modified ELECTRE Method. Ecological Economics, 69(5), 1176-1186.
  10. Bojković, N., Macura, D., Pejčić-Tarle, S. and Bojović, N. (2011). A Comparative Assessment of Transport-Sustainability in Central and Eastern European Countries with a Brief Reference to the Republic of Serbia. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 5(6), 319-344.
  11. Büyükkeklik, A. ve Özoğlu, B. (2021). “Lojistik Hizmetlerde Sürdürülebilirlik ve Dijitalleşme”, Pazarlama Bakışıyla Lojistik Hizmetlerde Yeni Uygulamalar (içinde) 153 – 175, 1. Baskı, Nobel Yayınevi, Ankara.
  12. Cansız, Ö. F. ve Ünsalan, K. (2020). Yük Taşımacılığında Tek Türlü ve Çok Türlü Taşımacılık Rotalarının Karbon Ayak İzinin Karşılaştırılması. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 11(2), 809-816.
  13. Castillo, H. and Pitfield, D. E. (2010). ELASTIC–A Methodological Framework for Identifying and Selecting Sustainable Transport Indicators. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(4), 179-188.
  14. Chen, S., Leng, Y., Mao, B. and Liu, S. (2014). Integrated weight-based multi-criteria evaluation on transfer in large transport terminals: A case study of the Beijing South Railway Station. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice (66), 13-26.
  15. Demirtürk, D. (2021). Sürdürülebilir Ulaşımda Sera Gazı Etkisini Azaltmaya Yönelik Çalışmalar. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 9(4), 1080-1092.
  16. Dereli, M. ve Aytaç, A. (2019). Uluslararası Ticaret ve Çevre İlişkisi Kapsamında Yeşil Lojistik Kavramı: Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler, 68.
  17. Dündar, A. O. (2021). Türkiye’deki Büyükşehirlerin Karayolu Ulaşımı Kaynaklı Sera Gazı Emisyon Miktarının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi. Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 7(2), 318-337.
  18. Dündar, A. O. ve Kolay, A. (2021). Karayolu Yük ve Yolcu Taşımacılığının Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Bakımından Değerlendirilmesi ve Konya İli Sera Gazı Emisyonunun Hesaplanması. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 14(1), 317 – 334.
  19. Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., Zolfani, S. H. and Eshkalag, M. K. (2019). Sustainability Assessment of OPEC Countries: Application of a Multiple Attribute Decision Making Tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118324.
  20. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/5_Summary-for-Policymakers_Mitigation-of-Climate-Change_post_FINAL.pdf Erişim Tarihi, 23.12.2022.
  21. Jaegler, A. and Gondran, N. (2013). How to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of Road Freight on Supply Chains? In 2013 International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport, 104-109. IEEE.
  22. Jung, H. (2017). Evaluation of third party logistics providers considering social sustainability. Sustainability, 9(5), 777.
  23. Kıran, M.S. Turanoğlu, E. ve Özceylan, E. (2011). Artificial Bee Colony Approach To Estimate CO2 Emission of Turkey, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering.
  24. Lewis, A. (2016). Towards a Harmonized Framework for Calculating Logistics Carbon Footprint. In Sustainable Logistics and Supply Chains, 163-181. Springer, Cham.
  25. Ma, F., Wang, W., Sun, Q., Liu, F. and Li, X. (2018). Ecological Pressure of Carbon Footprint in Passenger Transport: Spatio-temporal changes and regional disparities. Sustainability, 10(2), 317.
  26. Osorio-Tejada, J. L., Llera-Sastresa, E., and Scarpellini, S. (2017). A Multi-Criteria Sustainability Assessment for Biodiesel and Liquefied Natural Gas as Alternative Fuels in Transport Systems. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 42, 169-186.
  27. Özoğlu, B. and Büyükkeklik, A. (2013). The Transportation and Logistics Sector in Turkish Economy: A Review about Growth Potential and Education Infrastructure. Transport & Logistics, 13(7), 1-10.
  28. Özoğlu, B. ve Demirci, S. (2021). Türkiye’de Karayolu Taşımacılığının Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Literatür Taraması. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 670–687.
  29. Piecyk, M. I. and McKinnon, A. C. (2010). Forecasting the Carbon Footprint of Road Freight Transport in 2020. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 31-42.
  30. Ramani, T., Zietsman, J., Eisele, W., Rosa, D., Spillane, D. and Bochner, B. (2009). Developing Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures for TXDOT’s Strategic Plan: Technical Report. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System.
  31. Rao, S. H. (2021). A Hybrid MCDM Model Based on DEMATEL and ANP for Improving the Measurement of Corporate Sustainability Indicators: A study of Taiwan High Speed Rail. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 41, 100657, 1-12.
  32. Rassafi, A.A. and Vaziri, M. (2005). Sustainable transport indicators: Definition and integration. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2(1), 83–96.
  33. Rivero Gutiérrez, L., De Vicente Oliva, M. A. and Romero-Ania, A. (2021). Managing Sustainable Urban Public Transport Systems: An AHP Multicriteria Decision Model. Sustainability, 13(9), 4614.
  34. Ruiz-Padillo, A., Ruiz, D. P., Torija, A. J. and Ramos-Ridao, Á. (2016). Selection of suitable alternatives to reduce the environmental impact of road traffic noise using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61, 8-18.
  35. Sayyadi, R. and Awasthi, A. (2020). An Integrated Approach Based on System Dynamics and ANP for Evaluating Sustainable Transportation Policies. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics, 7(2), 182-191.
  36. Shiau, T. A. and Jhang, J. S. (2010). An integration model of DEA and RST for measuring transport sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 17(1), 76-83.
  37. Şahan, D. (2017). Türkiye’de Taşımacılığın Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Çerçevesinde Analizi. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 1(2), 1-15.
  38. Tian, Z., Huo, L., Shen, G. and Li, Z. (2015). Analysis on the Base Model of Low Carbon Logistics. In LISS 2013, 509-514. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  39. Tian, N., Tang, S., Che, A. and Wu, P. (2020). Measuring Regional Transport Sustainability Using Super-Efficiency SBM-DEA with Weighting Preference. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118474.
  40. Turgut, A. ve Budak, T. (2022). Lojistik ve Taşımacılığın Karbon Ayak İzi: Sistematik Bir Literatür İncelemesi. Kent Akademisi, 15(2), 846-858.
  41. Ullah, K., Hamid, S., Mirza, F. M. and Shakoor, U. (2018). Prioritizing the gaseous alternatives for the road transport sector of Pakistan: A multi criteria decision making analysis. Energy, 165, 1072-1084.
  42. Ulutaş, A. ve Topal, A. (2020). Bütünleştirilmiş Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Üretim Sektörü Uygulamaları, Akademisyen Kitabevi, Ankara.
  43. Vassilev V., Genova K. and Vassileva, M. (2005). A Brief Survey of Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Cybernetics and Information Technologies. 5(1), 4.
  44. Yazdani, M., Pamucar, D., Chatterjee, P. and Chakraborty, S. (2020). Development of a Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Freight Transport System Evaluation Using Rough Numbers. International Journal of Production Research, 58(14), 4325-4351.
  45. Wang, C. N., Le, T. Q., Chang, K. H. and Dang, T. T. (2022a). Measuring Road Transport Sustainability Using MCDM-Based Entropy Objective Weighting Method. Symmetry, 14(5), 1033.
  46. Wang, C. N., Le, T. Q., Yu, C. H., Ling, H. C. and Dang, T. T. (2022b). Strategic Environmental Assessment of Land Transportation: An Application of DEA with Undesirable Output Approach. Sustainability, 14(2), 972.
  47. Witting, H. (2015). Standards as a Controlling Mechanism: Methods and Effects of Carbon Footprinting in the Logistic Sector. Zeıtschrıft fur Wırtschaftsgeographıe, 59(2), 102-114.
  48. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. and Zakarevicius, A. (2012), Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment. Electronics and Electrical Engineering 6(122), 3–6.
  49. Uluslararası Enerji Ajansı, 2022. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-data-explorer, Erişim Tarihi, 07.10.2022
  50. UNECE Transport Statistics Database. https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb/en/TableDomains/?fbclid=IwAR19yIHpHWTQwcqO1o2HhoBosZceXJmetZj0dtgqwCOt8wvbxEcRDL1A0Ys, Erişim Tarihi, 21.10.2022.
  51. Workbank Database. https://databank.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/1ff4a498/Popular-Indicators?fbclid=IwAR0vlTUVT71cyydfr2ktI86KhNSZ_nJcWi0h5vPL0VoqXTOGmZAwMVcwDU4, Erişim Tarihi, 21.10.2022.
  52. European Statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database?fbclid=IwAR0RnZWbkyF0YdaL6WkZAOMTiUcbecOaKqzFv1uuL29d-YtCJwY9ommeHLo, Erişim Tarihi, 21.10.2022.
  53. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/, Erişim Tarihi, 27.12.2022.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.