# Multicriteria Procedures for Environmental Assessment of Transport

```Multicriteria Procedures for
Environmental Assessment of
Transport Routes Crossing the
Pyrenees in Navarre (Spain)
Javier Faulin
Esteban de Paz
Fernando Lera
lera@unavarra.es
javier.faulin@unavarra.es
Department of Economics
Dep. of Statistics and Operations Research
Public University of Navarre
Public University of Navarre
Pamplona, SPAIN
Pamplona, SPAIN
Angel A. Juan
ajuanp@uoc.edu
Dep. of Computer Sciences, Multimedia and
Telecommunication
Open University of Catalonia
Barcelona, SPAIN
0. Index
1. Introduction
2. Problem definition
3. Some transportation activities to follow up
4. Environmental Issues of Transportation
5. Methodological Analysis
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making
7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis
8. Conclusions
2
1. Introduction-I: Problem Approximation
 Goods Transportation by Road is one of the main concerns of the
European Union due to the pollution implications
 Routing Problems Crossing Areas with Environmental Criteria
(Sinha and Labi, 2007):
• Traditional optimization problems have considered classical criteria
to optimize: distance, fuel consumption, costs,…
• Including also environmental criteria in those transportation
problems adds an important value to the classical ones.
• Good characteristics to establish green corridors: environmentallyfriendly roads with low pollution levels.
criteria are very well considered
using Multicriteria Analysis
(Weintraub et al., 2007; Saaty,
2001)
3
4
1. Introduction-II: Geographical Focus
 Goods Transportation crossing the Pyrenees (geographical
border between Spain and France) is one of the critical problems
to link the Iberian peninsula with Central Europe. The analysis of
this problem is essential according to the environmental policies of
European Union.
• Current situation of
goods
transportation
motorways
between
Spain and France.
• A complete analysis of
the
two
motorways
is
wellknown, but analysis of
other routes is needed.
1. Introduction-III: A Route Selection Example
Considering the two ways of connecting
points A and B, we have to evaluate their
respective routes to decide which one is
better according to the pre-defined
environmental criteria.
5
6
2. Problem definition-I

Alternative selection: It is known that the main roads crossing the
Pyrenees in Navarre are the next ones:
i.
Alt 1- Pamplona- Leiza (AP-15 and A-15)
ii.
Alt 2- Pamplona- Vera Bidasoa (N-121A)
iii.
Alt 3- Pamplona- Dancharinea (N-121B)
iv. Alt 4- Pamplona- Valcarlos (N-135)
v.
Alt 5- Pamplona-Yesa (A-21 and N-240)
Which of them is the best route according to sustainability?
•
Criteria selection. Options:
a.
Only environmental criteria
b.
Environmental
criteria
plus
c.
Which environmental criteria?
3. Some transportation activities to follow up
Key logistic activities in big retail
companies.
i. Activities related to the delivery of final
products from big warehouses and depots to
local
retail
shops,
supermarkets
and
hypermarkets.
ii. Suitable tuning
management.
of
the
supply
chain
iii. Assignment decisions involving logistic
and characteristics, delivery actions in big cities,
etc.
iv. Tracking and monitoring activities related to
products delivery.
Systems in logistic activities
Support
Retail companies usually
make a big logistic effort in
delivery activities from their
depots to their retail shops
7
4. Environmental issues of Transportation- I
 Dimensions
of
Environmental Problem
the
a. Climate Change
Importance of transportation
and logistic activities in the
production of PM10 particles
b. Effects on the Air Quality
c. Noise Pollution
d. Water Quality
e. Land use and Effects on Soil
Quality
and thermal pollution

Externalities caused by Logistic Activities
a. All the dimensions previously mentioned
b. Traffic congestion and traffic jams
c. Infrastructures wear
8
4. Environmental issues of Transportation- III
Air Pollutants
a. Local impact:
b. Global impact:
i.Carbon Monoxide (CO) (70-90%)
i.Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (25%)
ii.Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (45-50%)
ii.Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) (5%)
iii.VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds)
(40-50%)
iii.Ozone (O3)
iv.Pollutant Particles (25%)
iv.Acid Rain (10-30%)
v.Clorofluorocarbonates
(CFC) (30%)
Percentages represent the rate
Carbon Monoxide (CO),
of the pollutant produced by
logistic activities.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2),
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
are the most important pollutants
9
4. Environmental issues of Transportation- IV

Noise Pollutants
approximately 70% of total
a. Noises due to road transportation:
noise emissions by
i. The vehicle engine and the asphalt transportation
rubbing are the main noise
producers
ii.
It is the most important noise
producer related to logistic activities.
b. Noises due to train transportation
i.
Train engines and the
between wheels and tracks
friction
ii.
Aerodynamic noise for speeds
greater than 200 km/h (124 miles/h)
c. Noises due to air transportation
i.
It assumes the 20%
transportation costs
of
the
10
11
5. Methodological Analysis

Methodology to tackle this transportation
problem:
1.
The problem presents a discrete number of alternatives.
2.
Knowing that it is possible to build very well-defined
alternatives characterized by multiple attributes.
3.
Multiattribute Programming focused on AHP is the most
plausible procedure to analyse this problem.
Alternatives
Multiattribute
Programming
Attributes
AHP
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- I

Problem Definition
Multicriteria decision
analysis: Steps
Alternatives
Criteria
1.
Problem definition
2.
Alternatives
3.
Criteria
4.
Scoring
5.
Decision Matrix
6.
User Preferences
7.
Decision Rules
8.
Sensitivity Analysis
9.
Final Decision
Scoring
Decision Matrix
User Preferences
Decision Rules
Sensitivity Analysis
Final Decision
12
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- II
I.
Problem definition

II.
Selection of the transportation route crossing the Pyrenees
which have a minimum environmental impact over nature.
Alternatives
i.
Alt 1- Pamplona- Leiza (AP-15 and A-15)
ii.
Alt 2- Pamplona- Vera Bidasoa (N-121A)
iii.
Alt 3- Pamplona- Dancharinea (N-121B)
iv.
Alt 4- Pamplona- Valcarlos (N-135)
v.
Alt 5- Pamplona-Yesa (A-21 and N-240)
13
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- III
Geographical Description of the five Alternatives
14
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- IV
I.
15
The values of the impacts on the criteria
II.

Incidence: severity of the impact

Magnitude: quantity and quality of the affected factor
Actions on the infrastructure cause impacts on the environment
Actions
•
•
•
•
•
Emissions increase.
Higher noise levels.
More intensive traffic.
Greater vibration.
Uncontrolled releases of
pollutants and accidents.
Impacts
• Increased atmospheric levels because of the
traffic
• Reduction of acoustic comfort because of the
traffic
• Effects on accidents.
• Higher risk of forest fires.
• Alteration of landscape areas of high value.
• Alteration of landscape areas of minor value.
• Impact on protected natural areas
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- V
Impact of a Road Corridor on Nearby Environmental Factors
16
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VI
Characteristics of the Survey Developed to Calculate Criteria Weights-1
I.
A survey was carried out in the surrounding areas of the five
candidate roads to estimate importance of the criteria weights
for AHP (Lera et al., 2011):

Geographical area: Roads crossing the Pyrenees in Navarre

Survey size: 600 with a stratified methodology

Definition of two influence zones according to their infrastructures
distance: Zone A and Zone B
17
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VII
18
Characteristics of the Survey Developed to Calculate Criteria Weights-2
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VIII
Selected Criteria for the AHP Model
I.
According to the results given by the previous survey, the
selected criteria are organised in the following way:

Factors: they gather subfactors in three great groups: Social,
Economic and Natural Areas

Subfactors: they present precise details of the impacts of different
actions
19
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- IX
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Social – Subfactor: Heritage of Cultural Interest
Heritage of Cultural Interest
%
Alternative
1
Alternative
2
Alternative
3
Alternative
4
Alternative
5
0.00
0.01
0.25
6.81
1.02
20
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- X
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Social – Subfactor: Recreative Zones
Recreative Zones %
Alternative
1
Alternative
2
Alternative
3
Alternative
4
Alternative
5
4.38
8.33
7.21
7.10
2.96
21
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XI
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Social – General Results for this Factor
22
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XII
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Economic – General Results for this Factor
23
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XIII
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Natural Areas – Previous Calculations
SCIs
%
SACs
%
Protected Landscapes
%
Nature reserves
%
Natural Parks
%
Alternative 1
0
0
0
0
0
Alternative 2
25.64
0.04
5.86
0
0.04
Alternative 3
24.59
0
5.69
0
0
Alternative 4
0.11
0
0
0
0
Alternative 5
2.58
0
0
0.22
0
24
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XIV
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Natural Areas – General Results for this Factor
25
26
7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- I
Decisional Matrix and Results
DECISIONAL MATRIX
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Social
0.29
0.24
0.11
0.11
0.24
Economic
0.31
0.04
0.04
0.31
0.30
Natural Areas
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.40
Weight Criteria
Social
Economic
Natural Areas
0.40
0.20
0.40
AHP RESULTS
Alternative 1
0.281
Alternative 2
0.132
Alternative 3
0.099
Alternative 4
0.191
Alternative 5
0.297
7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- II
Sensitivity Analysis Description
I.
Validity of the solutions given by the previous AHP model

Proposed solutions: Alt 1 (0.281) and Alt 5 (0.297)

How sensible are those solutions to the weights?
II.
Sensitivity Analysis provides the robustess of the solutions:

Factor Weights:
Social (0.4),
(0.4)

Economic (0.2)
and
Natural Areas
Simulation experiment:
•
Size: 5,000
•
Social and Natural Areas factors are uniformely simulated in
the range [0.3,0.5]
•
Economic factor is uniformely simulated in the range
[0.1,0.3]
27
7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- III
Sensitivity Analysis Results
28
8. Conclusions- I
1. A robust solution has been obtained to make recommendations in the
use of infrastructures on behalf of distribution companies and delivery
to retailers.
2. The results are consistent between them and are in favor of the use of
motorways and recommend avoiding the use of national road dual
carriageways.
3. For the criteria weighing and environmental factor construction, users
subjective judgments by means of a survey were taken into account.
Other procedures (expert choice with a Delphi method) were also
considered to balance the previous assumptions.
29
8. Conclusions- II
4. The main results of this AHP model are being studied by the local
Government of Navarre to use it as a way of infrastructures
classification to be recommended to distribution companies and
logistic carriers.
5. The previous results assume the assessment of infrastructures with a
high degree of environment involvement.
6. Possibility of making replicas of the study with different alternatives.
30
Multicriteria Procedures for
Environmental Assessment of
Transport Routes Crossing the
Pyrenees in Navarre (Spain)
Javier Faulin
Esteban de Paz
Fernando Lera
lera@unavarra.es
javier.faulin@unavarra.es
Department of Economics
Dep. of Statistics and Operations Research
Angel A. Juan
ajuanp@uoc.edu
Dep. of Computer Sciences, Multimedia and
Telecommunication
Public University of Navarre
Public University of Navarre
Pamplona, SPAIN
Pamplona, SPAIN
Thank you!
Open University of Catalonia
Barcelona, SPAIN
```