Areej Muhy Abdulwahab
| Nabil T. Ismael* | Wameedh T. M. Altameemi | Hanan Salim Musa
© 2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
The aim of the present work is to choose the most important sustainable urban indicator according to the opinion of local transport specialists, and using it to evaluate the urban transportation system in Baghdad city. To achieve these objectives, make Questionnaire form content 130 indicators were obtained in various environmental, social and economic dimensions. The questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS program; and Likert Scale (five-point) is adopted (5 very effective, 1 not very effective) to find out the importance and impact of each indicator at the local level. The results of the questionnaire showed that the most important sustainable indicator that can be applied and that has a very strong impact on the local Iraqi reality, is the accessibility indicator to public services and public transport, its relative importance was 93.6%, and 91.2% for the mobility management indicator.
sustainable, indicators, transport, economical, environmental, social
It is almost impossible to talk about sustainability and sustainable development without including transportation. Humans have always traveled. Although modes and purposes have continuously changed over time and space, people are still need to travel. Therefore, the transportation represents an important issue of sustainability discussions [1]. The sustainability concept is coincided with the sustainability measurement necessity. Many studies in the literature have been conducted to address sustainability in different contexts and to emphasize the importance of measurement methods.
The transportation sustainability concept has been found because the lack of efficient transportation systems which are able to capture the demand rapidly increasing. Many traffic problems are caused by inadequate transport facilities; this causes delays; traffic congestion, passenger dissatisfaction and the negative impact of emissions on the environment [2].
The indicators of sustainable transportation are used to measure the system and the impact of transport to communities. These indicators are defined as a performance measure which are regularly updated to help managers, engineers and transportation planners in computing the comprehensive range of economic, social, and environmental effect from policy decisions. The relation between transportation systems with environmental, economic, and social aspects represents the base of sustainable transportation indicators [3].
The aim of the present work is to choose sustainable indicators that are appropriate to the Iraqi reality for the purpose of using them when preparing urban transport plans and evaluating the transport system in Baghdad city, based on the opinion of local experts in the Iraqi transport sector.
The description of a sustainable transformation utilizes numerous potential sustainable indicators. To obtain the most important information about the outcomes groups of the system, the indicators should be selected carefully. The types of these indicators are classified as [4-10]:
The most effective way to assess and evaluate the sustainability of a particular transport system in a particular city and to support the decision-making process is to use indicators or sets of indicators. Simplifying complex sustainability issues is one way to use indicators effectively. To evaluate the aims effectively, Litman [5] proposed the usage of indicators set due to the limitations of utilizing single indicator.
Numerous approachesare employed to collect and define indicators which are able to assess it efficiently. The indicators construction is related to a certain concern situation description or its changes over time. Although collection, evaluation and normalization of indicators are important to identify the cost and time effective indicators sets, there is no international agreement standard to collect these sustainability indicators [11].
Enormous studies were employed by Zito and Salvo [11] to collect the indicator's main requirements. They found that the easy to understand, reasonable, quantifiable, reachable, comprehensive and sensitive to changes over time, independent reflect numerous aspects of research, systematic for comparison, clearly defined and record long term process are the most effective indicators. The main characteristics of indicators which are defining the sustainable transportation's environmental dimension are based on measurement, clearly indicating the actual and potential influences and have as much as accuracy [12].
Various investigations were conducted in North America, South America, Europe and Asia to obtain sustainable urban transport variables and to examine the relation between the climate and sustainability indicators in this field. About 530 variables were provided by analyzed studies, some of them are overlapping with each other, but most of them are unique due to the divergent aims of those papers [13].
The unique variables and combined indices should be combined due to the indication of important principle of urban planning diverge as a result of variation of related challenges and features in different cities. Social wellbeing, economic achievement and ecological sustainability represent the main reflection of the gathered indicators [14].
The assessment of transport sustainability represents the main goal of Transport and Environment Reporting mechanism report which was started to publish by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) published in 2000. Providing knowledge about the demand, pressure and influence of transport sector for policy makers represent the main aim of the report [3, 15].
The ungrouped variables are about 40 and they can be classified under four main groups of indicators.
Another report about smart transportation was published by Green Apple Canada [16] to investigate new solutions of urban transport sector issues in cities of Canada. As same as EEA, the seventeen indicators were not classified by the Green Apple, however they can be classified into the sustainability dimensions.
Litman [3, 6] reported that quality and cost are crucial groups of indicators selection in transport sustainability. The indicators were divided into economic, social and environmental dimensions. However economic dimension was the domination over the two other factors due to the relation of more than half of the indicators to the economic sustainability.
Buzási1 and Csete [17] categorized sustainability indicators depending on data from other researchers as depicted in Table 1.
Table 1. Sustainable indicators categorization of indicators according to many published research [3, 17]
|
Category |
Economical |
Environmental |
Social |
|
Indicators |
|
|
|
After reviewing the global experiences of sustainable indicators in the transport sector, this section deals with the suitable surveying to find a suitable study area in Baghdad City & make questionnaire form for local transport specialists to determine the most important sustainable urban indicator.
All data required in this study were obtained from:
Through extracting sustainable indicators in the transportation sector from various global experiences, 130 indicators were obtained in various environmental, social and economic dimensions.
4.1 Size and characteristics of the sample
A questionnaire containing 130 indicators was prepared and distributed to the specialists in the field of transport planning and traffic engineering to know the relative importance of each indicator and its relevance and importance with the local reality. The number of samples that answered the questionnaire was twenty-five samples, divided into 52% of the doctorate degree in the specialty and 48% of master's degree. The response rate was 20% of assistant professor, 52% of lecturer, and 28% of assistant lecturer title as illustrated in (Figure 1).
4.2 Analysis of the questionnaire form
The sample question was analyzed using SPSS version 23 software. Weighted Mean, Standard deviation and the relative importance of each of the questionnaire items were extracted. Likert (five-point (scale is adopted (5 very effective, 1 not very effective) to find out the importance and impact of each indicator at the local level.
For assessing the response direction, the study depends on the hypothetical medium of (3), which represents the boundary between importance and impact and insignificance and impact, within the Likert (five-point (scale used in the questionnaire.
For the response level of the respondent on the questionnaire questions, the study used the response strength matrix, which an estimated balance according to the quintet Likert scale, as in Table 2.
The indicators were arranged according to the relative importance, level of impact, and strength of response in descending order from the highest to the lowest.
Figure 1. Academic achievement responses
Table 2. Arithmetic mean, standard deviation and the relative importance of the indicators form questionnaire
|
S. |
Indicator |
Scale |
Arithmetic mean |
Standard deviation |
Relative importance % |
Influential level |
Response Power |
||||
|
Very influential |
Influential |
Medium |
Uninfluential |
Very uninfluential |
|||||||
|
Q129 |
Accessibility to facilities and public transport. |
17 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4.68 |
0.48 |
93.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q44 |
Accessibility to facilities and public transport. |
17 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4.68 |
0.48 |
93.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q115 |
Mobility management. |
14 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4.56 |
0.51 |
91.20% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q68 |
Transport by cycling and walking mean for short distance trips. |
18 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
4.56 |
0.82 |
91.20% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q101 |
Accessibility / Affordability/ Social Equity. |
18 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.52 |
0.82 |
90.40% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q99 |
Safety. |
14 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4.48 |
0.65 |
89.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q24 |
Density of land use (people and jobs / unit of land area). |
13 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4.44 |
0.65 |
88.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q114 |
Planning Quality. |
14 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4.44 |
0.71 |
88.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q10 |
CO2 emissions (1000 tons of carbon). |
15 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
4.40 |
0.87 |
88.00% |
High
|
Very influential |
|
Q69 |
Walkability, pedestrian friendliness. |
13 |
9 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4.40 |
0.71 |
88.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q94 |
Traffic congestion delay. |
14 |
7 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4.40 |
0.76 |
88.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q105 |
Land Use Mix. |
15 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.40 |
0.82 |
88.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q87 |
Average travel time to work. |
13 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4.36 |
0.76 |
87.20% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q71 |
Open space availability and accessibility. |
14 |
5 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
4.32 |
0.85 |
86.40% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q16 |
Traffic accident rate. |
13 |
7 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.32 |
0.80 |
86.40% |
high |
Very influential |
|
Q33 |
Land paved for transport facilities (roads, parking, ports and airports). |
14 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
4.32 |
0.90 |
86.40% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q43 |
Accessibility of origin/destination. |
14 |
4 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
4.28 |
0.89 |
85.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q11 |
Average travel time. |
9 |
14 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4.28 |
0.61 |
85.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q6 |
Total network (km). |
12 |
8 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.28 |
0.79 |
85.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q93 |
Modal Split (% car use, % public transport, % walking, cycling). |
11 |
9 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.24 |
0.78 |
84.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q117 |
Land use planning. |
13 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
4.24 |
0.88 |
84.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q4 |
Passenger cars in use (thousand units). |
12 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
4.20 |
0.96 |
84.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q66 |
Trip length. |
9 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
4.04 |
0.98 |
80.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q27 |
No. of public services during 10-minute walk, and job opportunities during 30-minute commute of residents. |
7 |
12 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
4.00 |
0.82 |
80.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q50 |
Energy consumption efficiency of transport sector. |
10 |
6 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
4.00 |
.96 |
80.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q45 |
Access to public transport. |
9 |
6 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
3.96 |
0.89 |
79.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q15 |
Air pollutant emission intensity. |
10 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
3.88 |
1.13 |
77.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q67 |
Security on public transport. |
8 |
8 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
3.88 |
0.97 |
77.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q7 |
Urban population (% of total). |
3 |
15 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
3.84 |
0.62 |
76.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q84 |
Total number of vehicles per capita. |
8 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
0 |
3.84 |
1.03 |
76.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q108 |
Mode share. |
7 |
10 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
3.84 |
0.99 |
76.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q128 |
Land consumption for transport. |
7 |
9 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
3.84 |
0.94 |
76.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q21 |
Personal mobility (annual person-kilometers and trips) by mode (nonmotorized, automobile and public transport). |
4 |
14 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
3.84 |
0.75 |
76.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q85 |
Total motor bus route length per area. |
5 |
11 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
3.84 |
0.75 |
76.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q86 |
Number of available transit mode. |
7 |
8 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
3.84 |
0.90 |
76.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q25 |
Per capita congestion costs. |
6 |
8 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
3.80 |
0.82 |
76.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q48 |
Transport efficiency. |
7 |
6 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
3.80 |
0.87 |
76.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q82 |
Annual work trips by public transportation% per total annual work trips. |
6 |
9 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
3.80 |
0.87 |
76.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q124 |
Land use impacts. |
7 |
6 |
11 |
1 |
0 |
3.76 |
0.93 |
75.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q40 |
Use of renewable fuels. |
9 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
3.76 |
1.20 |
75.20% |
High |
Influential |
|
Q95 |
Household travel costs. |
7 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
3.76 |
0.97 |
75.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q12 |
Average travel cost. |
8 |
7 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
3.76 |
1.13 |
75.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q130 |
Satisfaction of citizens and variety and quality of transport options. |
5 |
13 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
3.76 |
1.01 |
75.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q1 |
Total Passenger kilometers. |
7 |
8 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
3.72 |
1.10 |
74.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q19 |
Road share of inland freight transport. |
7 |
7 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
3.72 |
1.02 |
74.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q111 |
Mode share. |
6 |
8 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
3.72 |
0.94 |
74.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q106 |
Electronic communication. |
6 |
8 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
3.72 |
0.94 |
74.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q2 |
Goods transported (million ton-km). |
7 |
5 |
11 |
2 |
0 |
3.68 |
0.99 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q18 |
Car share of inland Passenger transport. |
6 |
6 |
12 |
1 |
0 |
3.68 |
0.90 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q34 |
Portion of residents who walk or bicycle sufficiently for health (15 minutes or more daily). |
9 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
3.68 |
1.25 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q13 |
Average infrastructure cost. |
5 |
9 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
3.68 |
0.90 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q22 |
Vehicle travel (annual vehicle kilometers) by mode (nonmotorized, automobile and public transport). |
5 |
10 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
3.68 |
0.99 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q57 |
Loss of natural areas. |
6 |
9 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
3.68 |
1.07 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q78 |
Total roads length per capita. |
5 |
9 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
3.68 |
0.90 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q98 |
Economic Equity / User price. |
5 |
10 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
3.68 |
0.99 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q88 |
Annual public transportation expenditures per capita. |
2 |
14 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
3.68 |
0.69 |
73.60% |
High |
Influential |
|
Q104 |
Employment Accessibility. |
5 |
8 |
11 |
1 |
0 |
3.68 |
0.85 |
73.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q26 |
Quality (availability, speed, reliability, safety and prestige) of non-automobile modes (walking, cycling, ridesharing and public transit). |
3 |
13 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
3.64 |
0.86 |
72.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q92 |
Number of public transportation employments per capita. |
3 |
11 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
3.64 |
0.76 |
72.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q122 |
Inclusive planning. |
6 |
8 |
7 |
4 |
0 |
3.64 |
1.04 |
72.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q20 |
Investments in transport Infrastructure. |
3 |
12 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
3.64 |
0.95 |
72.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q107 |
Transport diversity. |
5 |
8 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
3.64 |
0.91 |
72.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q126 |
Energy use. |
4 |
10 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
3.64 |
0.86 |
72.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q77 |
Yearly motor fuel used by transportation / total vehicles. |
4 |
10 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
3.64 |
0.86 |
72.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q89 |
Yearly transportation revenues / transportation expenditures. |
4 |
8 |
12 |
1 |
0 |
3.60 |
0.82 |
72.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q23 |
Freight mobility (annual tonne-kilometers) by mode (truck, rail, ship and air). |
4 |
8 |
12 |
1 |
0 |
3.60 |
0.82 |
72.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q90 |
Annual public transportation revenues per public transportation expenditures. |
5 |
6 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
3.60 |
0.87 |
72.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q103 |
Commute Time. |
4 |
9 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
3.60 |
0.87 |
72.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q35 |
Portion of children walking or cycling to school. |
9 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
1 |
3.60 |
1.29 |
72.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q17 |
Traffic noise. |
6 |
6 |
9 |
4 |
0 |
3.56 |
1.04 |
71.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q96 |
Facility costs. |
5 |
5 |
14 |
1 |
0 |
3.56 |
0.87 |
71.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q127 |
Population exposed to noise. |
7 |
4 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
3.56 |
1.12 |
71.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q80 |
Vehicles percentage with renewable fuels per total number of vehicles. |
7 |
5 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
3.56 |
1.16 |
71.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q118 |
User rating. |
5 |
7 |
10 |
3 |
0 |
3.56 |
0.96 |
71.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q65 |
Car independence. |
4 |
9 |
9 |
3 |
0 |
3.56 |
0.92 |
71.20% |
High |
influential |
|
Q32 |
Universal design (transport system quality for people with disabilities and other special needs). |
6 |
5 |
10 |
4 |
0 |
3.52 |
1.05 |
70.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q53 |
Public revenues from taxes and traffic system charging. |
4 |
7 |
12 |
2 |
0 |
3.52 |
0.87 |
70.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q54 |
Benefit of transport. |
5 |
7 |
9 |
4 |
0 |
3.52 |
1.00 |
70.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q58 |
Proximity of transport infrastructure to designated nature areas. |
6 |
4 |
12 |
3 |
0 |
3.52 |
1.00 |
70.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q100 |
Livability. |
7 |
4 |
10 |
3 |
1 |
3.52 |
1.16 |
70.40% |
High |
Influential |
|
Q30 |
Affordability (portion of household budgets devoted to transport, or combined transport and housing). |
5 |
8 |
7 |
5 |
0 |
3.52 |
1.05 |
70.40% |
High |
influential |
|
Q110 |
Transport diversity. |
4 |
8 |
9 |
4 |
0 |
3.48 |
0.96 |
69.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q120 |
Cultural preservation. |
5 |
7 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
3.48 |
1.08 |
69.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q91 |
Yearly damage of public transportation property by public transportation incidents per yearly unlinked passenger trips by transit. |
4 |
7 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
3.48 |
0.92 |
69.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q97 |
Transport cost efficiency. |
7 |
3 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
3.48 |
1.12 |
69.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q112 |
Freight efficiency. |
2 |
10 |
11 |
2 |
0 |
3.48 |
0.77 |
69.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q121 |
Children’s travel. |
3 |
8 |
12 |
2 |
0 |
3.48 |
0.82 |
69.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q31 |
Rating of overall transport system satisfaction (based on objective user surveys). |
4 |
7 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
3.48 |
0.92 |
69.60% |
High |
influential |
|
Q83 |
Yearly percentage of annual non motorize work trips per total yearly work trips. |
4 |
9 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
3.44 |
1.08 |
68.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q36 |
Housing affordability in accessible locations. |
6 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
0 |
3.44 |
1.16 |
68.80% |
High |
influential |
|
Q49 |
Utilization rates. |
4 |
5 |
13 |
3 |
0 |
3.40 |
0.91 |
68.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q5 |
Commercial vehicles in use (thousand units). |
4 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
0 |
3.40 |
1.00 |
68.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q81 |
Number of alternative fuel station per number of alternative fuel vehicle. |
6 |
4 |
10 |
4 |
1 |
3.40 |
1.15 |
68.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q41 |
Efficiency resource of transport facility (such as use of renewable materials and energy efficient lighting). |
2 |
8 |
13 |
2 |
0 |
3.40 |
0.76 |
68.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q62 |
Runoff pollution from transport infrastructure. |
4 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
0 |
3.40 |
1.00 |
68.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q109 |
Freight |
2 |
9 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
3.40 |
0.82 |
68.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q125 |
Resource efficiency. |
3 |
7 |
12 |
3 |
0 |
3.40 |
0.87 |
68.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q51 |
External transport costs. |
4 |
6 |
12 |
2 |
1 |
3.40 |
1.00 |
68.00% |
High |
influential |
|
Q55 |
Fragmentation of land. |
2 |
7 |
14 |
7 |
0 |
3.36 |
0.76 |
67.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q39 |
Habitat preservation in transport planning. |
3 |
7 |
11 |
4 |
0 |
3.36 |
0.91 |
67.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q61 |
Greenhouse gas emissions from manufacture and maintenance. |
2 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
3.36 |
0.95 |
67.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q79 |
Vehicles percentage with alternative fuels / total number of vehicles. |
5 |
5 |
10 |
4 |
1 |
3.36 |
1.11 |
67.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q73 |
Vertical equity (income). |
2 |
10 |
8 |
5 |
0 |
3.36 |
0.91 |
67.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q29 |
Quality of transport for disadvantaged people (disabled, low incomes, children, etc.). |
5 |
5 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
3.32 |
1.14 |
66.40% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q75 |
Public opinion profile on transport and transport policy issues. |
5 |
2 |
15 |
2 |
1 |
3.32 |
1.03 |
66.40% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q116 |
Pricing reforms. |
4 |
6 |
11 |
2 |
2 |
3.32 |
1.11 |
66.40% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q63 |
Wastewater from manufacture and maintenance of transport infrastructure. |
3 |
6 |
12 |
3 |
1 |
3.28 |
0.98 |
65.60% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q102 |
User satisfaction. |
4 |
5 |
11 |
4 |
1 |
3.28 |
1.06 |
65.60% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q3 |
Two-wheelers (per 1,000 people). |
2 |
6 |
14 |
3 |
0 |
3.28 |
0.79 |
65.60% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q14 |
Average industrial backward linkage effect. |
4 |
3 |
14 |
4 |
0 |
3.28 |
0.94 |
65.60% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q46 |
Supplier operating costs. |
3 |
5 |
13 |
4 |
0 |
3.28 |
0.89 |
65.60% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q37 |
Community livability ratings. |
2 |
9 |
8 |
5 |
1 |
3.24 |
1.01 |
64.80% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q70 |
Traffic calming. |
1 |
9 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
3.24 |
0.83 |
64.80% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q113 |
Delivery services. |
2 |
9 |
9 |
3 |
2 |
3.24 |
1.05 |
64.80% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q74 |
Vertical equity (mobility needs and ability). |
2 |
6 |
13 |
4 |
0 |
3.24 |
0.83 |
64.80% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q42 |
Intermodal terminal facility. |
2 |
6 |
13 |
3 |
1 |
3.20 |
0.91 |
64.00% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q76 |
Violation of traffic rules. |
2 |
7 |
11 |
4 |
1 |
3.20 |
0.96 |
64.00% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q119 |
Community livability. |
3 |
5 |
12 |
4 |
1 |
3.20 |
1.00 |
64.00% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q9 |
Arable land (hectares). |
1 |
6 |
14 |
4 |
0 |
3.16 |
0.75 |
63.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q52 |
Gross added value. |
4 |
3 |
12 |
5 |
1 |
3.16 |
1.07 |
63.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q72 |
Horizontal equity (fairness). |
4 |
3 |
11 |
7 |
0 |
3.16 |
1.03 |
63.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q123 |
Other air pollution. |
2 |
6 |
12 |
4 |
1 |
3.16 |
0.94 |
63.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q59 |
Light emission. |
2 |
7 |
10 |
4 |
2 |
3.12 |
1.05 |
62.40% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q64 |
Generation of non-recyclable waste. |
2 |
7 |
9 |
6 |
1 |
3.12 |
1.01 |
62.40% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q28 |
Portion of households with internet access. |
3 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
3.08 |
1.15 |
61.60% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q60 |
Collisions with wildlife. |
3 |
6 |
9 |
4 |
3 |
3.08 |
1.19 |
61.60% |
medium |
Medium |
|
Q8 |
Illiteracy rate, adult total (% of people 15+). |
2 |
5 |
10 |
8 |
0 |
3.04 |
0.93 |
60.80% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q38 |
Water pollution emissions. |
4 |
4 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
2.96 |
1.31 |
59.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q47 |
Related expenditures of the household. |
2 |
5 |
11 |
4 |
3 |
2.96 |
1.10 |
59.20% |
medium |
medium |
|
Q56 |
Damage of underwater habitats. |
1 |
5 |
11 |
6 |
2 |
2.88 |
0.97 |
57.60% |
medium |
Medium |
|
Authors based on SPSS |
|||||||||||
Table 2 shows that the highest indicator with a significant impact on the local reality is the accessibility to facilities and public transport with a relative importance of 93.6%, and access to public services with a relative importance of 92.8%, followed by the management of Mobility for its importance in organizing and improving the transportation system in Iraq As an important tool in achieving sustainable transport with a relative importance of 91.2%, and with the same relative importance in the use of transportation, such as bicycles and walking in short distances. The remaining high impact indicators show that they are related to the planning process, land use, traffic safety and pollution, and therefore it is possible to reach a framework for sustainable indicators at the local level and classify them as follows:
First: Definition the concerned authorities include:
Second: Preparing and classifying sustainable indicators in the transport sector
Most of the sustainable indicators depend on the three pillars of sustainability (environmentally, socially, economically), The researcher proposes adding another corner which is the organizational and administrative pillar and governance which plays a big role in Iraq and the most important pillars of sustainability through which the transport sector is organized in general and the application of sustainability indicators in particular.
Through the questionnaire and the results extracted from it in Table 2 and by relying on the indicators with a high impact and very influential response force, these 23 indicators were classified as follows:
Table 3. Proposed local economic indicators
|
S. |
Indicator |
Scale |
Arithmetic mean |
Standard deviation |
Relative importance % |
Influential level |
Response Power |
||||
|
Very influential |
Influential |
Medium |
Uninfluential |
Very uninfluential |
|||||||
|
Q129 |
Accessibility to facilities and public transport. |
17 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4.68 |
0.48 |
93.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q44 |
Accessibility to facilities and public transport. |
19 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4.64 |
0.70 |
92.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q94 |
Traffic congestion delay. |
14 |
7 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4.40 |
0.76 |
88.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q87 |
Average travel time to work. |
13 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4.36 |
0.76 |
87.20% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q16 |
Traffic accident rate. |
13 |
7 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.32 |
0.80 |
86.40% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q43 |
Accessibility of origin/destination. |
14 |
4 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
4.28 |
0.89 |
85.60% |
High |
Very Influential |
|
Q11 |
Average travel time. |
9 |
14 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4.28 |
0.61 |
85.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q4 |
Passenger cars in use (thousand units). |
12 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
4.20 |
0.96 |
84.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q66 |
Trip length. |
9 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
4.04 |
0.98 |
80.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Average |
4.36 |
0.77 |
87.11% |
High |
Very influential |
||||||
Table 4. Proposed local social indicators
|
S. |
Indicator |
Scale |
Arithmetic mean |
Standard deviation |
Relative importance % |
Influential level |
Response Power |
||||
|
Very influential |
Influential |
Medium |
Uninfluential |
Very uninfluential |
|||||||
|
Q101 |
Accessibility / Affordability/ Social Equity. |
18 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.52 |
0.82 |
90.40% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q99 |
Safety. |
14 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4.48 |
0.65 |
89.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q71 |
Open space availability and accessibility. |
14 |
5 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
4.32 |
0.85 |
86.40% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Average |
4.44 |
0.77 |
88.80% |
High |
Very influential |
||||||
Table 5. Proposed local environmental indicators
|
S. |
Indicator |
Scale |
Arithmetic mean |
Standard deviation |
Relative importance % |
Influential level |
Response Power |
||||
|
Very influential |
Influential |
Medium |
Uninfluential |
Very uninfluential |
|||||||
|
Q68 |
Transport by cycling and walking mean for short distance trips. |
18 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4.56 |
0.82 |
91.20% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q10 |
CO2 emissions (1000 tons of carbon). |
15 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
4.40 |
0.87 |
88.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q69 |
Walkability, pedestrian friendliness. |
13 |
9 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4.40 |
0.71 |
88.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Average |
4.45 |
0.80 |
89.07% |
High |
Very influential |
||||||
Table 6. Proposed local organizational, administrative and governance indicators
|
S. |
Indicator |
Scale |
Arithmetic mean |
Standard deviation |
Relative importance % |
Influential level |
Response Power |
||||
|
Very influential |
Influential |
Medium |
Uninfluential |
Very uninfluential |
|||||||
|
Q115 |
Mobility management. |
14 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4.56 |
0.51 |
91.20% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q24 |
Density of land use (people and jobs / unit of land area). |
13 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4.44 |
0.65 |
88.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q114 |
Planning Quality. |
14 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4.44 |
0.71 |
88.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q105 |
Land Use Mix. |
15 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.40 |
0.82 |
88.00% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q33 |
Land paved for transport facilities (roads, parking, ports and airports). |
14 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
4.32 |
0.90 |
86.40% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q6 |
Total network (km). |
12 |
8 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.28 |
0.79 |
85.60% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q93 |
Modal Split (% car use, % public transport, % walking, cycling). |
11 |
9 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
4.24 |
0.78 |
84.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Q117 |
Land use planning. |
13 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
4.24 |
0.88 |
84.80% |
High |
Very influential |
|
Average |
4.37 |
0.76 |
87.30% |
High |
Very influential |
||||||
Third: Applying sustainable indicators in evaluating the urban transport system: The development of a framework for sustainable indicators in the urban transport sector requires testing the indicators by assessing the transportation system to demonstrate the feasibility of the indicators in setting a vision and goal for the transport sector and thus setting plans to solve urban transport problems.
The process of applying sustainable indicators and evaluating the urban transport system requires the following (Figure 2):
Figure 2. Applying sustainable indicators
A. The indicators are the most important planning tools for evaluation, whether for transport plans or systems. Among the most important of these indicators that evaluate transport systems are urban sustainability indicators.
B. The local Iraqi reality requires sustainable indicators in the aspect of governance, management and organization to solve most problems in all sectors, including the urban transport sector.
C. The process of preparing sustainable indicators in the transportation sector requires an integrated participation by government and societal bodies to reach sustainable indicators that are compatible with the local reality.
D. The results of the questionnaire showed that the most important sustainable indicator that can be applied and that has a very strong impact on the local Iraqi reality is the accessibility indicator to public services and public transport, its relative importance was 93.6%. It showed a relative importance of 91.2% for the mobility management indicator in Baghdad city as an indicator with a very strong impact on the evaluation of the urban transportation system.
The preparation of sustainable indicators appropriate to the local reality through the questionnaire indicated that the indicators related to the environmental dimension have obtained the highest relative importance has reached 89.07%, followed by indicators related to the social dimension with a relative importance of 88.8%, and the relative importance of the indicators related to the administrative and organizational dimension and governance reached 87.3%, Finally, indicators related to the economic dimension have a relative importance of 87.11%.
E. We suggest preparing modern laws that are in line with the informational and technological advances in the sustainable transport sector, including the indicators that have been extracted.
F. We recommend applying the extracted indicators within the transportation plans in Iraqi cities, and the most important of these indicators is accessibility.
This work is supported by the engineering faculties of University Diyala and Mustansiriyah University.
[1] Ismael, N.T., Hussain, A.A.H., Abdulwahab, M.A. (2020). Proposed vision for green buildings in Iraq. In Fifth International Engineering Conference on Developments in Civil & Computer Engineering Applications 2019 - (IEC2019) -Erbil – IRAQ, pp. 55-59. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEC47844.2019.8950623
[2] Al-Anbari, M., Alkaissi, Z. (2017). Assessment of sustainable indicators for road transportation: A case study of palestine arterial street. International Journal of Science and Research, 6(4): 270-279. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20172243
[3] Litman, T. (2022). Well measured: Developing indicators for sustainable and livable transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf, accessed on Jan. 10, 2023.
[4] Litman, T. (2003). Measuring transportation: Traffic, mobility and accessibility. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal, 73(10): 28-32.
[5] Litman, T. (2003). Economic value of walkability. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1828(1): 3-11. https://doi.org/10.3141/1828-01
[6] Litman, T. (2011). Transportation cost and benefit analysis: Techniques, estimates and implications. Second Edition, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, https://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca00.pdf.
[7] Litman, T., Burwell, D. (2006). Issues in sustainable transportation. International Journal of Global Environment Issues, 6(4): 331-347. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2006.010889
[8] Toth-Szabo, Z., Várhelyi, A., Koglin, T., Angjelevska, B. (2011). Measuring sustainability of transport in the city – development of an indicator-set. Bulletin 261. Traffic & Roads, Department of Technology and Society, Lund University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1451.0240
[9] Seghezzo, L. (2009). The five dimensions of sustainability. Environmental Politics, 18(4): 539-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903063669
[10] Alshamari, H.A., Ismael, N.T., Adelphi, H.S.O., Hamza, S.M. (2022). Promoting the social cohesion in the traditional cities. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 17(6): 1855-1864. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170620
[11] Zito, P., Salvo, G. (2011). Toward an urban transport sustainability index: An European comparison. European Transport Research Review, 3(4): 179-195. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12544-011-0059-0
[12] Zietsman, J.; Ramani, T., Potter, J., Reeder, V., De Florio, J. (2011). A guidebook for sustainability performance measurement for transportation agencies. Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences. NCHRP REPORT 708. https://doi.org/10.17226/14598
[13] Litman, T. (2010). Sustainable transportation indicator data quality and availability. Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting 2010, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC United States. https://trid.trb.org/view/910553
[14] Ismael, N.T. (2020). Urban expasion indicators of cities "case study for Arab cities". Journal of Techniques, 2 (1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.51173/jt.v2i1.5
[15] European Environment Agency. (2013). A Closer Look at Urban Transport: TERM 2013: Transport Indicators Tracking Progress Towards Environmental Targets in Europe. https://doi.org/10.2800/94848, accessed on Jan. 1, 2023.
[16] Appleton, B., Davies, M., Tansey, J., Atwal, P., Dore, G.P., Muzyka, D. (2008). GreenApple Canada 2008: SMART Transportation Ranking Report, Appleton Charitable Foundation.
[17] Buzási1, A., Csete, M. (2015). Sustainability indicators in assessing urban transport systems. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 43(3): 138-145. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPtr.7825
