Assessment of Sustainable Mobility by MCDM Methods in the Science and Technology Parks of Vilnius, Lithuania

Abstract

The development of science and technology parks (STPs) has become a trendy tool for promoting the economy, innovation, and technology for more than 30 years worldwide. However, STPs poses challenges for urban planners seeking a vision of sustainable urban development. These places become an object of attraction for many highly skilled workers who create daily traffic flows. The proper accessibility and provision of transport infrastructure and services become the challenge for the development of such places because the availability of services influences the choice of travel mode and the possible employees’ travel behaviour. The authors of the research aim to assess the level of development of infrastructure and transport services conducive to the sustainable mobility of science and technology park staff in Vilnius city. Changing mobility behaviour into a more sustainable way is of interest to many scientists and practitioners, so the authors think that STP staff can represent a group of educated, working-age stakeholders within the city population, who has an interest in sustainable mobility travel options and can set an example of sustainable travel. Besides, recommendations for the planning and sustainable development from the sustainable urban mobility point of view of science and technology parks and similar institutions are provided. To achieve this goal, the authors use scientific empirical and theoretical research as well as multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. The results show the link between the distance from the developed STP site to the city centre and the more sustainable mobility of workers. Therefore, it is suggested to develop STPs closer to the urban centre as it often does not require large-scale development, nor do they engage in the polluting industry. Moreover, the authors suggest the key criteria that should be considered for STP development.

Assessing the sustainable development: A review of multi‐criteria decision analysis for urban and architectural sustainability

“…• The observed documents related to the application of the AHP method mainly foresee the involvement of stakeholders in one or two phases of the evaluation: eight involve them for the elicitation of preferences and therefore for the definition of the criteria weights (Aigwi et al, 2019;Asadi et al, 2020;Bivina & Parida, 2020;Carli et al, 2018;Dabouh & Shazly, 2020;Kijewska et al, 2018;Semanjski & Gautama, 2019;Taleai & Amiri, 2017) and three foresee the involvement both in the phase of definition of the weights and in the previous one of obtaining useful information from the interviewees (Campisi et al, 2020;Ghorbanzadeh et al, 2018;Zapolskyte et al, 2020). Moreover, in five cases, actors are involved in relation to the weights of the criteria but also in the definition of the evaluation criteria themselves, which are outlined on the basis of the experts' knowledge (Fernandes et al, 2018;Kioussi et al, 2020;Ozge Balta & Ulgen Yenil, 2019;Ristic et al, 2018;Stankovic et al, 2018).…”

“…The papers analysed consider 24 methods, namely Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) (Hwang & Yoon, 1981), Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) (Brans & Vincke, 1985), Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) (Zavadskas et al, 1994), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1981), ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE) (Roy, 1991), Analytic Network Process (ANP) (Saaty, 2005) (Opricovic, 1998), Evaluation based on distance from the mean solution (EDAS) (Keshavarz Ghorabaee et al, 2015), Delphi method (Bernice, 1968), Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) (Gabus & Fontela, 1972), EVAluation of MIXed Data (EVAMIX) (Alinezhad & Khalili, 2019), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) (Fishburn, 1967), Characteristic Objects METhod (COMET) , Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) (Keeney & Raiffa, 1976), Multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) (Keeney & Raiffa, 1976), Sequential Interactive Model for Urban Systems (SIMUS) (Munier, 2011), Best worst method (BWM) (Rezaei, 2015), MAJA method (Jacyna & Wasiak, 2015), Simos Roy Figueira (SRF) method (Figueira & Roy, 2002), Multicriteria Hierarchy Process (MCHP) (Corrente et al, 2012(Corrente et al, , 2013, Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) (Lahdelma et al, 1998), Group Analytic Hierarchy Process (GAHP) (Ottomano Palmisano et al, 2016), Spanish Integrated Value Model for Sustainability Assessment (MIVES) (Vinolas et al, 2009).…”

Application of a Robust Decision-Making Rule for Comprehensive Assessment of Laser Cutting Conditions and Performance

“…In the application of the RDMR for solving the proposed comprehensive laser cutting MCDM model, six MCDM methods were selected: the additive ratio assessment (ARAS); the complex proportional assessment (COPRAS); the multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis (MOORA); VIšekriterijumska optimizacija i KOmpromisno Rešenje (the Serbian abbreviation VIKOR); the technique for the order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS); the weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS). The main computational procedures of the considered MCDM methods consist of several steps and are given in detail elsewhere [43,[58][59][60][61][62][63][64]…”

Toward a systemic decision-making tool of territorial resilience based on multicriteria methodologies: The case of the DHDA Project

“…Other studies focus on the concept of smart city implementation and management [25,26] as well as the relationship with the economic activity of the territory through the notion of business-friendly cities [27]. Some researchers analyse logistic and operational thematics of urban organization: transportation [28], mobility [29] or 1 https://www.banquedesterritoires.fr/territoires-dinnovation waste management [30]. The risk management is also addressed through studies conducted on urban flood resilience [31,32] or air quality [33].…”