Sustainable Management of Railway Companies: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Sirius Huang and Version 1 by Shohreh Moradi.

Sustainable transport is a critical and complex issue that the world is currently facing. Managers of railway companies in particular face significant challenges in achieving self-sustainable management of their assets. 

  • system dynamics
  • railroad passenger transportation
  • inflation
  • Sustainability
  • Sustainable Transport

1. Introduction

Transport is an essential sector that encompasses various aspects of the economy and scientific fields. The decisions made in this field usually involve various factors, making them complex and multi-criteria in nature [1]. Sustainable transport, in particular, involves considering environmental, economic, and social factors in decision-making processes. These factors need to be carefully analysed and balanced to ensure that the chosen transportation options promote sustainable development [2]. The idea of sustainable transport emerged in tandem with the definition of sustainable development, as outlined in the World Commission on Environment and Development’s report, “Our Common Future” [3]. Companies that transport passengers and cargo must look beyond traditional growth strategies and adopt sustainable solutions that address economic, social, and environmental issues simultaneously [4]. One of the key environmental concerns in the transportation sector is greenhouse gas emissions, which have been linked to global warming and climate change. Sustainable transportation aims to address these issues by minimizing negative impacts on society and the environment while ensuring social and economic well-being [5]. Furthermore, the transport sector is linked to eight of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting the importance of sustainable transportation in achieving these goals. Transport networks are vital to a country’s economic growth and account for a significant percentage of national GDP and employment [6]. Therefore, it is crucial for companies in the transportation sector to adopt sustainable development practices and incorporate the three dimensions of economic growth, social well-being, and environmental concerns into their growth strategies. This will not only help address pressing global issues but also lead to long-term business success and societal benefits [7]. Transportation is a critical component of every country’s economy, with land, water, and air transportation all playing important roles [8]. However, the economic benefits of the transportation industry come with environmental costs, particularly in the form of greenhouse gas emissions [9]. Overall, the transportation sector is responsible for an estimated 14% of all pollution, with road transport being the largest contributor [10,11][10][11]. The aviation sector is the second-largest contributor to pollution within human-caused emissions, accounting for approximately 2% to 4% of the total pollution [12]. These environmental consequences have prompted policymakers and industry leaders to focus on finding sustainable solutions for transportation, including alternative fuels, efficient practices, and investments in eco-friendly modes of transportation, such as rail [13]. Despite these challenges, there is a growing commitment to sustainability within the rail industry, with many companies investing in new technologies and implementing sustainability measures [9]. This is an encouraging trend, as rail transportation has the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions and contribute to a more sustainable future [14]. By working together, policymakers, industry leaders, and the public can help create a transport system that is both sustainable and efficient, while also addressing the urgent need to address climate change [15,16][15][16].

2. The Background of Sustainability in Transport Systems

The railway transport system is a complex network that is influenced by various factors such as population growth, environmental conditions, economic factors, and other modes of transportation and cargo movement. Conventional techniques for analysing railway transport companies are unsuitable due to the intricate nature of this system [19][17]. Typically, traditional railway transport assessments focus on a single key indicator such as sales or revenue, without considering the significance of the system’s coherence. As a result, traditional assessment methods have been strongly criticized, leading to the development of new evaluation methodologies [20][18]. To elaborate, the railway transport system is a significant and complex infrastructure that is not only impacted by passenger and freight demand but also by environmental conditions, demographic changes, technological advancements, and economic factors. Traditional assessment methods that prioritize sales or revenue overlook the importance of maintaining the integrity and coherence of the railway transport system [21,22][19][20]. As a result, new approaches that consider these complex factors have emerged to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of railway transport companies. These new methodologies aim to provide a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of the railway transport system’s performance, thus enabling better decision-making and improving the system’s overall efficiency [23][21].
The sustainability of transportation has been studied using multi-criteria methods (MCA), life cycle assessment (LCA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) [19][17], and other approaches [24][22]. Various indicators are used to measure activities and trends, as well as to compare different areas, alternatives, strategies, and goals for transportation sustainability [25][23]. There are publications and research on transportation sustainability in the literature that provide a variety of indicators for the concept. In this context, Nicolas et al. [26][24] provide a set of indicators that assess the three dimensions of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. They provide the results of exploratory research commissioned by Renault Automobile Manufacturers to evaluate the feasibility and value of generating such sustainable mobility indicators. These indicators facilitate comparisons not only between various urban contexts but also over time, allowing for longitudinal analysis. Litman and Burwell [25,27][23][25] examine the determination of indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transportation planning. Those authors propose that there is currently a lack of universally standardized indicator sets for comprehensive and sustainable transport planning. As a result, each jurisdiction or organization must develop its own set of indicators based on their specific needs and capabilities. However, they suggest that it would be beneficial for prominent planning and professional organizations to collaborate and establish recommended sets of sustainable transportation indicators, along with standardized data collection practices and evaluation methodologies. Such efforts would not only enhance sustainability planning but also enable comparisons among different jurisdictions, organizations, and time periods, promoting knowledge sharing and best practices in the field of sustainable transport. Pregl et al. [28][26] aim at evaluating and analysing transportation operations in the European Union using transport sustainability indicators. For analysing and monitoring transportation sustainability, several researchers suggest a country (or city)-level indicator system [24,29,30][22][27][28]. Refs. [31,32][29][30] investigate the sustainability of urban passenger transportation networks using data from the majority of cities. The authors emphasize the key factors that play a significant role in achieving sustainability in the field of transportation. They observe that wealthier and larger cities tend to have more sustainable transport systems in place. Additionally, they identify specific transport policies that can address existing shortcomings, such as increasing the utilization of public transport and discouraging urban sprawl. These measures have the potential to enhance the sustainability of transport systems and promote more efficient and environmentally friendly modes of travel within urban areas. There have been studies that use fewer indicators to assess the sustainability of transportation. A set of indicators was used to assess transportation sustainability, taking into account various systems such as freight transport [33[31][32],34], road transport [35[33][34],36], urban transport [37[35][36],38], transport infrastructure projects [39[37][38],40], modes of transportation in particular [41,42][39][40], public transportation [43][41], road and rail systems on the local scale [44][42], and inland transport on the local scale [32,39,45,46][30][37][43][44]. In addition, a few indicators for roads and railroads were used to assess the systems’ sustainability [46][44].
Research [37][35] has explored structural equation modelling and statistical tests given by Shiau et al. [30][28] for analysing indicators of transport sustainability. Chou et al. [47][45] investigated the cause-and-effect connection between high-speed rail performance indicators. Saleem et al. [48][46] studied how air and rail transportation factors influenced environmental degradation indicators. Social media was utilized in research to analyse sustainable urban transportation indicators [49][47].

3. System Dynamics Modelling

The dynamics of systems, which is a framework for studying and regulating complex feedback systems, is one of the fields of system theory. Business, economics, the environment, energy management, urban concerns, and other social and human challenges are all examples of these systems [50,51][48][49]. The business world is evolving and growing more competitive. As a result, in order to keep pace with the ever-changing environment, businesses must be more adaptive and agile, providing them with an advantage over their competitors [52][50]. J. Forrester from M.I.T. established the first system dynamics method in the early 1960s [53][51]. Fundamentally, the system dynamics (SD) approach is capable of formulating complex decision model systems in which:
  • Because of the system’s complexity and breadth, the analyst’s amnesia, or the element’s casual relationships, certain components are omitted.
  • For many scenarios, a comparative approach is used.
  • The system cannot be restarted from the beginning.
  • It takes time for the effects of changes to show in the system [54][52].
System dynamics procedures include outlining issues, generating theories, constructing the model’s simulation, analysing the model, and devising evaluation and policy criteria. As a general approach, Figure 1 displays the various steps necessary in running an SD model. This model, which simulates the flow of resources and the measures taken, includes stock elements and flow elements, as well as auxiliary and consonant variables [54][52].
Sustainability 15 11176 g001 550
Figure 1. General steps for executing an SD model [55].
General steps for executing an SD model [53].
Railway transportation is a complex system influenced by a variety of elements such as the environment, the economy, and society. A complete railway transport assessment should be integrated with the development of railway transport systems [56][54].

References

  1. Hasselwander, M.; Bigotte, J.F.; Antunes, A.P.; Sigua, R.G. Towards sustainable transport in developing countries: Preliminary findings on the demand for mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) in Metro Manila. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 155, 501–518.
  2. Broniewicz, E.; Ogrodnik, K. Multi-criteria analysis of transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 83, 102351.
  3. Brundtland, G.H. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future”; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 1987.
  4. Broniewicz, E.; Ogrodnik, K. A comparative evaluation of multi-criteria analysis methods for sustainable transport. Energies 2021, 14, 5100.
  5. European Commission. A European Green Deal; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
  6. Sayyadi, R.; Awasthi, A. An integrated approach based on system dynamics and ANP for evaluating sustainable transportation policies. Int. J. Syst. Sci. Oper. Logist. 2020, 7, 182–191.
  7. Chatti, W.; Majeed, M.T. Investigating the links between ICTs, passenger transportation, and environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 26564–26574.
  8. Hörcher, D.; Tirachini, A. A review of public transport economics. Econ. Transp. 2021, 25, 100196.
  9. Abdullaevich, G.A.; Khikmatullaevna, S.M. A study of increasing the economic efficiency of transport services. South Asian J. Mark. Manag. Res. 2021, 11, 34–40.
  10. Gyamfi, B.A.; Bekun, F.V.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Onifade, S.T.; Ampomah, A.B. Beyond the environmental Kuznets curve: Do combined impacts of air transport and rail transport matter for environmental sustainability amidst energy use in E7 economies? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 11852–11870.
  11. European Commission. Transport in the European Union: Current Trends and Issues; Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
  12. European Commission. Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Rail; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
  13. Zhao, X.; Ke, Y.; Zuo, J.; Xiong, W.; Wu, P. Evaluation of sustainable transport research in 2000–2019. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120404.
  14. Maheswari, B.U.; Nandagopal, R.; Kavitha, D. Sustainable development practices adopted by SMEs in a developing economy: An empirical study. IUP J. Manag. Res. 2018, 17, 7–19.
  15. Chatti, W. Moving towards environmental sustainability: Information and communication technology (ICT), freight transport, and CO2 emissions. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08190.
  16. Santos, A.S.; de Abreu, V.H.S.; de Assis, T.F.; Ribeiro, S.K.; Ribeiro, G.M. An overview on costs of shifting to sustainable road transport: A challenge for cities worldwide. In Carbon Footprint Case Studies: Municipal Solid Waste Management, Sustainable Road Transport and Carbon Sequestration; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 93–121.
  17. Barrat, A.; Barthelemy, M.; Vespignani, A. The architecture of complex weighted networks: Measurements and models. In Large Scale Structure and Dynamics of Complex Networks: From Information Technology to Finance and Natural Science; World Scientific: Singapore, 2007; pp. 67–92.
  18. Wang, W.; Cai, K.; Du, W.; Wu, X.; Tong, L.C.; Zhu, X.; Cao, X. Analysis of the Chinese railway system as a complex network. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2020, 130, 109408.
  19. Loo, B.P.; Comtois, C. Sustainable Railway Futures: Issues and Challenges; Ashgate Publishing: Farnham, UK, 2015.
  20. Fraszczyk, A.; Marinov, M. Sustainable Rail Transport; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.
  21. Zairi, M. Measuring Performance for Business Results; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
  22. Kane, L. Sustainable transport indicators for Cape Town, South Africa: Advocacy, negotiation and partnership in transport planning practice. Nat. Resour. Forum 2010, 34, 289–302.
  23. Litman, T.; Burwell, D. Issues in sustainable transportation. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2006, 6, 331–347.
  24. Nicolas, J.-P.; Pochet, P.; Poimboeuf, H. Towards sustainable mobility indicators: Application to the Lyons conurbation. Transp. Policy 2003, 10, 197–208.
  25. Litman, T. Developing indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transport planning. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2017, 10–15.
  26. Pregl, M.; Perujo, A.; Dobranskyte-Niskota, A. Indicators to Assess Sustainability of Transport Activities; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2007; ISBN 978-92-79-07802-6.
  27. Rossi, R.; Gastaldi, M.; Vescovi, R. A methodological approach to evaluating the sustainability level of a transport service. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 120, 411–425.
  28. Shiau, T.-A.; Liu, J.-S. Developing an indicator system for local governments to evaluate transport sustainability strategies. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 34, 361–371.
  29. Alonso, A.; Monzón, A.; Cascajo, R. Comparative analysis of passenger transport sustainability in European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 578–592.
  30. Stefaniec, A.; Hosseini, K.; Xie, J.; Li, Y. Sustainability assessment of inland transportation in China: A triple bottom line-based network DEA approach. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 80, 102258.
  31. Janic, M.; Regglani, A.; Nijkamp, P. Sustainability of the European freight transport system: Evaluation of innovative bundling networks. Transp. Plan. Technol. 1999, 23, 129–156.
  32. Kijewska, K.; Iwan, S.; Małecki, K. Applying multi-criteria analysis of electrically powered vehicles implementation in urban freight transport. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 159, 1558–1567.
  33. Bojković, N.; Anić, I.; Pejčić-Tarle, S. One solution for cross-country transport-sustainability evaluation using a modified ELECTRE method. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1176–1186.
  34. Aghapour, R.; Sepasian, M.S.; Arasteh, H.; Vahidinasab, V.; Catalão, J.P. Probabilistic planning of electric vehicles charging stations in an integrated electricity-transport system. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 189, 106698.
  35. Buzási, A.; Csete, M. Sustainability indicators in assessing urban transport systems. Period. Polytech. Transp. Eng. 2015, 43, 138–145.
  36. Kłos, M.J.; Sierpiński, G. Building a model of integration of urban sharing and public transport services. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3086.
  37. Joumard, R.; Nicolas, J.-P. Transport project assessment methodology within the framework of sustainable development. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 136–142.
  38. Sierpiński, G.; Staniek, M.; Kłos, M.J. Decision making support for local authorities choosing the method for siting of in-city ev charging stations. Energies 2020, 13, 4682.
  39. Buenk, R.; Grobbelaar, S.S.; Meyer, I. A framework for the sustainability assessment of (Micro) transit systems. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5929.
  40. Wątróbski, J.; Małecki, K.; Kijewska, K.; Iwan, S.; Karczmarczyk, A.; Thompson, R.G. Multi-criteria analysis of electric vans for city logistics. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1453.
  41. Karjalainen, L.E.; Juhola, S. Framework for assessing public transportation sustainability in planning and policy-making. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1028.
  42. Tian, N.; Tang, S.; Che, A.; Wu, P. Measuring regional transport sustainability using super-efficiency SBM-DEA with weighting preference. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118474.
  43. Marletto, G.; Mameli, F. A participative procedure to select indicators of policies for sustainable urban mobility. Outcomes of a national test. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2012, 4, 79–89.
  44. Federici, M.; Ulgiati, S.; Verdesca, D.; Basosi, R. Efficiency and sustainability indicators for passenger and commodities transportation systems: The case of Siena, Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2003, 3, 155–169.
  45. Chou, J.-S.; Yeh, C.-P. Influential constructs, mediating effects, and moderating effects on operations performance of high speed rail from passenger perspective. Transp. Policy 2013, 30, 207–219.
  46. Saleem, H.; Jiandong, W.; Zaman, K.; Elashkar, E.E.; Shoukry, A.M. The impact of air-railways transportation, energy demand, bilateral aid flows, and population density on environmental degradation: Evidence from a panel of next-11 countries. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 152–168.
  47. Sdoukopoulos, A.; Nikolaidou, A.; Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M.; Papaioannou, P. Use of social media for assessing sustainable urban mobility indicators. Int. J. SDP 2018, 13, 338–348.
  48. Lane, D.C.; Oliva, R. The greater whole: Towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1998, 107, 214–235.
  49. Kuzior, A.; Staszek, M. Energy Management in the Railway Industry: A Case Study of Rail Freight Carrier in Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 6875.
  50. Liao, Y.-W.; Wang, Y.-M.; Wang, Y.-S.; Tu, Y.-M. Understanding the dynamics between organizational IT investment strategy and market performance: A system dynamics approach. Comput. Ind. 2015, 71, 46–57.
  51. Coyle, R.G. System dynamics modelling: A practical approach. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1997, 48, 544.
  52. Erkut, G. The use of systems thinking and system dynamics in urban planning and education. In Proceedings of the 15th International System Dynamics Conference: Systems Approach to Learning and Education into the 21st Century, Istanbul, Turkey, 19–22 August 1997; Barlas, Y., Diker, V.G., Polat, S., Eds.; Istanbul, Turkey, Bogazici University, Series Title: “Systems” Education (1) (Parallel Session). Printing Office: Istanbul, Turkey, 1997; pp. 121–126.
  53. Jifeng, W.; Huapu, L.; Hu, P. System dynamics model of urban transportation system and its application. J. Transp. Syst. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2008, 8, 83–89.
  54. Awasthi, A.; Omrani, H. A hybrid approach based on AHP and belief theory for evaluating sustainable transportation solutions. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2009, 9, 212–226.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback