Multicriteria Procedures for Environmental Assessment of Transport Routes Crossing the Pyrenees in Navarre (Spain)

1. Multicriteria Procedures for Environmental Assessment of Transport Routes Crossing the Pyrenees in Navarre (Spain) Javier Faulin Esteban de Paz javier.faulin@unavarra.es Dep. of Statistics and Operations Research Public University of Navarre Pamplona, SPAIN Fernando Lera lera@unavarra.es Department of Economics Public University of Navarre Pamplona, SPAIN Angel A. Juan ajuanp@uoc.edu Dep. of Computer Sciences, Multimedia and Telecommunication Open University of Catalonia Barcelona, SPAIN

2. 0. Index • Introduction • Problem definition • Some transportation activities to follow up • Environmental Issues of Transportation • Methodological Analysis • Multicriteria evaluation and decision making • AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis • Conclusions

3. 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: environmentally-friendly roads with low pollution levels. • Traditionally, environmental criteria are very well considered using Multicriteria Analysis(Weintraub et al., 2007; Saaty, 2001)

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 using the two traditional motorways between Spain and France. • A complete analysis of the two traditional motorways is well-known, but analysis of other routes is needed.

5. 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.

6. 2.  Problem definition-I • Alternative selection: It is known that the main roads crossing the Pyrenees in Navarre are the next ones: • Alt 1- Pamplona- Leiza (AP-15 and A-15) • Alt 2- Pamplona- Vera Bidasoa (N-121A) • Alt 3- Pamplona- Dancharinea (N-121B) • Alt 4- Pamplona- Valcarlos (N-135) • Alt 5- Pamplona-Yesa (A-21 and N-240) Which of them is the best route according to sustainability? • Criteria selection. Options: • Only environmental criteria • Environmental criteria plus traditional transport criteria • Which environmental criteria?

7. 3. Some transportation activities to follow up Key logistic activities in big retail companies. • Activities related to the delivery of final products from big warehouses and depots to local retail shops, supermarkets and hypermarkets. • Suitable tuning of the supply chain management. • Assignment decisions involving logistic resources, such as vehicle drivers, loading and unloading policies, selection of vehicle sizes and characteristics, delivery actions in big cities, etc. • Tracking and monitoring activities related to products delivery. • Design of adequate Decision Support Systems in logistic activities Retail companies usually make a big logistic effort in delivery activities from their depots to their retail shops

8. 4. Environmental issues of Transportation- I • Dimensions of the Environmental Problem • Climate Change • Effects on the Air Quality • Noise Pollution • Water Quality • Land use and Effects on Soil Quality • Others: radioactive, light, visual and thermal pollution Importance of transportation and logistic activities in the production of PM10 particles • Externalities caused by Logistic Activities • All the dimensions previously mentioned • Traffic congestion and traffic jams • Infrastructures wear

9. 4. Environmental issues of Transportation- III • Air Pollutants • Local impact: • Carbon Monoxide (CO) (70-90%) • Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (45-50%) • VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) (40-50%) • Pollutant Particles (25%) • Lead (30-40%) • Global impact: • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (25%) • Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) (5%) • Ozone (O3) • Acid Rain (10-30%) • Clorofluorocarbonates (CFC) (30%) Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) are the most important pollutants Percentages represent the rate of the pollutant produced by logistic activities.

10. 4. Environmental issues of Transportation- IV • Noise Pollutants • Noises due to road transportation: • The vehicle engine and the asphalt rubbing are the main noise producers • It is the most important noise producer related to logistic activities. • Noises due to train transportation • Train engines and the friction between wheels and tracks • Aerodynamic noise for speeds greater than 200 km/h (124 miles/h) • Noises due to air transportation • It assumes the 20% of the transportation costs Road accounts for approximately 70% of total noise emissions by transportation

11. 5. Methodological Analysis • Methodology to tackle this transportation problem: • The problem presents a discrete number of alternatives. • Knowing that it is possible to build very well-defined alternatives characterized by multiple attributes. • Multiattribute Programming focused on AHP is the most plausible procedure to analyse this problem.

12. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- I • Multicriteria decision analysis: Steps • Problem definition • Alternatives • Criteria • Scoring • Decision Matrix • User Preferences • Decision Rules • Sensitivity Analysis • Final Decision

13. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- II • Problem definition • Selection of the transportation route crossing the Pyrenees which have a minimum environmental impact over nature. • Alternatives • Alt 1- Pamplona- Leiza (AP-15 and A-15) • Alt 2- Pamplona- Vera Bidasoa (N-121A) • Alt 3- Pamplona- Dancharinea (N-121B) • Alt 4- Pamplona- Valcarlos (N-135) • Alt 5- Pamplona-Yesa (A-21 and N-240)

14. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- III Geographical Description of the five Alternatives

15. Actions Impacts 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- IV • The values of the impacts on the criteria • Incidence: severity of the impact • Magnitude: quantity and quality of the affected factor • Actions on the infrastructure cause impacts on the environment • Emissions increase. • Higher noise levels. • More intensive traffic. • Greater vibration. • Uncontrolled releases of pollutants and accidents. • 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

16. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- V Impact of a Road Corridor on Nearby Environmental Factors

17. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VI Characteristics of the Survey Developed to Calculate Criteria Weights-1 • 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

18. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VII Characteristics of the Survey Developed to Calculate Criteria Weights-2

19. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VIII Selected Criteria for the AHP Model • 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

20. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- IX Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Social – Subfactor: Heritage of Cultural Interest

21. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- X Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Social – Subfactor: Recreative Zones

22. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XI Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Social – General Results for this Factor

23. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XII Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Economic – General Results for this Factor

24. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XIII Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Natural Areas – Previous Calculations

25. 6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XIV Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Natural Areas – General Results for this Factor

26. 7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- I Decisional Matrix and Results

27. 7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- II Sensitivity Analysis Description • 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? • Sensitivity Analysis provides the robustess of the solutions: • Factor Weights:Social (0.4), Economic (0.2) and Natural Areas (0.4) • 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]

28. 7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- III Sensitivity Analysis Results

29. 8. Conclusions- I A robust solution has been obtained to make recommendations in the use of infrastructures on behalf of distribution companies and delivery to retailers. 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. 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.

30. 8. Conclusions- II 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. The previous results assume the assessment of infrastructures with a high degree of environment involvement. Possibility of making replicas of the study with different alternatives.

31. Multicriteria Procedures for Environmental Assessment of Transport Routes Crossing the Pyrenees in Navarre (Spain) Javier Faulin Esteban de Paz javier.faulin@unavarra.es Dep. of Statistics and Operations Research Public University of Navarre Pamplona, SPAIN Fernando Lera lera@unavarra.es Department of Economics Public University of Navarre Pamplona, SPAIN Angel A. Juan ajuanp@uoc.edu Dep. of Computer Sciences, Multimedia and Telecommunication Open University of Catalonia Barcelona, SPAIN Thank you!