Volume 1, Issue 1 — Year 2024 — Article e100003

ISSN (Online): 3115-8129 Biannually

Environmental Impacts of the Mashhad’s Southern Bypass on Sustainable Development

Article Type: Research
Pages: e100003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22034/CGEL.1.1.e100003
Crossmark
Open Access
Authors
Affiliations
  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Khayyam University, Mashhad 9189747178, Iran
  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Khayyam University, Mashhad 9189747178, Iran
  3. Department of Civil Engineering, Khayyam University, Mashhad 9189747178, Iran
Corresponding author
Email: saedi.ali1991@gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0002-5352-4014
Received: 10 July 2024 / Accepted: 15 July 2024 / Published: 25 August 2024
Abstract

Environmental management is crucial in infrastructure projects like road construction. It aims to identify how these projects impact the surrounding environment, understand the interactions between the project and its environment, and assess the effectiveness of these impacts. Effective environmental management can lead to optimal design strategies that minimize environmental harm. This study focuses on environmental management in relation to the Southern Belt project in Mashhad. It evaluates the project's environmental impact using sustainable development indicators. The evaluation employs two main approaches: exploratory methods (descriptive-survey) and hierarchical analysis (AHP). The exploratory approach involves both library and field studies to gather information for the AHP analysis. The AHP method, using expert input and questionnaires, assesses the impact of various factors on the environment around the belt. The study identifies eight main factors influencing the project: human, environmental, managerial, social, economic, and political factors. Among these, environmental factors have the most significant impact (47%), followed by political factors (19.4%), while economic factors have the least impact (2.8%). The model’s validity and reliability, assessed using convergence and Cronbach's alpha approaches, show it is valid with coefficients of 0.89 and 0.748, respectively.

Keywords

Environmental management, Road construction, Exploratory approach, Hierarchical analysis, Mashhad.

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within article. No publicly archived dataset was generated.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Highlights
  • Environmental factors dominate project impacts
  • AHP method evaluates sustainability indicators
  • Political factors significant, economic impact minimal
References
  1. Ahmad S., Tahar R.M. (2014). Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 63, 458-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.001.
  2. Asadabadi M.R., Chang E., Saberi M. (2019). Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP). Cogent Engineering, 6(1), 1623153. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2019.1623153.
  3. Azizpour A., Azarafza M., Akgun H. (2020). The impact of municipal waste disposal of heavy metals on environmental pollution: A case study for Tonekabon, Iran. Advances in Environmental Research, 9(3), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.12989/aer.2020.9.3.175.
  4. Blewitt J. (2012). Understanding sustainable development. Routledge, New York, USA.
  5. Boccia F., Ianuario S., Sarno V. (2013). The Italian Environmental Performance: The Role of Ecosystem Vitality. Quality-Access to Success, 14 (137), 95.
  6. Carley M., Christie I. (2017). Managing sustainable development. Routledge, New York, USA.
  7. das Neves Almeida T.A., García-Sánchez I.M. (2016). A comparative analysis between composite indexes of environmental performance: An analysis on the CIEP and EPI. Environmental Science & Policy, 64, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.011.
  8. Elliott J. (2012). An introduction to sustainable development. Routledge, New York, USA.
  9. Ghalam S.J. (2013). Providing a Model for Measuring the Sustainable Development in Cities (Case Study: Mashhad city). Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 5(10), 556-566.
  10. Gyani J., Ahmed A., Haq M.A. (2022). MCDM and various prioritization methods in AHP for CSS: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access, 10, 33492-33511. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3161742.
  11. Jabareen Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9058-z.
  12. Kaymaz Ç.K., Birinci S., Kızılkan Y. (2022). Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 2986-3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01584-w.
  13. Londoño-Pineda A., Cano J. A., Gómez-Montoya R. (2021). Application of AHP for the weighting of sustainable development indicators at the subnational level. Economies, 9(4), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9040169.
  14. Mitlin D. (1992). Sustainable development: A guide to the literature. Environment and Urbanization, 4(1), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400112.
  15. Moteahd F.S., Hafezi Moghaddas N., Lashkaripour G.R., Dehghani M. (2019). Geological parameters affected land subsidence in Mashhad plain, north-east of Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences, 78, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8413-y.
  16. Nuong B.T., Kim K.W., Prathumratana L., Lee A., Lee K.Y., Kim T.H., Duong B.D. (2011). Sustainable development in the mining sector and its evaluation using fuzzy AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) approach. Geosystem Engineering, 14(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/12269328.2011.10541329.
  17. Oţoiu A., Grădinaru G. (2018). Proposing a composite environmental index to account for the actual state and changes in environmental dimensions, as a critique to EPI. Ecological Indicators, 93, 1209-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.009.
  18. Parris T.M., Kates R.W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), 559-586. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551.
  19. Poveda C.A., Lipsett M.G. (2013). Weighting sustainable development indicators (SDIs) for surface mining operations using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 5(2), 200-222. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v5i2.199.
  20. Singh A., Malik S.K. (2014). Major MCDM Techniques and their application - A Review. IOSR Journal of Engineering, 4(5), 15-25.
  21. Solangi Y.A., Longsheng C., Shah S.A.A. (2021). Assessing and overcoming the renewable energy barriers for sustainable development in Pakistan: An integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Renewable Energy, 173, 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.141.
  22. Szabo Z.K., Szádoczki Z., Bozóki S., Stănciulescu G.C., Szabo D. (2021). An analytic hierarchy process approach for prioritisation of strategic objectives of sustainable development. Sustainability, 13(4), 2254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042254.
  23. Toloie-Eshlaghy A., Homayonfar M. (2011). MCDM methodologies and applications: a literature review from 1999 to 2009. Research Journal of International Studies, 21, 86-137.
  24. Zanganeh M., Varesi H.R., Zangiabadi A. (2013). Strategic housing planning through sustainable development approach in Iran Metropolitans: Case study of Metropolitan Mashhad. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(9), 180-188.
How to cite
Saedi, A., Asl, M. S., & Jarahi, A. (2024). Environmental Impacts of the Mashhad’s Southern Bypass on Sustainable Development. Civil and Geoengineering Letters, 1(1), e100003. https://doi.org/10.22034/CGEL.1.1.e100003
Note: Please verify the citation against your preferred style guide.
Share
X LinkedIn Facebook Email Mendeley
Article Metrics
1642 Readers
1073 Downloads
N/A Citations
PDF XML Back to Issue