Sustainability 14 08770 v2

sustainability
Article
Multi-Criteria Assessment of Transport Sustainability in
Chosen European Union Countries: A Dynamic Approach
Artur Czech 1 , Jerzy Lewczuk 2 , Leonas Ustinovichius 2 and Robertas Kontrimovičius 3, *
1 Department of Management, Warsaw Management University, 03-772 Warsaw, Poland;

artur.czech@wsm.warszawa.pl
2 Faculty of Engineering Management, Bialystok University of Technology, 15-333 Białystok, Poland;
j.lewczuk@pb.edu.pl (J.L.); l.uscinowicz@pb.edu.pl (L.U.)
3 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
* Correspondence: robertas.kontrimovicius@vilniustech.lt
Abstract: The main aim of this article is to dynamically evaluate the sustainable development
of transportation as an important economic sector in each member state of the European Union.
Furthermore, the authors tried to identify underdeveloped spatial areas and indicate related trends
in particular countries. To address this research topic, a multivariate-order statistical measure was
implemented. The data sources of the study were Eurostat databases. The rankings of the chosen
European Union countries for transport sustainability and its individual components (pillars and
orders) were obtained for 2016–2019. This allowed the underdeveloped space regions and their
individual pillars in the field of transportation sustainability to be identified in an appropriate
manner. Then, the total (general) synthetic measures applicable to the entire period of analysis were
constructed. It should be noted that the initial set of diagnostic variables and its classification in
certain sequences were implemented. Furthermore, the taxonomic method applied with Weber’s
multivariate median was first used to dynamically assess aspects of traffic sustainability. Such
Citation: Czech, A.; Lewczuk, J.; synthetic methods allow for analysis of the interaction of different areas of complex transportation
Ustinovichius, L.; Kontrimovičius, R. systems and allow distortions of the diagnostic variables.
Multi-Criteria Assessment of
Transport Sustainability in Chosen
Keywords: sustainable transport; pillars; greenhouse gas emissions; climate change; taxonomy
European Union Countries: A
analysis; country position; country groups; dynamic analysis; global model
Dynamic Approach. Sustainability
2022, 14, 8770. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14148770
Academic Editor: Lei Zhang 1. Introduction

Received: 26 May 2022 Transport plays a key role in everyday life, being considered one of the main factors of
Accepted: 14 July 2022 socioeconomic development. Furthermore, it is vital for social welfare, living standards,
Published: 18 July 2022 and quality of life. Without accessibility, people would not be able to physically access jobs,
health resources, education, and other important necessities. Consequently, their quality of
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
life would be negatively affected [1].
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
This article is a continuation of the research carried out in the article entitled “Quan-
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
titative Analysis of Sustainable Transport Development as a Support Tool for Transport System
Management: Spatial Approach” [2]. The published article evaluates the sustainability of
transport using two multidimensional research methods (i.e., classical and positional at the
microlevel) in the form of individual Polish provinces for a selected period of time (years).
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. This study describes the international aspect in the form of selected countries from
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the European Union. The superiority of the positional method for constructing a synthetic
This article is an open access article measure using A. Weber’s median was demonstrated, and it was decided to narrow the
distributed under the terms and study to this type of statistical tool. (The same method was used, so the description of the
conditions of the Creative Commons method is very similar to the description in the previous article.) In addition, a dynamic
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// approach (4 years covered) is included in the present work. In addition to static assessments,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ an assessment was also made for the entire study period by constructing spatiotemporal
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8770. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148770 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 8770 2 of 22
models for both the phenomenon of transport sustainability and its individual pillars:
environmental, social, and economic.
From this point on, transport is considered the basis for both normal functioning
territories, such as the European Union, and their development [3,4]. In addition, it is
considered one of the main links introduced into the process of the movement of people,
raw materials, and goods from the place of origin to the destination. As a result, transport
is considered one of the cornerstones of globalization [5].
However, all transportation activities generate positive and negative externalities. The
first orientation includes positive aspects, such as achieving economic objectives, namely
producing a wide range of products that consumers need and delivering them to the
market. In addition, the essence and advantage of each highly developed modern economy
is well-developed and effective transport. This applies to all types of transport: road,
rail, and air. In other words, a high level of transport is the healthy bloodstream of the
developing economies of the modern world. As a result, transportation is considered to be
a fundamental factor in macroeconomic and microeconomic development. The second area
brings a wide range of problems, including greenhouse gas emissions [6], which results in
climate change [7], such as global warming. Moreover, other changes are also suggested,
including the effects of climate change on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater biological
systems, the impact on human health caused by excess heat, and changes in infectious
disease vectors [8]. Additionally, it should be noted that annual air pollution causes more
than 0.4 million premature deaths [9]. Consequently, this has implications for human health
and affects the public health system. Therefore, sustainable mobility systems are vital
to the health of citizens and economies, allowing them to move freely and safely while
respecting the environment [10]. All this calls for policies to reduce pollution, such as
carbon dioxide and noise emissions, as well as oil consumption. However, key activities in
that area include so-called decarbonization, which is understood by the European Union as
the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions [11].
The area of the European Union is very diversified due to both different levels of so-
cioeconomic development and pollution from the natural environment. Thus, all activities
must be balanced so as not to undermine the economy of the member states and help the
environment and society of specific countries. All resources, among them being financial
funds, are limited and should be used most efficiently. Furthermore, making decisions
has many drawbacks. This includes biased decisions, time-consuming analyses, and an
unpredictable future [12]. Moreover, the evaluation of sustainable transport today faces the
following challenges: the first is to understand and define its indicators, and the second
is to quantify and operationalize them [13]. In general, however, transport is considered
to be the main factor in reducing spatial and social differences [14]. Therefore, a correct
diagnosis of transport sustainability is needed in particular areas of the European Union.
Moreover, it can be treated as a support tool for infrastructure management and should be
allowed to implement the most efficient support policy.
The main purpose of this article is to evaluate the sustainable development of trans-
port as an important branch of the economy in select countries of the European Union
dynamically. Moreover, the authors tried to identify underdeveloped spatial areas and
indicate the related trends in particular countries.
This paper focuses on a broadly based analysis of the dynamics of transportation
development and the application of economic and sustainable development policy princi-
ples. The specific objective is to evaluate the sustainability of transportation development
in certain years. Then, a total (dynamic measurement) was built for the sustainability
of transport and its specific pillars (e.g., the environment, society, and economy). This
phenomenon is identified as an important factor contributing to the integration of the
world economy. The first part discusses select aspects of sustainable transport development.
Then, sustainable transport development measures are considered on the basis of research
experience. Examples of sustainable transport indicators and indicators developed for
transport management needs are provided. This article also examines the potential use of
tools identified in business practice and outlines directions for future research. Furthermore,
the synthetic indicators for individual years of analysis formed the basis for calculating the
total synthetic indicators (gross) for the entire period.
In the investigation of research problems, select multivariate statistical tools were intro-
duced into the investigation process. It should be noted that the ordinary taxonomic method
was introduced using Weber’s multidimensional median. This synthetic construction al-
lowed us to consider interactions in various areas of the transport system. Additionally,
the use of this median, except for the interactions included in the study, makes the analysis
resistant to distortions in diagnostic variables. The source of information in the research is
data drawn from the Eurostat database from 2016 to 2019.
2. Background of the Literature

Research shows that sustainable transportation concepts are well known and have
been used in the scientific literature for many years. However, it remains a subject of
scientific debate, and new ways and tools for effective development management at all
levels are constantly being explored.
First, sustainable transport development must be seen as a broader approach, such as a
narrow field of sustainable development. However, the concept of sustainable development
was developed as a response to the need to combat environmental degradation and quickly
incorporates the social and economic aspects of development [15]. Since then, it has been
enriched by input from a variety of scientific disciplines. It will be an important model for
all programs and policies, as well as international organizations, national governments,
and local authorities for creating development strategies. Its main objective is still to
ensure the improvement of the long-term quality of life of current and future generations
by rational proportional arrangements between different types of capital: the economy,
humanity, society, and nature [16]. It should also be noted that the concept of sustainability
applies to all sectors of public life and to all economic sectors, such as construction [17] and
transportation [18].
Therefore, transportation is one of many strategic directions in sustainable develop-
ment policy. First, it determines the competitiveness of the country’s economy [19,20]. Due
to the efficiency of transport services and infrastructure, the potential to use the economic
potential in a particular region is determined by efficiency [21]. Second, it is a source of
many important external costs negative to both society and to the environment [22,23]. The
negative impacts of transportation on the basic elements of sustainable development (e.g.,
the elements of the environment, society, and the economy) have already been recognized
in the literature [24]. The first is the reduction of air and water pollution, loss of habitat,
and water effects and the eradication of non-renewable resources. The second area involves
the following phenomena: the influence of inequality, the lack of mobility, the impact on
human health, the interaction and responsibility of communities, and aesthetics. The last
area, therefore, is closely linked to traffic jams, mobility barriers, accident damage, the
cost of facilities and consumers, or the decline of non-renewable resources. Therefore,
transportation today is facing many changes in terms of sustainability.
The sector has developed sustainable policies and practices in response to the negative
situation in the transport sector. Therefore, modern transport systems must be constructed
and formulated according to the needs of sustainable development strategies [25]. Liter-
ature research has provided a wide range of strategies to increasing the sustainability of
transport and introducing the process of decarbonization. All activities are based on a
number of strategic objectives, including reducing energy emissions from transportation,
reducing fuel costs, reducing carbon dioxide, and increasing energy intensity [26–28]. It is
worth mentioning that most of the energy consumed for transport purposes comes from
petroleum, which leads to the limitation of natural fuel resources. Therefore, changes in
the structure of fuel production can be observed, which results in alternatives such as
electromobility, hybrid technologies, biohydrocarbons, or biofuels such as methyl esters
or bioethanol [29–33]. It is worth mentioning autonomous driving with artificial intelli-
gence technologies, which is under scientific research [34], and its impact on both traffic
and the environment. However, from the perspective of the examined subject matter, it
is worth putting additional attention in Poland on alternatives to fossil fuels and their
current situation. The current market for alternative fuels in Poland can be considered
as underdeveloped. This is due to the fact that there were only over 9000 electric cars
on the roads at the end of 2019. Moreover, the lack of charging points is observed as
well. Furthermore, there were only approximately 4000 passenger cars using compressed
natural gas [35]. Due to the fact that agriculture plays an important role in Poland’s energy
security, the promotion of energy crop farming can grow dynamically [36]. Nevertheless,
the share of biofuels in Poland can be considered insufficient. According to the analyses
published in the literature [37], liquid biofuels are still used on a small scale. Nevertheless,
the production of bioethanol as a biocomponent in traditional fuels is growing. Moreover,
the structure of raw materials for bioethanol has already changed. Many technological
processes use organic waste or byproducts from agriculture production.
In the scope of the research subject, it is worth mentioning hydrogen. Huge potential
for its use as an alternative to conventional transport fuels has been observed. Accord-
ing to many predictions, the share of hydrogen in the structure of global consumption
will be dominant at the end of the century. Therefore, Poland may be the user of blue
hydrogen, which is received by its separation from natural gas. This kind of fuel could
be transported through gas pipelines such as the Baltic Pipe form Norway, which is fo-
cused on its separation from gas, from which carbon dioxide is removed by means of CCS
technology [38].
Overall, the transportation system balancing process must be balanced and carried
out with the same intensity in all dimensions of the transport system. Therefore, in any
research activity, it seems that an appropriate definition of sustainable transportation is
essential. However, studies in the literature have shown that the definition of sustainable
transport, which is universally accepted, is not yet theoretically developed. Yet, many
attempts have been made to define the concept of transportation sustainability. Sustainable
transportation can be considered a system of transport of goods and passengers, taking
into account environmental, social, and economic factors at the same time, such as access
to human and work centers at a reasonable price and transport options, at affordable prices
and by socially acceptable means [39]. Further studies have shown that it is possible to
distinguish a narrow approach to the definition of transport sustainability from a broad
approach [24]. However, a narrow approach highlights the environmental aspects of the
equilibrium of transport. The most important conditions for implementing a sustainable
transport system are (1) the protection of human health and maintenance of ecosystem
integrity, (2) compliance with health and environmental restrictions, (3) the prevention and
reduction of emissions, (4) sustainable use of renewable and nonrenewable resources, and
(5) the prevention of anthropogenic change in the world’s ecosystem [40]. In a narrow sense,
sustainable transportation is consistent with the well-accepted objectives of environmental
health and quality and being compatible with the integrity of the ecosystem. It does
not exacerbate adverse global events such as climate change or the loss of ozone in the
stratospheric ozone. However, in general, the evaluation of sustainable transport is carried
out within the framework of the integrated system [41], although it should be noted that
there is an emerging consensus that the issues of transportation system sustainability
should be incorporated in transportation planning to have any policy-based effect on
decision making [42,43].
Considering the above considerations, the objective of transport sustainability is sum-
marized in the following aspects, such as the environment, society and the economy [44–47].
This process leads to a global order of transportation systems and their relationship to the
environment. Integrated order means that a transport system is in its process of develop-
ment, and the level of the individual partial order (social, economic, and environmental)
has reached the desired level. All of these are very coherent, giving it a new qualitative
dimension: integration into the systemic dimension, and not only in part [48]. Such a
complete order transportation system can only be regarded as modern. It meets the needs
of the current generation in the transport sector, focusing on the environment, economy,
and society, and meets the environmental, economic, and social expectations of the current
generation.
In the literature review, sustainability of transport is proven to be a continuous process
of change, and achieving complete results requires careful management and control. Con-
sequently, to implement a sustainable transport development policy, appropriate measures
must be selected in the evaluation process. It should be noted that the requirements for
sustainable transport make it difficult to measure sustainability. Furthermore, the multidi-
mensional nature of transport phenomena causes many differences in the statistical study
of spatial objects with the help of various diagnostic variables.
Two approaches should be taken into account to assess spatial objects in the field of
transportation [49]. First, one-dimensional analysis should be performed in which the level
of development of transport should be evaluated separately depending on the variables.
Second, taxonomic tools are being introduced to enable the management and classification
of research objects that are characterized by many variables to support a logistics policy.
However, reviews of the literature have shown that sustainable transportation is already
under scientific study [50–54]. Based on the literature reviews, the following areas of
social transport, ecological transport, economic transport, and innovative transport should
be highlighted as a methodology to develop smart indicators [55]. Recent studies have
already been published in the field of sustainable transport, implementing various research
methods in the process, including taxonomic measures. The results of the reviews of the
collected literature indicate that various research methods, such as fuzzy logic, PCA, and
equal weighting, are used to construct composite indices [56], or a three-step procedure
is applied [57]. Regarding the review of the literature, it should be recalled that the same
weight of diagnostic variables is often applied in such an analysis [58,59]. The literature
study proved that there are many methods which can be used in order to assess transport
sustainability (e.g., the report delivered by the Transport Department of Canada proposed
42 research methods). There are, among the proposed methods, projects for evaluation,
cost–benefit analysis, impact assessment, multicriteria determination analysis (MCDM),
the Delphi method, surveys, and indexing [60]. All in all, studies in the literature proved
that there is no standard method for transport sustainability assessment. Most methods
are based on multidimensional evaluations of economic, environmental, and social im-
pacts. Such a multidimensional nature of sustainability proves that multicriteria methods
would be more appropriate for transport sustainability assessment than single-criterion
methods [42,43]. Therefore, one of the most popular methods in the transportation sustain-
ability assessment process is the construction of a composite index [61]. Such a composite
index in taxonomy science is generally called a synthetic measure.
Spatial research on transport development with the implementation of taxonomic
methods has already been implemented in the scientific investigation process [62,63]. The
problem of including no directly observed relationships (interactions) in the transportation
research process is very important, as has already been demonstrated in studies in the
literature [64–66]. Furthermore, it should be noted that the most recent research on the
implementation of linear order in urban transport has been carried out [67].
It should be noted that empirical and spatial evaluations of transportation develop-
ment have already been performed using taxonomy methods, which take into account
the interactions of the set of diagnostic variables [68–71]. All analyses relate to a general
assessment of transportation development and do not relate to the issue of transportation
sustainability.
The first research on transport sustainability and the non-direct observation of relations
took place in Polish and international aspects [2,72]. However, the above analysis is static;
that is, it does not take into account the changes in the phenomena over time. It is worth
analyzing the impact of time on the analyzed phenomena of transportation sustainability,
taking into account not only the relationships that cannot be directly observed but also the
analysis that is worth considering.
In summary, regarding the considerations considered in the field of transport sustain-
ability, it should be noted that development problems are widely known in the scientific
literature. However, it remains the subject of scientific debate and research aimed at finding
more effective methods to implement spatial object assessment. However, existing trans-
portation sustainability analyses do not simultaneously include the interaction of a set of
diagnostic variables and dynamic aspects. This requires a comprehensive approach be-
cause there are already links and connections in the field of research. Due to the many and
difficult-to-quantify effects of these relationships, knowledge of the impact of sustainable
development policies in the field of transfer is not complete.
3. Presentation of the Research Method and Collection of Potential Data Sets

The proposed research method is focused on assessing the sustainability of transport
with the implementation of the synthetic measure in the evaluation process. It can be
built in two ways. The first method uses standard methods that use statistical indicators
such as averages and standard deviations. The construction of this type of synthetic
measurement is well described in the literature [73]. The last sequential method introduces
a multidimensional median vector and insanity. This method has been applied in the
research processes of Polish statisticians [74].
Diagnostic variables describing the statistically investigated phenomenon are stan-
dardized according to this equation [75]:
xij − θ j
zij = (1)
1.4826 × mad X j
where xij is the value of the variable j for the i-th member state, i = 1, 2, . . . , n for the
i-th member state, n is the number of chosen member states, j = 1, 2, . . . , m for the
diagnostic variable j, m is the number of diagnostic variables, θ j is a particular value of a
multidimensional medium vector Θ (border or Weber), 1.4826 is the constant coefficient
estimated in empirical studies, and mad X j is the median absolute deviation of the j-th
variable.
As far as the Θ vector is concerned, its partial value (element) θ j is considered to be a
multidimensional middle vector, such as border or Weber. In contrast, the cutting vector
average estimates are based on each variable’s unique analysis median calculation. These
medians are then considered individual elements of a specific median vector. Weber’s
average value is calculated by removing the following process:
 " #1/2 
 n m 
T (Θ, Rm ) = argminΘ∈ Rm ∑ ∑ xij − θ j
2
(2)
 i =1 j =1 
where m is the number of diagnostic variables, Rm is the m-dimensional space of real

numbers, θ j is the particular values of multidimensional Weber median Θ, j = 1, 2, . . . , m
for the j-th diagnostic variable, Θ = (θ1 , θ2 , . . . , θm ) for the multidimensional Weber median,
xij is the value of the variable j for the i-th member state, i = 1, 2, . . . , n for the i-th member
state, and n is the number of member states included in the investigation.
When Weber’s formula is mentioned above, the distance between the points of the
multidimensional space is minimal, so the total distance between these points and other
objects of the space must be determined. Such multidimensional medium vectors resist
distortion and take into account interactions. It should be noted that when synthetic
measurements are created, such relationships are very important from the perspective of
taxonomic analysis of complex phenomena such as socioeconomic development, living
standards, spatial cohesion, or sustainability of a transportation system.
In relation to the median absolute deviation (mad), it should be noted that its particular
values are received with the following equation:

mad X j = med xij − θ j (3)
i =1,2,...,n
where med is the median, xij is the value of the variable j for the i-th member state,
i = 1, 2, . . . , n for the i-th member state, n is the number of member states included
in the investigation, θ j is the values of the multivariate median vector Θ (border or Weber),
and j = 1, 2, . . . , m for the j-th diagnostic variable.
In addition, attention should be paid to the methods of dust normalization in the
literature, which have been successfully introduced into the research process with classical
statistical indicators [76–78].
Furthermore, median vectors have already been successfully applied in the process of
normalizing data sets in consumption research [79] or transport assessment [68,69].
Finally, the synthetic measure of normalized variables, in the case of the order method,
is estimated with the following formula:
di
MPi = 1 − (4)
med( D ) + 2.5mad( D )
where di is the individual values of the distance vectors D, D = (d1 , d2 , . . . , dn ) is the distance
vector, n is the number of member states included in the investigation, med(D) is the median
of the distance vector D, mad(D) is the median absolute deviation of the distance vector D,
and 2.5 is a constant value (immune threshold value).
Individual elements of the distance vector can be obtained using an urban metric, also
known as a taxi, according to the following formula:
m
∑ zij − φj

di = (5)
j =1
where φj are considered elements of this development model Φ = (φ1 , φ2 , . . . , φm) . Its
individual values were determined according to the method provided by A. Mlodak [80];
that is, the maximum value of the standard variable of the stimulants, the minimum value
of the stimulants, and the nominal value of the nominants were assumed. The synthetic
measure allows us to prepare a ranking of objects that are under investigation in the context
of transport sustainability as well as divide them into similar groups. To create a group of
the same member states, three median methods can be applied according to the following
formula:
I group : {ie(1, 2, . . . , n) : MPi > med1 ( MP)}
II group : {ie(1, 2, . . . , n) : med( MP) < MPi ≤ med1 ( MP)}
(6)
III group : {ie(1, 2, . . . , n) : med2 ( MP) < MPi ≤ med( MP)}
IV group : {ie(1, 2, . . . , n) : MPi ≤ med2 ( MP)}
where MPi is the value of the order synthetic measure for the i-th member state, med( MP)
is the median value of all orders synthesized in the system, med1 ( MP) is the median value
of the order of the synthetic measure not less than med( MP), and med2 ( MP) is the median
for the values of the order synthetic measures not greater than or equal to med( MP).
The basis for every proper multidimensional analysis is a set of diagnostic variables.
Therefore, it is worth mentioning T. Litman, whose scientific work on appropriate indicators
brought about a great deal of knowledge in relation to the process of evaluating sustainable
transports [81–83]. Furthermore, a very interesting approach in the scientific literature is
related to the construction of intelligent transportation indicators in the following areas:
social, environmental, economic, and innovative [84]. However, the diagnostic variable
group must include scientific principles, objectives, systems, and comparable and feasible
principles [85].
The investigation process is based on data obtained from the European Statistics
Database (Eurostat) 2016–2019. It should be noted that the construction process has two
main stages in a diagnostic variable set. The first is based on the theories of observed
phenomena and creates a set of diagnostic variables that can potentially be determined.
Subsequently, it applies basic statistical measures to obtain the final diagnostic variables.
Consequently, the three main areas of sustainable transportation development, mea-
sured from the point of view of the integrated order or pillar, were taken into account.
The first of the indicated areas (i.e., environmental order) is presented by the following
variables: X1 is the average CO2 emissions per km of new passenger cars (g CO2 per km),
X2 is the exposure in urban areas to air pollution by particulate matter <10 µm (µg/m3 ),
X3 is the share of renewable energy in the final energy consumption (%), X4 is the share of
electricity consumption in the total energy consumption of the transport sector (%), X5 is the
total length of the electrified railway track (%), X6 is the share of natural gas consumption
in the total energy consumption of the transport sector, X7 is the carbon dioxide emission
in the area of transportation and storage (tons per capita), X8 is the proportion of new
passenger cars registered as a whole (%), X9 is the emission of nitrous oxide in the area of
transportation and storage (grams per capita), and X10 is the emission of methane in the
area of transportation and storage.
The second area, social order, is represented by the following variables: X11 is the
number of passenger cars per 1000 citizens, X12 is the number of deaths in road accidents
per 100,000 citizens, X13 is the motor coaches, buses, and trolley buses per 1000 citizens,
X14 is the number of deaths in rail accidents per 1 million citizens, X15 is the share of trains
in total passenger transport (%), X16 is the share of the population living in households
considering that they suffer from noise (%), X17 is the exposure in urban areas to air
pollution by particulate matter < 2.5 µm (µg/m3 ), X18 is the share of motor coaches, buses,
and trolley buses in total passenger transport (%), X19 is the number of airline passengers
per one citizen, and X20 is the number of people killed in commercial air transport per
1 million passengers.
The third area (i.e., economic order) is presented by the following variables: X21 is
the goods transported by rail in thousands of tons per 1000 citizens, X22 is the length of
railway lines per 1000 km2 , X23 is the share of environmental taxes in the total tax revenues
(%), X24 is the air transport of goods in tons per 1000 citizens, X25 is the share of renewable
energy in the transport sector (%), X26 is the goods transported by roads in thousands of
tons per 1000 citizens, X27 is the number of lorries and road tractors per 1000 citizens, X28
is the share of rails in the total freight transport (%), X29 is the share of roads in the total
freight transport (%), and X30 is the total length of two or more railway lines (%).
Therefore, 30 variables were collected for further taxonomic analysis. This shows that
the number of indicators that are essential to capture the multidimensionality aspects of
transportation is quite large [86]. Nevertheless, not all member states of the European Union
were included in the research process. This was due to the problem of data availability,
especially in the case of international research. Therefore, three member states were not
included in the transport sustainability assessment. However, two of them (i.e., Cyprus and
Malta) do not have railway transport, which is considered one of the most environmentally
friendly menaces of transport and should not be excluded from research. Furthermore,
Belgium was also omitted due to significant incomplete data. However, to not exclude
some countries from the research process, the missing data were completed by time series
extrapolation and interpolation, but this was only in a few cases.
It should be noted that collecting data for the member states of the European Union
in the form of a set of diagnostic variables for different periods of time brings many
difficulties. In many cases, such analysis can significantly reduce both the number of
diagnostic variables and the number of research objects (i.e., member states). This is due
to the fact that the statistical data in the case of Eurostat are published with a long delay
and are supplemented over time in the case of various European Union member states.
Therefore, including the latest information into the research process often becomes a very
difficult task and sometimes can be impossible. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that
the researcher must consider cost effectiveness during data collection [42,43].
4. Statistical Verification of the Potential Data Set and Choice of Total

Taxonomic Model
According to the theory of synthetic measure construction, every set of potential
diagnostic variables should be subjected to statistical investigation. Usually, statistical
verification of potential variables contains two main stages: variation and correlation
analysis.
The first was conducted in order to check the variation and make a choice for the type
of the total (dynamic) model. Therefore, to accomplish this, the classic variation coefficient
which is based on both location and differentiation measures, such as the arithmetic mean
and standard deviation, is commonly used. However, proper implementation of such
measures should be preceded by examination of the skewness of particular variables. The
results of such analysis for the three particular pillars (orders) of sustainable transport
development—environmental, social, and economic—are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Chosen statistical measures for particular pillars of transport sustainability.
2016 2017 2018 2019

Variable ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
As x MB MW As x MB MW As x MB MW As x MB MW
Environmental
X1 −0.3 118.9 120.8 119.3 −0.3 119.4 120.7 119.7 −0.4 120.9 121.9 120.9 −0.7 122.9 124.0 123.4
X2 0.5 21.7 20.7 22.1 0.3 21.8 22.3 22.9 0.2 22.3 21.5 22.9 0.1 20.2 20.3 20.4
X3 0.7 31.2 29.5 29.7 0.6 32.2 31.3 31.4 0.7 33.2 32.8 32.0 0.7 34.9 33.8 33.4
X4 0.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 0.5 1.4 1.2 1.4 0.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.4 1.2 1.4
X5 −0.1 47.6 48.7 47.6 −0.3 49.4 55.0 51.1 −0.3 49.5 55.1 51.4 −0.3 49.9 55.1 51.8
X6 2.2 1.2 0.5 1.4 2.3 1.3 0.5 1.0 2.1 1.2 0.6 1.0 2.2 1.2 0.7 1.2
X7 2.7 1.5 0.8 1.0 2.6 1.6 0.8 0.9 2.6 1.6 0.8 1.0 2.5 1.7 0.8 1.0
X8 0.6 6.1 6.2 5.8 0.6 6.3 6.1 6.1 0.5 6.4 6.2 6.2 0.6 6.3 6.1 6.0
X9 2.6 52.0 31.1 36.2 2.6 52.6 35.5 36.7 2.5 54.5 36.2 37.0 2.4 54.6 34.1 35.9
X10 4.0 0.6 0.1 0.7 4.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 3.9 0.6 0.1 0.5 3.9 0.6 0.1 0.6
Social
X11 −0.2 479.3 479.5 479.6 0.0 489.3 487.0 488.4 0.1 501.1 503.0 504.8 0.1 513.8 511.5 515.3
X12 0.6 5.8 5.4 5.1 0.7 5.4 5.1 5.1 0.4 5.5 5.3 5.2 0.5 5.3 4.9 4.9
X13 0.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 0.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 0.3 2.2 2.0 1.8
X14 1.4 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.5 3.1 2.0 2.3 1.4 2.7 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.4 1.6 1.5
X15 0.1 6.0 5.9 7.0 0.1 6.1 5.7 6.0 0.1 6.1 6.0 5.7 0.1 6.2 6.3 6.2
X16 0.4 15.7 15.4 17.7 0.6 15.5 13.9 17.9 0.6 15.6 14.7 17.8 0.5 15.3 14.1 16.6
X17 0.0 14.0 13.8 12.0 0.1 14.1 13.4 11.9 0.1 14.0 13.3 12.1 −0.1 12.1 11.9 11.7
X18 −0.1 12.3 12.1 9.8 0.0 11.9 12.1 9.6 0.0 11.8 11.9 9.9 0.0 11.7 11.9 9.9
X19 0.7 2.7 2.3 3.1 0.6 3.0 2.5 3.6 0.6 3.2 2.6 3.7 0.6 3.4 2.7 4.0
X20 4.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Economic
X21 1.5 6.3 5.0 5.7 1.3 6.5 4.9 6.0 1.5 6.8 4.8 6.2 1.3 6.3 4.9 5.9
X22 0.9 54.0 46.3 50.0 0.9 53.9 46.3 49.8 0.9 54.0 46.3 50.1 0.9 54.1 46.4 50.5
X23 0.1 7.6 7.8 7.8 0.1 7.4 7.6 7.6 0.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 0.1 7.1 7.0 7.3
X24 4.8 76.6 11.9 17.4 4.9 82.8 13.4 18.6 4.9 82.1 14.2 18.9 4.8 77.3 11.7 18.4
X25 2.8 6.5 6.3 6.6 2.4 7.2 6.6 7.3 3.1 8.1 7.0 8.1 2.9 9.1 7.9 9.1
X26 1.9 32.4 31.0 29.1 1.2 33.0 31.8 30.3 1.3 33.4 32.1 30.4 1.6 34.2 33.7 31.0
X27 0.4 4.6 4.2 4.6 0.5 4.9 4.4 4.9 0.6 5.2 4.8 5.2 0.8 5.4 4.8 5.4
X28 1.3 24.1 22.5 23.9 1.2 24.3 22.0 24.1 1.3 24.6 24.0 24.3 1.3 23.8 23.4 23.7
X29 −0.6 70.1 72.1 71.2 −0.6 70.2 72.6 71.2 −0.6 70.1 71.6 71.2 −0.6 70.4 71.8 71.4
X30 0.6 32.0 27.2 30.6 0.6 32.1 27.2 30.6 0.6 31.6 26.1 30.2 0.7 32.0 27.2 30.4
Notation: AS = skewness, x = arithmetic mean, MB = border median, and MW = Weber median. Source: own
studies.
The results presented in Table 1 show that some diagnostic variables were heavily
biased for each test order. First, the environmental area of transport sustainability was
characterized by the following four highly skewed variables: X6 , X7 , X9 , and X10 . Their
values were outside the usually acceptable interval (−2.2). Second, the social order had
one highly skewed variable: X20 . Third, the economic area included variables such as X24
and X25 which could be considered highly skewed. Furthermore, it should be mentioned
that this kind of strong asymmetry was observed in every year of research.
Table 1 shows that some diagnostic variables were highly biased in all sequences
studied. First, the environmental area of transport sustainability was characterized by the
following four highly skewed variables: X6 , X7 , X9 , and X10 . Their values were outside
the usually acceptable interval (−2.2). Second, the social order had one highly skewed
variable: X20 . Third, the economic area included variables such as X24 and X25 which could
be considered to be highly skewed. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that this kind of
strong asymmetry was observed in every year of research.
Overall, the implantation arithmetic mean seems to be insufficient for such analysis.
Consequently, the classical method of synthetic measure construction should not be im-
plemented either. Therefore, in order to bring the analysis to reality, a median, which is
considered the order substitute of the arithmetic mean, was introduced in two forms: bor-
der and Weber versions. Analysis of their values showed that in the case of variable X20 , the
border median was equal to zero. This was due to the extreme asymmetry of the empirical
distribution of that variable, which made it impossible to calculate the value of the order
variation coefficient. Therefore, the authors decided to implement a multidimensional
Weber median.
Finally, in order to facilitate the analysis of both forms, the variation coefficient was im-
plemented (i.e., the classic version and its order version with only the Weber median). Their
particular values for each of the pillars analyzed for sustainable transport development, as
well as each year of analysis, are presented in Table 2.
The analysis of the presented data showed that only one variable should be removed
from further analysis: X1 . This is due to the fact that the values of both variation coefficients
were below 10%.
In the scope of the transport sustainability evaluation process, over the entire period
of time which was put under statistical investigation, the total synthetic measure should
be implemented. In relation to the literature study, there are three types of taxonomic
models—spatial-time, spatial-spatial, and aggregate—which can be used to evaluate the
spatial object over the entire period of time [80]. Research processes based on variance
coefficients have shown that spatial time models should be integrated into the analysis
process.
The second phase of statistical verification of possible diagnostic variables is the
verification of the second stage; in other words, correlation analysis is carried out using
the reverse matrix method of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient [87]. To check which
variables carried the same information, three separate inverted matrixes were calculated
in relation to the sets of diagnostic variables in the area of particular orders of transport
sustainability. The results of the correlation analysis in the form of the main diagonals of
the inverted Pearson correlation matrices are presented in Table 3.
The investigation process proved that in both areas (i.e., the environmental and social
pillars), there were no highly correlated variables. This is because the values located on the
main diagonals of the inverted matrices were less than 10. It should be noted that only in the
case of variable X12 in 2016 was its value above the customary threshold value. However,
with a slight deviation from the rule of 10, this variable can be successfully included in
further analysis throughout the period. This is because the values of the inverted matrices
in other years of the analysis confirmed the fact that this variable should not be excluded
from the synthetic measure construction process. Further analysis of the correlation in the
economic order demonstrated that only the X28 variable should be left out of the research
every year. Then, the Pearson correlation matrices for the economic order were inverted
again. The new calculated values proved that other variables in this area could be included
for further research. However, this kind of procedure for eliminating highly co-related
variables has already been discussed in the literature [88].
Table 2. Variation coefficients of diagnostic variables.
2016 2017 2018 2019

Variable
VS VW VS VW VS VW VS VW
Environmental
X1 7.11 5.66 6.81 5.81 6.83 6.04 7.73 6.48
X2 31.51 17.60 33.55 17.91 28.50 18.08 28.28 19.40
X3 58.71 45.78 57.65 43.89 55.86 40.44 53.81 39.10
X4 63.01 47.21 61.52 41.46 62.56 40.94 62.35 35.91
X5 51.29 35.70 49.74 37.24 49.44 37.98 48.12 35.74
X6 142.39 78.54 143.88 77.02 130.09 73.68 127.51 73.16
X7 130.87 35.75 126.99 35.00 127.65 34.26 125.66 36.40
X8 42.60 24.49 42.89 21.29 41.41 24.13 40.35 28.09
X9 108.16 46.72 106.26 39.35 107.84 41.68 108.03 38.99
X10 258.21 95.70 261.84 93.66 255.65 93.37 255.18 94.33
Social
X11 19.46 11.02 18.95 13.12 18.25 11.69 17.86 11.80
X12 33.03 23.61 36.48 26.73 32.99 24.45 36.43 28.20
X13 41.01 39.33 40.48 37.39 40.66 33.19 41.03 36.94
X14 91.11 75.27 82.75 48.45 81.59 55.87 93.40 61.51
X15 57.44 40.55 58.45 51.32 57.82 56.21 58.41 55.42
X16 30.87 24.49 33.37 27.35 35.17 22.58 35.59 22.32
X17 37.61 27.04 40.28 40.08 35.66 32.17 32.49 22.72
X18 36.51 35.75 38.22 38.19 36.96 29.83 36.60 33.04
X19 63.34 44.60 60.64 41.84 58.83 37.84 58.39 38.45
X20 465.91 100.00 381.05 100.00 404.95 100.00 300.33 100.00
Economic
X21 100.18 63.60 98.46 66.66 102.32 66.39 95.51 68.54
X22 56.22 42.48 56.26 42.22 56.33 40.95 56.25 41.37
X23 25.86 18.51 25.80 19.38 25.32 19.96 25.57 21.69
X24 366.53 74.21 368.47 72.40 365.33 69.88 362.82 72.39
X25 78.14 23.51 76.35 18.57 67.58 19.21 61.88 15.74
X26 48.89 30.45 44.81 30.02 44.68 30.47 47.41 31.95
X27 59.41 47.51 60.49 46.79 62.74 48.16 65.28 47.49
X28 76.32 40.55 75.76 42.65 76.01 43.35 76.49 47.44
X29 28.10 19.95 27.85 21.08 27.91 20.79 27.86 20.43
X30 51.66 37.68 51.91 37.20 52.06 36.23 52.06 36.58
Notation: VS = classic variation coefficient and VW = order variation coefficient based on Weber median. Source:
own studies.
Table 3. Main diagonals of inverted matrices of Pearson’s correlation coefficients.
2016 2017 2018 2019

Variable
I II I II I II I II
Environmental
X1 1.76 - 1.73 - 1.59 - 1.66 -
X2 1.21 - 1.26 - 1.29 - 1.32 -
X3 2.55 - 2.88 - 2.87 - 2.86 -
X4 1.81 - 2.15 - 1.96 - 1.98 -
X5 3.39 - 1.02 - 3.57 - 2.01 -
X6 9.84 - 8.15 - 7.80 - 8.11 -
X7 2.05 - 2.08 - 1.78 - 1.77 -
X8 7.60 - 7.24 - 6.77 - 6.63 -
X9 2.92 - 3.42 - 3.09 - 1.85 -
X10 1.76 - 1.73 - 1.59 - 1.66 -
Table 3. Cont.
2016 2017 2018 2019

Variable
I II I II I II I II
Social
X11 3.14 - 3.00 - 1.59 - 2.39 -
X12 10.01 - 6.88 - 4.91 - 5.98 -
X13 5.68 - 3.76 - 3.43 - 3.74 -
X14 2.45 - 2.23 - 2.25 - 2.82 -
X15 2.64 - 2.22 - 2.02 - 2.46 -
X16 2.01 - 1.93 - 2.24 - 2.84 -
X17 4.92 - 4.96 - 3.55 - 3.62 -
X18 3.12 - 3.42 - 2.91 - 2.92 -
X19 2.74 - 2.72 - 2.01 - 2.21 -
X20 1.38 - 1.43 - 1.60 - 1.61 -
X21 11.33 3.61 11.10 4.82 12.87 4.74 18.51 5.22
Economic
X22 1.86 1.85 2.76 2.76 2.51 2.50 2.31 2.14
X23 2.59 2.54 3.33 3.29 2.56 2.48 2.64 2.30
X24 3.92 3.85 3.16 2.99 3.40 3.05 3.62 3.38
X25 2.44 2.34 4.50 4.39 3.12 3.09 2.56 2.55
X26 4.58 4.19 4.84 4.71 4.38 4.35 2.38 5.38
X27 2.44 2.40 2.58 4.82 2.59 2.47 2.36 2.34
X28 16.45 - 15.59 - 18.99 - 27.19 -
X29 5.15 3.84 6.00 2.47 6.40 4.77 7.01 4.50
X30 1.81 1.64 2.15 4.55 1.85 1.67 2.09 1.86
Notation: I = stage one and II = stage two. Source: own studies.
In summary, regarding a statistical test of a possible set of diagnostic variables, it

should be mentioned that 28 diagnostic variables were a base for synthetic measure con-
struction for both the spatial and dynamic orders.
5. Assessment of Transport Sustainability and Discussion of the Research Results

To bring the final set of diagnostic variables to comparability, the normalization process
was introduced. This transformation was based on standardization of the order with the
Weber median. On the one hand, it should be mentioned that its version with a border
median was omitted because this kind of median is only immune to skewness and does not
consider interactions among diagnostic variables, which is very important from the point of
view of research. On the other hand, implementation of a multidimensional Weber median
allowed us to consider directly unobtrusive relationships between diagnostic variables
in the process of designing a synthetic measurement of transport stability and made the
analysis robust to distortion of the selected variables. Therefore, the multidimensional
Weber vector was the basis for normalization in every year of analysis and in every pillar of
the sustainability of transport, as well as in the integrated order evaluation. Furthermore,
this type of median was implemented to normalize the variables in the assessment of the
process of the pillars of transport sustainability and its integrated measure throughout the
period.
The procedure to construct synthetic measures requires the nature of the variables
to be established. Therefore, each of the three subgroups of transport sustainability was
divided into three subgroups according to the final diagnostic variables. The first, the
stimulants, included the following variables: X3 –X6 , X8 , X13 , X15 , X18 , X21 , and X22 . The
second, nominates, consisted of the following features: X11 , X19 , X24 , X26 , X27 , and X29 .
The last, the destimulants, included X9 , X10 , X12 , X14 , X16 , X17 , X20 , X13 , X23 , X25 , and X30 .
According to the methodology for compiling synthetic indicators, the implementation
of the normalized variables of the three final sets made it possible to construct a synthetic
indicator for each of the analyzed pillars (environmental and socioeconomic) separately for
each year of the analysis. Consequently, the total measures for sustainable development
(integrated order) were constructed for each year of the analysis, as well as throughout the
period of the analysis. Their values for the chosen European countries are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4. Values of synthetic measures according to both particular orders and time periods for the
countries analyzed.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2016–2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 2016–2019
Country
Environmental Social
Bulgaria 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.35
Czechia 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.45 0.40 0.44 0.36 0.35 0.64
Denmark −0.34 −0.37 −0.43 −0.46 −0.56 0.46 0.50 0.41 0.30 0.68
Germany 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.52 0.28 −0.84 0.13 0.21 0.00
Estonia 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.32 0.67 0.58 0.56 0.67 1.00
Ireland 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.53 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.87
Greece 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.19 0.34 0.37 0.33 0.28 0.55
Spain 0.35 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.53 0.48 0.45 0.39 0.28 0.65
France 0.38 0.37 0.40 0.39 0.61 0.42 0.44 0.37 0.32 0.63
Croatia 0.32 0.29 0.36 0.35 0.52 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.17 0.29
Italy 0.47 0.46 0.50 0.49 0.75 0.27 −2.99 0.32 0.12 −0.72
Latvia 0.10 0.09 0.06 −0.02 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.24
Lithuania 0.16 0.14 0.09 −0.01 0.18 0.27 0.25 0.28 0.32 0.48
Luxembourg −0.44 −0.43 −0.46 −0.49 −0.64 0.32 0.34 0.21 0.37 0.52
Hungary 0.38 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.65 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.26
Netherlands 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.37 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.49
Austria 0.66 0.63 0.64 0.65 1.00 0.31 0.41 0.36 0.33 0.59
Poland 0.35 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.50 0.20 0.25 0.13 0.11 0.30
Portugal 0.44 0.39 0.41 0.39 0.65 0.28 0.26 −0.12 0.12 0.24
Romania 0.26 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.05 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.14
Slovenia 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.47 0.16 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.37
Slovakia 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.42 0.64 −1.89 0.30 0.28 0.23 −0.33
Finland 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.41 0.55 0.55 0.52 0.57 0.88
Sweden 0.57 0.53 0.54 0.57 0.86 0.49 0.55 0.48 0.49 0.82
Economic Integrated
Bulgaria 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.24 0.20 0.25 0.23 0.07 0.25
Czechia 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.58 0.50 0.55 0.52 0.44 0.60
Denmark 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.52 0.15 0.20 0.13 −0.03 0.17
Germany 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.86 0.57 0.08 0.53 0.48 0.50
Estonia 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.23 0.45 0.41 0.48 0.47 0.54
Ireland 0.19 0.23 0.17 0.22 0.39 0.38 0.43 0.41 0.34 0.47
Greece 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.24 0.14 0.25
Spain 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.45 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.38 0.58
France 0.37 0.36 0.33 0.35 0.67 0.61 0.65 0.62 0.50 0.69
Croatia 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.13 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.31
Italy 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.43 0.47 −1.04 0.56 0.37 0.17
Latvia 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.28 0.14 0.17 0.16 0.02 0.19
Lithuania 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.15 0.31
Luxembourg −1.87 −1.86 −1.94 −1.70 −3.43 −1.53 −1.52 −1.55 −1.27 −1.53
Hungary 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.49 0.39 0.45 0.47 0.34 0.50
Netherlands 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.47 0.77 0.50 0.55 0.52 0.45 0.59
Austria 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.74 0.73 0.81 0.78 0.68 0.86
Poland 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.41 0.36 0.40 0.35 0.24 0.42
Portugal 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.35 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.29 0.42
Romania 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.24 0.15 0.23 0.19 0.09 0.23
Slovenia 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.24 0.36 0.26 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.41
Slovakia 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.32 0.57 −0.64 0.54 0.53 0.45 0.29
Finland 0.24 0.40 0.34 0.43 0.66 0.50 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.70
Sweden 0.52 0.54 0.52 0.55 1.00 0.85 0.93 0.90 0.84 1.00
Source: own studies.
Furthermore, the values of the synthetic measures in three different pillars of transport
sustainability were treated as the basis for the construction of the integrated order, which is
considered the measure of the development of sustainable transport.
Then, the synthetic means provided were arranged in a monotonous manner. This
allowed us to prepare a ranking for each of the analyzed orders as well as for sustainable
transport development. On the one hand, the maximum value of the synthetic indicator for
each consideration order indicates that the most developed countries are based on specific
components and transportation sustainability. On the other hand, the minimum values
of the synthetic measures pointed to the least developed countries. The results of this
investigation are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Positions of countries in the rankings according to particular orders in time.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2016–2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 2016–2019
Country
Bulgaria 19 19 18 19 18 17 18 17 18 15
Czechia 12 13 13 13 13 8 8 8 6 7
Denmark 23 23 23 23 23 6 5 5 10 5
Germany 11 9 10 8 10 13 23 19 16 22
Estonia 17 17 17 17 17 1 1 1 1 1
Ireland 20 22 22 20 21 3 2 2 3 3
Greece 22 20 19 18 19 10 10 10 11 10
Spain 8 8 9 10 8 5 6 6 12 6
France 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 9 8
Croatia 10 11 8 9 9 19 19 22 17 17
Italy 3 3 3 3 3 16 24 11 20 24
Latvia 21 21 21 22 22 22 20 21 23 19
Lithuania 18 18 20 21 20 15 15 13 8 13
Luxembourg 24 24 24 24 24 11 12 15 5 11
Hungary 7 4 4 4 4 21 21 18 21 18
Netherlands 15 15 15 15 15 9 11 14 13 12
Austria 1 1 1 1 1 12 9 9 7 9
Poland 9 10 11 12 11 18 17 20 22 16
Portugal 4 5 5 6 5 14 14 24 19 20
Romania 14 16 16 16 16 23 22 23 24 21
Slovenia 13 12 12 11 12 20 16 16 15 14
Slovakia 5 6 7 5 6 24 13 12 14 23
Finland 16 14 14 14 14 2 4 3 2 2
Sweden 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 4 4
Economic Integrated
Bulgaria 19 18 20 22 19 18 16 20 21 19
Czechia 6 7 7 8 7 6 5 9 9 5
Denmark 8 9 9 9 9 19 20 23 23 22
Germany 2 2 2 3 2 4 22 7 5 9
Estonia 20 21 19 20 21 10 12 11 6 8
Ireland 14 12 15 15 14 13 11 13 12 11
Greece 23 22 22 23 23 22 18 18 19 18
Spain 12 11 11 11 11 5 8 6 10 7
France 4 6 6 6 5 3 4 4 4 4
Croatia 22 23 23 21 22 17 19 17 16 16
Italy 11 13 13 12 12 9 23 5 11 23
Latvia 18 20 18 17 18 21 21 22 22 21
Lithuania 17 16 17 18 17 16 15 16 18 15
Luxembourg 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Hungary 9 10 10 10 10 12 9 12 13 10
Netherlands 5 5 3 2 3 8 6 10 7 6
Austria 3 4 4 5 4 2 2 2 2 2
Poland 13 14 12 14 13 14 13 15 17 13
Portugal 15 15 16 16 16 11 10 19 15 12
Romania 21 19 21 19 20 20 17 21 20 20
Slovenia 16 17 14 13 15 15 14 14 14 14
Slovakia 7 8 8 7 8 23 7 8 8 17
Finland 10 3 5 4 6 7 3 3 3 3
Sweden 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Furthermore, the values of the synthetic measures can be implemented in the process
of identifying similar areas according to the level of sustainable transport development and
its particular pillars. It should be noted that this study can be performed both statically and
dynamically. The results of such analysis, according to three-median method, are presented
in Table 6.
Table 6. Groups of countries according to particular orders in time.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2016–2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 2016–2019
Country
Bulgaria IV IV III IV III III III III III III
Czechia II III III III III II II II I II
Denmark IV IV IV IV IV I I I II I
Germany II II II II II III IV IV III IV
Estonia III III III III III I I I I I
Ireland IV IV IV IV IV I I I I I
Greece IV IV IV III IV II II II II II
Spain II II II II II I II I II I
France I II I II II II II II II II
Croatia II II II II II IV IV IV III III
Italy I I I I I III IV II IV IV
Latvia IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV
Lithuania III III IV IV IV III III III II III
Luxembourg IV IV IV IV IV II II III I II
Hungary II I I I I IV IV III IV III
Netherlands III III III III III II II III III II
Austria I I I I I II II II II II
Poland II II II II II III III IV IV III
Portugal I I I I I III III IV IV IV
Romania III III III III III IV IV IV IV IV
Slovenia III II II II II IV III III III III
Slovakia I I II I I IV III II III IV
Finland III III III III III I I I I I
Sweden I I I I I I I I I I
Economic Integrated
Bulgaria IV III IV IV IV III III IV IV IV
Czechia I II II II II I I II II I
Denmark II II II II II IV IV IV IV IV
Germany I I I I I I IV II I II
Estonia IV IV IV IV IV II II II I II
Ireland III II III III III III II III II II
Greece IV IV IV IV IV IV III III IV III
Spain II II II II II I II I II II
France I I I I I I I I I I
Croatia IV IV IV IV IV III IV III III III
Italy II III III II II II IV I II IV
Latvia III IV III III III IV IV IV IV IV
Lithuania III III III III III III III III III III
Luxembourg IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV
Hungary II II II II II II II II III II
Netherlands I I I I I II I II II I
Austria I I I I I I I I I I
Poland III III II III III III III III III III
Portugal III III III III III II II IV III II
Romania IV IV IV IV IV IV III IV IV IV
Slovenia III III III III III III III III III III
Slovakia II II II II II IV II II II III
Finland II I I I I II I I I I
Sweden I I I I I I I I I I
The analysis showed that the classification of the chosen member states of the Euro-
pean Union into groups differed according to particular pillars of transport sustainability.
Moreover, their positions measured in terms of the integrated order depended on the time.
Thus, research into the application of the standardized measurement of the order in a
dynamic analysis with the Weber median yielded some interesting results. The results of
the present study allow us to take into account static and dynamic interactions in complex
areas of transport sustainability, while the availability of data limited the study.
However, analyses have shown that certain trends can be observed over a period
of time. The correct assessment of transport sustainability should start with a detailed
analysis of its individual pillars: environmental, social, and economic.
The first area, economic order, was occupied by member states such as Austria,
Sweden, and Italy, which are considered the most developed. However, the position
of Hungary in the area of the environmental pillars may be considered surprising. This
member state moved from the seventh position in 2016 to a permanent fourth position
in the rankings later. The leading and constant positions of the countries mentioned
above are observed in the constructed rankings for particular years of the analysis. This
phenomenon was confirmed by the final (i.e., spatial-time) values of the synthetic measure
in the area of the environmental order. Therefore, the countries mentioned above were in
the first group of countries analyzed in terms of environmental order. However, the very
weak positions of Luxemburg and Denmark, which are perceived as old European Union
countries, can be considered very surprising in the environmental area. Furthermore, as
a third underdeveloped member state in that area, Latvia is generally considered a new
member state of the European Union.
The second area, the social pillar, is occupied by different member states in relation
to the previous order of transport sustainability. Therefore, the rankings in relation to
the social order look completely different. On the one hand, countries such as Finland,
Ireland, and Sweden can be considered to be among the most developed in that pillar
of transport sustainability. Slight changes in their positions in the rankings of the social
order were observed in particular years. However, these changes were limited to one
place in the rankings. Therefore, it can be concluded that relatively stable positions were
maintained by these countries, and the spatial-time model can be considered to be very
credible. Nevertheless, Estonia’s first and constant position over time can be considered to
be very surprising. All these countries were in the first group according to the social order
of sustainability of transportation. Additionally, Denmark and Spain were included in the
first group of European Union states according to the social order. Therefore, it should
be noted that the social aspect clearly dominated in these countries. However, member
states of the European Union such as Slovakia and Romania were located in the last group
according to the social pillar of transport sustainability. However, the very week positions
of Italy and Germany in the constructed rankings for particular years of analysis were very
surprising. It seems that in the case of their positions in the form of a spatial-time model in
the social area, differences for individual years had a great influence.
Therefore, this situation shows that social issues in these countries do not play a
significant role. However, Poland’s position in this ranking does not differ from the
countries which are in the middle of the rankings. In 2016–2019, 16 (sixteen) places from 24
countries included in the investigation were taken.
The last area, the economic pillar, was characterized by totally different member states,
which could be considered the most developed in that area. On the one hand, there are
Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, France, and Finland, which are considered
the most developed member states. These countries are in the first group according to the
economic order of transport sustainability. It is worth mentioning that they are generally
called the old European Union. In most cases, slight changes in their positions in the
economic order rankings were observed. However, these changes were limited to one or
two maximum places in the constructed rankings over time. Sweden has both a permanent
position and the highest position throughout history. Hence, this member state of the
European Union was located as the first object in the spatial-time model of the economic
pillar. In the scope of the worst group, according to the economic order of transport
sustainability, two old member states of the European Union were found: Luxembourg and
Greece. Furthermore, countries such as Croatia, Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria were in the
same group. When analyzing this situation, it should be stated that the countries of eastern
Europe dominated in this group of countries. Luxembourg was an exception here. Poland
was in the 13th position in this classification. This shows that economic development in
Poland is not too bad.
The analysis of all three areas of transport sustainability mentioned above— environ-
mental, social, and economic—provides a solid basis for a comprehensive assessment of
transport sustainability throughout the study period. Taking into account the integrated
order, which consisted of the three areas of transport sustainability mentioned above, the
following trends can be observed with respect to the positions of the countries included in
the research.
On the one hand, Sweden, Austria, and Finland were located at the top of the sustain-
able transport development rankings over the entire period of time. It should be noted that
Sweden took first place in this ranking. This member state was at the forefront of all three
aspects of sustainable transport development. Furthermore, Austria can be considered as
second. However, this country is currently in the ninth position in the social area. In the
others, it is at the forefront. All in all, the leadership positions of the mentioned countries
of all the member states analyzed by the European Union are based on the comprehensive
order of transport stability, which is measured in the area of transport stability. However,
it should be noted that the slight differences among these aforementioned countries re-
late to the economic pillar of transport sustainability, especially for Austria and Finland.
Furthermore, the high positions of France, Czechia, and the Netherlands, which held the
fourth, fifth, and sixth positions, respectively, can be considered a bit surprising. This
probably shows that great efforts to promote sustainable and ecological development are
emphasized in these countries.
However, countries such as Luxembourg, Italy, and Denmark remain in the opposite
extreme position with respect to sustainable development over time. These countries
took the 24th, 23rd, and 22nd positions, respectively. The spatial time model of transport
sustainability has been included in all countries. It should be mentioned that these countries
belong to the so-called kernel of the European Union, and their positions do not fully reflect
the possibilities of sustainable transport development in the three examined pillars.
It should be stated in relation to Poland that its position in the constructed rankings
was more or less in the middle of the member states of the European Union included in
the study.
All in all, the research carried out proved that there are differences between the
analyzed member states of the European Union. Furthermore, the positions taken by
individual countries in the area of particular pillars affect the total position, measured as
the integrated order. Additionally, their final positions are strictly affected by changes
throughout all years of analysis.
6. Discussion
The results obtained in the dynamic research on transport sustainability in the selected
European Union countries delivered several conclusions concerning both synthetic measure
construction and the issues of transport sustainability as part of the European Union
logistics system.
The former proved that a potential set of diagnostic variables should be investigated
statically with both classic and order measures, namely the mean arithmetic, the standard
deviation, and the mean and mean absolute deviation. Implementation of orderly statistical
measures is essential due to the high level of skewness of the chosen variables. In relation to
the entire set of diagnostic variables, the strong skewness of the empirical distribution was
noted in every data set of diagnostic variables describing the examined pillars of transport
sustainability (i.e., environmental, social, and economic). This phenomenon relates to all
the years that were taken during the research process. Therefore, the implementation of
not only classic variation coefficients should be considered essential for the correctness of
statistical verification of the potential data set. Furthermore, using Weber’s median order
variation coefficients confirmed that some variables were accepted or rejected for further
analysis during the period.
Examination of the variation coefficients in all years of analysis showed that the spatial-
time taxonomic model should be used. Therefore, the first static taxonomic models were
built for each year of the analysis. Then, on the basis of the synthetic measures obtained,
space-time models were constructed for both the individual pillars of sustainable transport
and the integrated measures.
In relation to correlation analysis, through implementation of a Pearson correlation
coefficients inverted matrix, the static verification process of potential data sets could take
into account unobserved relationships in the three analysis pillars of transport sustainability
in order to take into account the relationship that was not directly observable. As a result
of this kind of analysis, one diagnostic variable in the area of economic order has been
removed for all the times.
The significance of including interactions in the process of synthesized measure con-
struction was implemented by using a Weber median in the final diagnostic variable
renormalization process. It should be mentioned that in the case of the chosen variables
throughout the analysis period, the meanings differed from the shape of the border.
Due to the strong distortion and interaction of diagnostic variables in each set of
diagnostic variables, the order method for the construction of synthetic measurements with
Weber medians should be applied throughout the analysis period.
Additionally, the choice of one method of synthetic measure construction (i.e., its order
form) resulted from the number of constructed measures. A large number of synthetic
measures resulted from the use of a dynamic approach, as well as the information capacity
of the sustainable transport phenomenon. It should be noted that the implementation of the
classic taxonomic measure would double the number of synthetic measures obtained. This
situation could have caused several difficulties in the stage of discussion of the research
results and in drawing conclusions. This could especially occur in the case of dynamic
analysis of transport sustainability.
7. Conclusions
The latest observations, based on the results of the study, allowed us to draw some syn-
thetic conclusions about the level of sustainability of transport and its specific components
in individual member states of the European Union. These comments are related to specific
EU member states that were included in the research process. It should be mentioned that
spatial evaluation of transport sustainability in the selected countries can be considered
a complex task. The research targeted from 2016 to 2019 proved both the disparity in
transport sustainability and its changes between the 24 member states. However, three
member states of the European Union were not included in the research process. This
was due to the lack of adequate data (indicators) related to transport sustainability. The
problem mentioned above especially grows in the case of the dynamic approach.
Furthermore, it can be noticed that European Union member states can be divided
into two main groups, taking into account the constructed rankings. This is due to the
traditional approach to the division of the European Union into two main areas. The first
is usually called the old Europe and includes member states considered the founders of
the European Union. The latter is treated as the rest of the European Union, or Central
and Eastern Europe. However, it can be observed that significant differences in the area of
transport sustainability have not been eliminated so far.
On the one hand, taking into account the total measure (i.e., the spatial time of
transport sustainability), Sweden, Austria, and Finland occupied higher and more stable
positions. However, the research showed that countries such as Luxemburg, Italy, and
Czechia took the last three positions in the rankings over the entire period of time.
To sum up the considerations, it should be mentioned that a certain regularity of the
spatial development of transport sustainability and its trends can be indicated. Neverthe-
less, significant spatial disproportions in the area of transport sustainability in the analyzed
European Union member states can be observed. The results presented in the research, in
some part, can be treated as a reflection of the level of socioeconomic development of partic-
ular countries. Both the issues presented and discussed in the article and the implemented
methodology of taxonomic methods can be applied by responsible organs for planning
transportation policy in the European Union. Furthermore, the proper monitoring of the
development level of sustainable transport, as well as its individual pillars, can facilitate
decision-making processes and optimize the use of limited financial resources. Due to the
lack of data on variables and certain objects in the Eurostat database, it was impossible to
create an ideal indicator system that reflected the entire area of transportation sustainability.
Further research should focus on improving the sets of statistical variables implemented
in the description process of particular pillars of transport sustainability. However, the
latest data could be a base for further analysis, especially in the context of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; software, A.C., J.L., L.U. and
R.K.; validation, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; formal analysis, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; investigation,
A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; resources, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; data curation, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; writing—review and editing, A.C., J.L.,
L.U. and R.K.; visualization, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; supervision, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; project
administration, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K.; funding acquisition, A.C., J.L., L.U. and R.K. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Hall, R.P.; Sussman, J.M. Sustainable Transportation—A Strategy for System Change; Working Paper Series ESD-WP-2004-
02; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering System Division: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. Available online:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9pXi5EzRDWQJ:courses.washington.edu/cee587/Readings/esd-
wp-2004-02.pdf+&cd=1&hl=pl&ct=clnk&gl=pl (accessed on 16 March 2022).
2. Czech, A.; Gralak, K.; Kacprzak, M.; Król, A. Quantitative Analysis of Sustainable Transport Development as a Support Tool for
Transport System Management: Spatial Approach. Energies 2021, 14, 6149. [CrossRef]
3. Gratiela, B. Sustainable consumption in the area of transportation. Constanta Marit. Univ. Ann. 2013, 14, 209–212.
4. Gratiela, B.; Viorela-Georgiana, C. Sustainable transport’s indicators. Comparative study: Eu-27 and Romania. Constanta Marit.
Univ. Ann. 2013, 14, 267–270.
5. Illahi, U.; Shafi Mir, M. Assessment of transport sustainability using a hybrid approach: A comparison of four metropolitan cities
of India. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2021, 9, 703–714. [CrossRef]
6. Danish; Zhang, J.; Hassan, S.T.; Iqba, K. Toward achieving environmental sustainability target in Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development countries: The role of real income, research and development, and transport infrastructure.
Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 83–90. [CrossRef]
7. Rahman, H.A. Climate change scenarios in Malaysia: Engaging the public. Int. J. Malay-Nusant. Stud. 2018, 1, 55–77.
8. Rayanakorn, K. Climate Change Challenges in the Mekong Region; Public Policy Studies Institute, Chiang Mai University Press:
Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2011.
9. TFEU/European Court of Auditors. Air Pollution: Our Health Still Does Not Have Sufficient Protection Special Report Pursuant to
Article 287(4), Second Subparagraph; TFEU/European Court of Auditors: Luxembourg, 2018. Available online: https://op.europa.
eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/air-quality-23-2018/en/ (accessed on 11 April 2021).
10. Persia, L.; Cipriani, E.; Sgarra, V.; Meta, E. Strategies and measures for sustainable transport systems. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016,
14, 955–964. [CrossRef]
11. Bak,
˛ I.; Barwińska-Małajowicz, A.; Wolska, G.; Walawender, P.; Hydzik, P. Is the European Union Making Progress on Energy
Decarbonisation While Moving towards Sustainable Development? Energies 2021, 14, 3792. [CrossRef]
12. Ali, R.A.; Ibrahim, N.N.L.N.; Ghani, W.A.W.A.K.; Sani, N.S.; Lam, H.L. A Hybrid P-Graph And WEKA Approach In Decision-
Making: Waste Conversion Technologies Selection. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2022, 26, 261–267. [CrossRef]
13. Rao, S.H. Transportation synthetic sustainability indices: A case of Taiwan intercity railway transport. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 127, 107753.
[CrossRef]
14. López, E.; Guitérrez, J.; Gómez, G. Measuring regional cohesion effects on large-scale transport infrastructure investments: An
accessibility approach. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2008, 16, 277–301. [CrossRef]
15. UN. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. Volume 2, Proceedings of
the Conference; UN: New York, NY, USA, 1993; ISBN 921-100498-5. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/168679
#record-files-collapse-header (accessed on 15 May 2021).
16. Garrigos-Simon, F.; Botella-Carrubi, D.; González-Cruz, T. Social Capital, Human Capital, and Sustainability: A Bibliometric and
Visualization Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4751. [CrossRef]
17. Reizgevičius, M.; Ustinovičius, L.; Cibulskiene, D.; Kutut, V.; Nazarko, Ł. Promoting Sustainability trough Investment in Building
Information Modeling (BIM) Technologies: A Design Company Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 600. [CrossRef]
18. Szaruga, E.; Skapska,
˛ E.; Załoga, E.; Matwiejczuk, W. Trust and Distress Prediction in Modal Shift Potential of Long-Distance
Road Freight in Containers: Modeling Approach in Transport Services for Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2370. [CrossRef]
19. Kiel, J.; Smith, R.; Ubbels, B. The Impact of Transport Investments on Competitiveness. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 1, 77–88.
[CrossRef]
20. Purwanto, A.J.; Heyndrickx, C.; Kiel, J.; Betancor, O.; Socorro, M.P.; Hernandez, A.; Eugenio-Martin, J.L.; Pawlowska, B.;
Borkowski, P.; Fiedler, R. Impact of Transport Infrastructure on International Competitiveness of Europe. Transp. Res. Procedia
2017, 25, 2881–2892. [CrossRef]
21. Jakubowska, A. Evaluation of the transport sector in European Union Member States. Collection of Papers of Burgas Free
University from International Conferences 2021. Available online: http://research.bfu.bg:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/1196
(accessed on 5 April 2022).
22. Demir, E.; Huang, Y.; Scholts, S.; Woensel, T. A selected review on the negative externalities of the freight transportation: Modeling
and pricing. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2015, 77, 95–114. [CrossRef]
23. Chatziioannou, I.; Alvarez-Icaza, L.; Bakogiannis, E.; Kyriakidis, C.; Chias-Becerril, L.A. Structural Analysis for the Categorization
of the Negative Externalities of Transport and the Hierarchical Organization of Sustainable Mobility’s Strategies. Sustainability
2020, 12, 6011. [CrossRef]
24. Litman, T.; Burwell, D. Issues in sustainable transportation. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2006, 6, 331–347. [CrossRef]
25. Grzelakowski, A. Zrównoważenie systemu transportowego droga˛ do nowoczesności sektora transportu UE [Sustainability of the
transport system as a way to shape modern EU transport sector]. Logistyka 2014, 4, 2827–2837.
26. Greene, D.L.; Baker, H.H.; Plotkin, S.E., Jr. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission from US Transportation; Pew Center of Global Climate
Change: Arlington, VA, USA, 2011. Available online: https://search.usa.gov/search?query=plotkin+2011&affiliate=dot-bts
(accessed on 5 April 2021).
27. Gozdek, A.; Szaruga, E. Analysis of factors of GHG from road transport with LMDI approach. In Modern Economic Issues and
Problems; Sokół, A., Drab-Kurowska, A., Kasian, S.Y., Eds.; KARTPRINT: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2016; pp. 37–47.
28. Franzitta, V.; Curto, D.; Milone, D.; Trapanese, M. Energy Saving in Public Transport Using Renewable Energy. Sustainability 2017,
9, 106. [CrossRef]
29. Moula, M.M.E.; Nyári, J.; Bartel, A. Public acceptance of biofuels in the transport sector in Finland. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.
2017, 6, 434–441. [CrossRef]
30. García-Olivares, A.; Solé, J.; Osychenko, O. Transportation in a 100% renewable energy system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 158,
266–285. [CrossRef]
31. Susmozas, A.; Martín-Sampedro, R.; Ibarra, D.; Eugenio, M.E.; Iglesias, R.; Manzanares, P.; Moreno, A.D. Process Strategies for
the Transition of 1G to Advanced Bioethanol Production. Processes 2020, 8, 1310. [CrossRef]
32. Pietrzak, K.; Pietrzak, O. Environmental Effects of Electromobility in a Sustainable Urban Public Transport. Sustainability 2020,
12, 1052. [CrossRef]
33. Eder, L.; Filimonova, I.; Nemov, V.; Komarova, A.; Sablin, K. Ecological aspects of economical development: Issues of forecast
greenhouse gas emissions in road transport in Europe and regions of Russia. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences,
International Conference on Renewable Energy and Environment Engineering (REEE 2018), Paris, France, 29–31 October
2018; 2018. [CrossRef]
34. Chen, G.; Cheng, Y. Lightweight model for multi-traffic object detection based on deep learning under complex traffic conditions.
J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2021, 25, 527–535. [CrossRef]
35. Burchart-Korol, D.; Gazda-Grzywacz, M.; Zar˛ebska, K. Research and prospects for the development of alternative fuels in the
transport sector in Poland: A review. Energies 2020, 13, 2988. [CrossRef]
36. Bielski, S.; Marks-Bielska, R.; Zelnińska-Chmielewska, A.; Romaneckas, K.; Šarauskis, E. Importance of Agriculture in creating
energy security—A case study of Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 2465. [CrossRef]
37. Piwowar, A.; Dzikuć, M. Bioethanol production in Poland in the context of sustainable development—Current status and future
prospects. Energies 2022, 15, 2582. [CrossRef]
38. Kiciński, J. Green energy transformation in Poland. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. 2021, 69, 1–15. [CrossRef]
39. Wiederkehr, P.; Gilbert, R.; Crist, P.; Caïd, N. Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST): Concept, Goal, and Strategy–The
OECD’s EST Project. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2004, 4, 11–25. [CrossRef]
40. Motowidlak, U.; Kujawa, M. Transport Towarów w Projekcie One Belt and One Road Jako Component Globalnego Łańcucha Dostaw;
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego: Łódź, Poland, 2018. [CrossRef]
41. Tolley, R. Sustainable Transport, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
42. Jeon, C.M.; Amekudzi, A.A.; Guensler, R.L. Evaluating plan alternatives for transportation system sustainability: Atlanta
Metropolitan Region. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2013, 4, 227–247. [CrossRef]
43. Jeon, C.M.; Amekudzi, A.A.; Guensler, R.L. Sustainability assessment at the transportation planning level: Performance measures
and indices. Transp. Policy 2013, 25, 10–21. [CrossRef]
44. Gudmundsson, H.; Hall, R.P.; Marsden, G.; Zietsman, J. Sustainable Transportation: Indicators, Frameworks, and Performance
Management; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.
45. Jeon, C.M.; Amekudzi, A.A. Addressing sustainability in transportation systems: Definitions, indicators, and metrics. J. Infrastruct.
Syst. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. (ASCE) 2005, 11, 31–50.
46. Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the sustainability cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators.
Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 407–418. [CrossRef]
47. Del Mar Alonso-Alemdia, M.; Llach, J.; Marimon, F. A closer look at the “Global Reporting Initiative” sustainability reporting as a
tool to implement environmental and social policies: A worldwide sector analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21,
48. Adamowicz, M.; Smarzewska, A. Model oraz mierniki trwałego i zrównoważonego rozwoju obszarów wiejskich w uj˛eciu
lokalnym [Model and indicators of sustainable development in rural areas from the local perspective]. Zesz. Nauk. SGGW Polityki
Eur. Finans. Mark. 2009, 1, 251–269.
49. Figura, J. Taksonomia w Polityce Logistycznej Państwa [Taxonomy in Logistic Policy of State], 1st ed.; Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny:
Katowice, Poland, 2013.
50. Janic, M. Sustainable Transport in the European Union: A Review of the Past Research and Future Ideas. Transp. Rev. 2006, 26,
51. Cheba, K.; Saniuk, S. Sustainable urban transport—The concept of measurement in the field of city logistics. Transp. Res. Procedia
2016, 16, 35–45. [CrossRef]
52. Ahmad, S.; de Oliveira, J.A.P. Determinants of urban mobility in India: Lessons for promoting sustainable and inclusive urban
transportation in developing countries. Transp. Policy 2016, 50, 106–114. [CrossRef]
53. Malasek, J. A set of tools for making urban transport more sustainable. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 876–885. [CrossRef]
54. Markova, I.; Shubenkova, K.; Gabsalikhova, L. Analysis of the city transport system’s development strategy designed principles
with account of risks and specific features of spatial development. Transp. Probl. 2017, 12, 125–138. [CrossRef]
55. Hajduk, S. Assessment of urban transport—A comparative analysis of selected cities by taxonomic methods. Econ. Manag. 2016,
8, 67–74. [CrossRef]
56. Kumar, S.; Hoffmann, J. Globalization: The Maritime nexus. In Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business; Grammenos, C., Ed.;
Loyds List Press: London, UK, 2002; pp. 35–62.
57. Kiba-Janik, M.; Thompson, R.; Cheba, K. An assessment tool of the formulation and implementation a sustainable integrated
passenger transport strategies. An example of selected European and Australian cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 71, 102966.
[CrossRef]
58. Ahangari, H.; Garrick, N.W.; Atkinson-Palombo, C. Relationship between human capital and transportation sustainability for the
United States and selected European Countries. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2016, 2598, 92–101. [CrossRef]
59. De Gruyter, C.; Currie, G.; Rose, G. Sustainability measures of urban public transport in cities: A world review and focus on the
Asia/Middle East Region. Sustainability 2017, 9, 43. [CrossRef]
60. Wellar, B. Sampler of commentaries on methods and techniques that could be used in making decisions about identifying,
Adopting or implementing sustainable transport practices. In Transport Canada Project: Methodologies for Identifying and Ranking
Sustainable Transport Practices in Urban Regions; Report 3; Wellar Consulting Inc.: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2009.
61. Reisi, M.; Aye, L.; Rajabifard, A.; Ngo, T. Transport sustainability index: Melbourne case study. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 43, 288–296.
[CrossRef]
62. Cheba, K. Taksonomiczna analiza rozwoju transportu drogowego w Polsce [Taxonomic analysis of road transport development
in Poland]. Logistyka 2011, 2, 97–106.
63. Fanni, Z.; Khakpour, B.A.; Heydari, A. Evaluating the regional development of border cities by TOPSIS model (case study: Sistan
and Baluchistan Province, Iran). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2014, 10, 80–86. [CrossRef]
64. Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2001, 1780, 87–113.
[CrossRef]
65. Matteis, T.; Liedtke, G.; Wisetjindawat, W. A framework for incorporating market interactions in an agent based model for freight
transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 925–937. [CrossRef]
66. Vörös, T.; Juhász, M.; Koppány, K. The measurement of indirect effects in project appraisal. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 13, 114–123.
[CrossRef]
67. Hajduk, S. Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Decision-Making Approach for the Linear Ordering of Urban Transport Based on
TOPSIS Technique. Energies 2022, 15, 274. [CrossRef]
68. Czech, A.; Lewczuk, J. Taxonomic and econometric analysis of road transport development in Poland—The voivodship approach.
Ekon. Zarzadzanie
˛ 2016, 4, 88–100. [CrossRef]
69. Czech, A.; Lewczuk, J.; Bortłomiuk, A. Multidimensional assessment of the European Union transport development in the light
of implemented normalization methods. Econ. Manag. 2016, 8, 75–85. [CrossRef]
70. Czech, A.; Lewczuk, J. Statistical assessment of the development of the transportation system in chosen countries—An interna-
tional approach. Procedia Eng. 2017, 182, 112–119. [CrossRef]
71. Czech, A.; Biezdudnaja, A.; Lewczuk, J.; Razumowskij, W. Quantitative assessment of urban transport development—A spatial
approach. Eng. Manag. Prod. Serv. 2018, 10, 32–44. [CrossRef]
72. Czech, A. Taxonomic Analysis of the Sustainable Transport Development in Chosen European Union Countries—A Spatial
Approach. Collection of Papers of Burgas Free University from International Conferences 2021. Available online: http://research.
bfu.bg:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/1196 (accessed on 5 April 2022).
73. Hellwig, Z. Zastosowanie metody taksonomicznej do typologicznego podziału krajów ze wzgl˛edu na poziom ich rozwoju oraz
zasoby i struktur˛e wykwalifikowanych kadr [Application of the taxonomy method to typology classification of the countries
because of the development level or resources and the structure of human resources]. Przeglad ˛ Stat. 1968, 4, 307–327.
74. Lira, J.; Wagner, W.; Wysocki, F. Mediana w zagadnieniach porzadkowania
˛ obiektów wielocechowych [Median in the ordering
issues of multivariable objects]. In Statystyka Regionalna w Służbie Samorzadu
˛ Lokalnego i Biznesu; Paradysz, W.J., Ed.; Regional
statistics in duty of local government; Internetowa Oficyna Wydawnicza Centrum Statystyki Regionalnej, Wydawnictwo
Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu: Poznań, Poland, 2002; pp. 87–99.
75. Młodak, A. Analiza Taksonomiczna w Statystyce Regionalnej [Taxonomic Analysis in Regional Policy]; Difin: Warszawa, Poland, 2006.
76. D˛ebkowska, K.; Jarocka, M. The impact of the method of the data normalization on the results. Folia Oeconomica 2013, 286,
181–188.
77. Jajuga, K.; Walesiak, M. Standardization of data set under different measurement scales. In Classification and Information Processing
at the Turn of the Millennium; Decker, R., Gaul, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 105–112.
78. Zielińska-Sitkiewicz, M. The impact of normalization procedures on the classification of building material companies listed on
the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Polityki Eur. Finans. Mark. 2017, 18, 272–281. [CrossRef]
79. Czech, A. Application of chosen normalization methods in the process of construction of synthetic measure in indirect consump-
tion research. Folia Oeconomica 2014, 3, 231–240.
80. Młodak, A. Ocena zmienności cech statystycznych w modelu taksonomicznym [The evaluation of the variability of statistical
features in the taxonomic model]. Wiad. Stat. 2005, 9, 5–18.
81. Litman, T. Developing indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transport planning. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board
2007, 2017, 10–15. [CrossRef]
82. Litman, T. Sustainable Transportation Indicators: A Recommended Research Program for Developing Sustainable Transportation
Indicators and Data. Transp. Res. Rec. 2009, 1–14, No. 09-3403. Available online: http://www.vtpi.org/sustain/sti.pdf (accessed
on 16 June 2022).
83. Litman, T. Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable Transport Planning; Victoria Transport Policy Institute:
Victoria, BC, Canada, 2022; pp. 1–118.
84. Lopez-Carreiro, I.; Monzon, A. Evaluating sustainability and innovation of mobility patterns in Spanish cities. Analysis by size
and urban typology. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 38, 684–696. [CrossRef]
85. Li, Y.; Yang, J.; Shi, H.; Li, Y. Assessment of sustainable transport development based on entropy and unascertained measure.
PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186893. [CrossRef]
86. Zhou, P.; Ang, B.W.; Poh, K.L. A mathematical programming approach to constructing composite indicators. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62,
87. Malina, A.; Zeliaś, A. On building taxsonometric measure of living conditions. Stat. Transit. 1997, 3, 523–544.
88. Czech, A.; Słaby, T. Ocena poziomu życia gospodarstw domowych według województw–meandry analizy taksonomicznej [The
assessment of Polish households living standards in voivodeships–the meanders of taxonomic analysis]. Wiad. Stat. 2017, 10,
19–37.

Sustainability 14 08770 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 08770 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Department of Management, Warsaw Management University, 03-772 Warsaw, Poland;

Academic Editor: Lei Zhang 1. Introduction

Sustainability 2022, 14, 8770. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148770 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Background of the Literature

3. Presentation of the Research Method and Collection of Potential Data Sets

where m is the number of diagnostic variables, Rm is the m-dimensional space of real

4. Statistical Verification of the Potential Data Set and Choice of Total

Table 1. Chosen statistical measures for particular pillars of transport sustainability.

2016 2017 2018 2019

Table 2. Variation coefficients of diagnostic variables.

2016 2017 2018 2019

Table 3. Main diagonals of inverted matrices of Pearson’s correlation coefficients.

2016 2017 2018 2019

2016 2017 2018 2019

In summary, regarding a statistical test of a possible set of diagnostic variables, it

5. Assessment of Transport Sustainability and Discussion of the Research Results

Table 5. Positions of countries in the rankings according to particular orders in time.

Table 6. Groups of countries according to particular orders in time.

You might also like