In developing countries, urban mobility is a significant challenge due to convergence of population growth and the economic attraction of urban centers. This convergence of factors has resulted in an increase in the demand for transport services, affecting existing infrastructure and requiring the development of sustainable mobility solutions. In order to tackle this challenge, it is necessary to create optimal services that promote sustainable urban mobility. The main objective of this research is to develop and validate a comprehensive methodology framework for assessing and selecting the most sustainable and environmentally responsible urban mobility services for decision makers in developing countries. By integrating fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making techniques, the study aims to address the inherent complexity and uncertainty of urban mobility planning and provide a robust tool for optimizing transportation solutions for rapid urbanization. The proposed methodology combines three-dimensional fuzzy methods of type-1, including AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE, using the Borda method to adapt subjectivity, uncertainty, and incomplete judgments. The results show the advantages of using integrated methods in the sustainable selection of urban mobility systems. A sensitivity analysis is also performed to validate the robustness of the model and to provide insights into the reliability and stability of the evaluation model. This study contributes to inform decision-making, improves policies and urban mobility infrastructure, promotes sustainable decisions, and meets the specific needs of developing countries.

1. Abassi, F. A., Karray, H., Houe, R., et al. (2020). Interoperability Concerns for Multidimensional Urban Mobility Within the Frame of MaaS. In: International Conference on Interoperability for Enterprise Systems and Applications. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 147–158.
2. Abdel Wahed Ahmed, M. M., & Abd El Monem, N. (2020). Sustainable and green transportation for better quality of life case study greater Cairo—Egypt. HBRC Journal, 16(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/16874048.2020.1719340
3. Abdelaziz, A., & Nova, A. N. M. (2023). Car Sharing Station Choice by using Interval Valued Neutrosophic WASPAS Method. International Journal of Advances in Applied Computational Intelligence, 2(2), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.54216/IJAACI.020203
4. Afful-Dadzie, E., Kominkova, Z., & Nabareseh, S. (2015). Selecting start-up businesses in a public venture capital with intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science. pp. 63–72.
5. Anburuvel, A., Perera, W. U. L. D. P., & Randeniya, R. D. S. S. (2022). A demand responsive public transport for a spatially scattered population in a developing country. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(1), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.12.001
6. Ataei, Y., Mahmoudi, A., Feylizadeh, M. R., & Li, D. F. (2020). Ordinal priority approach (OPA) in multiple attribute decision-making. Applied Soft Computing, 86, 105893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105893
7. Ayadi, H., Benaissa, M., Hamani, N., & Kermad, L. (2024). Selecting Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of Urban Freight Transport Using a Multi-Criteria Analysis. Logistics, 8(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8010012
8. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005
9. Barak, S., & Mokfi, T. (2019). Evaluation and selection of clustering methods using a hybrid group MCDM. Expert Systems with Applications, 138, 112817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.07.034
10. Bhuiya, M. M. R., Rafiq, R., Morshed, K. N. M., & Rahman, M. I. (2023). Suitable Bus Stop Locations for a Proposed Bus Rapid Transit Corridor in a Developing Country City: An Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach. Transportation in Developing Economies, 9(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-023-00179-6
11. Bouraima, M. B., Tengecha, N. A., Stević, Ž., et al. (2023). An integrated fuzzy MCDM model for prioritizing strategies for successful implementation and operation of the bus rapid transit system. Annals of Operations Research, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05183-y
12. Broniewicz, E., & Ogrodnik, K. (2021). A comparative evaluation of multi-criteria analysis methods for sustainable transport. Energies, 14(16), 5100. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14165100
13. Canitez, F. (2019). Pathways to sustainable urban mobility in developing megacities: A socio-technical transition perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.008
14. Calderón, F., & Miller, E. J. (2020). A literature review of mobility services: definitions, modelling state-of-the-art, and key considerations for a conceptual modelling framework. Transport Reviews, 40(3), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1704916
15. Castá, J. A., Martí, S. I., Menchaca, J. L., et al. (2018). Fuzzy rules to improve traffic light decisions in urban roads. Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications, 10(2), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.4236/jilsa.2018.102003
16. Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Haque Munim, Z. (2023). Dry port location selection using a fuzzy AHP-BWM-PROMETHEE approach. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 25(2), 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00230-0
17. Cipriano, M., Colomba, L., & Garza, P. (2021). A data-driven based dynamic rebalancing methodology for bike sharing systems. Applied Sciences, 11(15), 6967.; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156967
18. Curiel-Esparza, J., Mazario-Diez, J. L., Canto-Perello, J., & Martin-Utrillas, M. (2016). Prioritization by consensus of enhancements for sustainable mobility in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.015
19. Das, D., Kalbar, P. P., & Velaga, N. R. (2021). Framework for comparative evaluation of car-sharing alternatives for urban and suburban regions: Case study of Mumbai, India. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(3), 05021022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000705
20. Deveci, M., Canıtez, F., & Gökaşar, I. (2018). WASPAS and TOPSIS based interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method for a selection of a car sharing station. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41, 777–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.034
21. Demir, E., Ak, M. F., & Sarı, K. (2023). Pythagorean fuzzy based AHP-VIKOR integration to assess rail transportation systems in Turkey. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 25(2), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01404-x
22. Demir, G., Damjanović, M., Matović, B., & Vujadinović, R. (2022). Toward sustainable urban mobility by using fuzzy-FUCOM and fuzzy-CoCoSo methods: the case of the SUMP podgorica. Sustainability, 14(9), 4972. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094972
23. Demissie, M. G., Phithakkitnukoon, S., Sukhvibul, T., et al. (2016). Inferring passenger travel demand to improve urban mobility in developing countries using cell phone data: a case study of Senegal. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(9), 2466–2478. 10.1109/TITS.2016.2521830
24. Ding, S., Xu, J., Dai, L., & Hu, H. (2021). Mobility industry call center location selection under sustainability: a two-phase decision-making approach. Smart and Resilient Transportation, 3(2), 177–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRT-10-2020-0025
25. Dobranskyte-Niskota, A., Perujo, A., & Pregl, M. (2007). Indicators to assess sustainability of transport activities. Available online: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/apd/gains/EU/index.login?logout=1 (accessed on 13 March 2024).
26. Dogan, O. (2021). Process mining technology selection with spherical fuzzy AHP and sensitivity analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 178, 114999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114999
27. Gokasar, I., Deveci, M., Isik, M., et al. (2023). Evaluation of the alternatives of introducing electric vehicles in developing countries using Type-2 neutrosophic numbers based RAFSI model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122589
28. Gokasar, I., Simic, V., Deveci, M., & Senapati, T. (2023). Alternative prioritization of freeway incident management using autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic using a type-2 neutrosophic number based decision support system. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 123, 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106183
29. Ghoushchi, S. J., Ab Rahman, M. N., Soltanzadeh, M., et al. (2023). Assessing sustainable passenger transportation systems to address climate change based on MCDM methods in an uncertain environment. Sustainability, 15(4), 3558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043558
30. Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A., Liao, H., & Herrera, F. (2019). Interval MULTIMOORA method integrating interval Borda rule and interval best–worst-method-based weighting model: Case study on hybrid vehicle engine selection. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 50(3), 1157–1169. 10.1109/TCYB.2018.2889730
31. Hasselwander, M., Bigotte, J. F., Antunes, A. P., & Sigua, R. G. (2022). Towards sustainable transport in developing countries: Preliminary findings on the demand for mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) in metro Manila. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 155, 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.11.024
32. Ho, C. Q., & Tirachini, A. (2024). Mobility-as-a-Service and the role of multimodality in the sustainability of urban mobility in developing and developed countries. Transport Policy, 145, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.10.013
33. Hezam, I. M., Mishra, A. R., Krishankumar, R., et al. (2023). A single-valued neutrosophic decision framework for the assessment of sustainable transport investment projects based on discrimination measure. Management Decision, 61(2), 443–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2021-1520
34. Huang, H., De Smet, Y., Macharis, C., & Doan, N. A. V. (2021). Collaborative decision-making in sustainable mobility: identifying possible consensuses in the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis based on inverse mixed-integer linear optimization. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1795005
35. Ibrahim, S. M., Ayad, H. M., Turki, E. A., & Saadallah, D. M. (2023). Measuring Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Levels: Prioritize Potential Areas for TOD in Alexandria, Egypt Using GIS-Spatial Multi-Criteria Based Model. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 67, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.12.053
36. Imtiyaz, M. N., Sobhani, M. G., & Emtiaz, M. (2023). Features Desired in Public Transport in a Developing City: Users’ Perspective. Journal of Transportation Technologies, 13(4), 632–643. 10.4236/jtts.2023.134028
37. Kaya, Ö., Tortum, A., Alemdar, K. D., & Çodur, M. Y. (2020). Site selection for EVCS in Istanbul by GIS and multi-criteria decision-making. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 80, 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102271
38. Keleş, N., & Pekkaya, M. (2023). Evaluation of logistics centers in terms of sustainability via MCDM methods. Journal of advances in management research, 20(2), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-04-2022-0087
39. Khan, T., Tahir, M., Agyekum, E. B., & Yu, M. (2024). A multi-criteria design framework for sustainable electric vehicles stations. Sustainable Cities and Society, 101, 105076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.105076
40. Kumar, A. (2020). An MCDM framework for assessment of social sustainability indicators of the freight transport industry under uncertainty. A multi-company perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(5), 1023–1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0272
41. Kundu, P., Görçün, Ö. F., Garg, C. P., et al. (2023). Evaluation of public transportation systems for sustainable cities using an integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making model. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03776-y
42. Lin, M., Huang, C., & Xu, Z. (2020). MULTIMOORA based MCDM model for site selection of car sharing station under picture fuzzy environment. Sustainable cities and society, 53, 101873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101873
43. Liu, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Comprehensive Sustainable Assessment and Prioritization of Different Railway Projects Based on a Hybrid MCDM Model. Sustainability, 14(19), 12065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912065
44. Lungu, K. A., Kaliba, C., & Mwanaumo, E. M. (2023). Systematic review: Prioritization models for asphalt road maintenance. In: Building Smart, Resilient and Sustainable Infrastructure in Developing Countries. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003325321
45. Maletič, D., Maletič, M., Lovrenčić, V., et al. (2014). An application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and sensitivity analysis for maintenance policy selection. Organizacija, 47(3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2014-0016
46. Magalhães, I., & Santos, E. (2022). Evaluating the potential of mobility plans for achieving sustainable urban development. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 43, 100743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100743
47. Melkonyan, A., Gruchmann, T., Lohmar, F., & Bleischwitz, R. (2022). Decision support for sustainable urban mobility: A case study of the Rhine-Ruhr area. Sustainable Cities and Society, 80, 103806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103806
48. Mesa, P., Klungboonkrong, P., & Faiboun, N. (2023). Prioritization of sustainable urban land use and transport policy measures for a small-town area in a developing country. Engineering & Applied Science Research, 50(3).
49. Mfenjou, M. L., Ari, A. A. A., Abdou, W., & Spies, F. (2018). Methodology and trends for an intelligent transport system in developing countries. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 19, 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2018.08.002
50. Moslem, S. (2024). A novel parsimonious spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for sustainable urban transport solutions. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 128, 107447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107447
51. Mubiru, I., & Westerholt, R. (2024). A scoping review on the conceptualisation and impacts of new mobility services. European Transport Research Review, 16(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-024-00633-5
52. Mohammadzadeh, S., Soleymani, M., Fathi, S., et al. (2023). The role of smart transport in urban planning and the transition from traditional to smart cities in developing countries with sustainability requirements. Preprints, 2023060637. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.0637.v1
53. Ngossaha, J. M., Ngouna, R. H., Archimède, B., & Nlong, J. M. (2017). Sustainability assessment of a transportation system under uncertainty: An integrated multicriteria approach. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), 7481–7486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1064
54. Ngossaha, J. M., Ngouna, R. H., Archimède, B., et al. (2024). Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility: A Multidimensional Ontology-Based Framework for Assessment and Consensus Decision-Making Using DS-AHP. Sustainability, 16(11), 4458. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114458
55. Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full consistency method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
56. Pamučar, D., Vasin, L., & Lukovac, L. (2014). Selection of railway level crossings for investing in security equipment using hybrid DEMATEL-MARICA model. In: XVI International Scientific-Expert Conference on Railway. pp. 89–92.
57. Rohilla, K., Desai, A., & Patel, C. R. (2024). A Cutting-Edge Examination of the Dichotomy of Electric Vehicles as a Symbol of “Sustainable Mobility” and “Clean Energy”. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 105(1), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-023-00778-x
58. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
59. Samalna, D. A., Ngossaha, J. M., & Ari, A. A. A. (2023). Cyber-Physical Urban Mobility Systems: Opportunities and Challenges in Developing Countries. International Journal of Software Innovation (IJSI), 11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSI.315662
60. Saxena, A., & Gupta, V. (2023). Carpooling: Who is closest to adopting it? An investigation into the potential car-poolers among private vehicle users: A case of a developing country, India. Transport policy, 135, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.03.007
61. Shaaban, K., Elamin, M., & Alsoub, M. (2021). Intelligent transportation systems in a developing country: benefits and challenges of implementation. Transportation Research Procedia, 55, 1373–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.07.122
62. Sharma, J. (2018). Economics of decision making: Exploring analytical hierarchical process (AHP). Theoretical Economics Letters, 8(14), 3141–3156. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2018.814195
63. Shojarazavi, N., Mohammadzadeh, S., Soleymani, M., et al. (2023). The Role of Smart Transport in Urban Planning and The Transition from Traditional to Smart Cities in Developing Countries with Sustainability Requirements. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.0637.v1
64. Sivaprakasam, P., & Angamuthu, M. (2023). Generalized Z-fuzzy soft β-covering based rough matrices and its application to MAGDM problem based on AHP method. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 6(1), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame04012023p
65. Solanki, V. S., Agarwal, P. K., Kiran, S., & Agarwal, D. K. (2024). Bus transport system quality benchmarking and optimisation using FAHP & GP technique. International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, 31(1), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHVS.2024.136245
66. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & industrial engineering, 140, 106231 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
67. Storme, T., Casier, C., Azadi, H., & Witlox, F. (2021). Impact assessments of new mobility services: A critical review. Sustainability, 13(6), 3074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063074
68. Tillu, P., Singh, S. R., Digalwar, A. K., & Reosekar, R. Towards Sustainable Mobility in India: An Integrated MCDM Analysis of Fuel and Drive Alternatives. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4700808
69. Tian, G., Lu, W., Zhang, X., et al. (2023). A survey of multi-criteria decision-making techniques for green logistics and low-carbon transportation systems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(20), 57279–57301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26577-2
70. Trivedi, P., Shah, J., Čep, R., et al. (2024). A Hybrid Best-Worst Method (BWM)–Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) Approach for Prioritizing Road Safety Improvements. IEEE Access, 12, 30054–30065. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3368395
71. Turoń, K. (2022). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis during Selection of Vehicles for Car-Sharing Services—Regular Users’ Expectations. Energies, 15(19), 7277. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197277
72. van Hoof, J., Marston, H. R. (2021). Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1644. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041644
73. Verma, V. K., & Rastogi, R. (2024). How Do Stakeholders Perceive Transit Service Quality Attributes?—A study through Fuzzy-AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, 122043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122043
74. Vij, A., Ryan, S., Sampson, S., & Harris, S. (2020). Consumer preferences for on-demand transport in Australia. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.026
75. Yagmahan, B., & Yılmaz, H. (2023). An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1
76. Yucesan, M., Özkan, B., Mete, S., et al. (2024). Evaluating sustainability of urban mobility of Asian cities: An integrated approach of interval type-2 fuzzy best-worst method and MULTIMOORA. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127, 107266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107266
77. Zapolskytė, S., Trépanier, M., Burinskienė, M., & Survilė, O. (2022). Smart urban mobility system evaluation model adaptation to Vilnius, Montreal and Weimar cities. Sustainability, 14(2), 715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020715
78. Zehmed, K., & Jawab, F. (2020). A combined approach based on fuzzy SERVPERF and DEA for measuring and benchmarking the quality of urban bus transport service at the route level. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, 19(2), 442–459. https://doi.org/10.7232/iems.2020.19.2.442
79. Žižović, M., & Pamucar, D. (2019). New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902102z