1-s2.0-S0967070X23003311-main (1)

Transport Policy 146 (2024) 295–311
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transport Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol
Evaluation of benefits due to adoption of enablers of unimodal road to

intermodal railroad freight transportation
Nevil Gandhi a, *, Ravi Kant a, Jitesh J. Thakkar b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat-395007, Gujarat, India
b
Gati Shakti Vishwavidyalaya, Vadodara-390004, Gujarat, India
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The adverse environmental consequences arising from road-based logistics operations have prompted stake
Sustainable freight transportation holders, including transport service providers, logistics managers, and shippers, to initiate a modal shift from
Modal shift unimodal road to intermodal railroad (IRR) freight transportation. However, the adoption pace of IRR in
Intermodal railroad
developing nations is slow. Modal shift enablers (MSEs) facilitate IRR adoption, while modal shift benefits
Enablers
Benefits
(MSBs) signify favorable performance outcomes from MSEs’ application. The main objective of this study is to
Spherical fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS rank the MSBs resulting from the adoption of MSEs in IRR freight transportation. This study proposes an inte
grated multi-criteria decision-making framework utilizing the spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-
AHP) to evaluate MSEs’ weights and the spherical fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal
solution (SF-TOPSIS) to rank the MSBs. The case study performed in the Indian logistics sector reveals that
‘government policies and legislation enablers’, ‘infrastructural enablers’ and ‘strategic and management en
ablers’ are the most significant MSEs, whereas reduction in vehicular pollution and related negative externalities
as well as reduction of the freight transport costs including storage and handling charges are most crucial MSBs
realized due to adoption of MSEs. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to assess the stability of the ranking. The
results help decision-makers in implementing MSEs for MSBs and develop effective IRR adoption strategies. This
study also promotes sustainable freight transportation and provides logistics practitioners, researchers, and
policymakers with a precise, systematic, and practical decision-support tool.
1. Introduction levels of pollution, up to 43.48% greater fuel efficiency, and up to 50%

higher cost-effectiveness compared to unimodal road transport. Hence,
The nation’s economy depends on the logistics sector for its growth supply chain players should embrace the adoption of IRR in their
and sustainability. Goods transportation utilizes various modes, logistical operations. This transition involves shifting from
including road, rail, air, and sea. Road mode handles 60 percent of road-dependent transportation to IRR for long-haul operations, utilizing
global freight turnover (Kaack et al., 2018), accompanied by a concur rail for main routes and road for first and last-mile tasks (Pongsayaporn
rent increase in adverse externalities such as carbon emissions, noise et al., 2021). A complete transition to rail mode is not feasible in practice
pollution, traffic congestion, and accidents (Janic, 2007). The European due to reliance on road transport for the initial and final stages of the
Commission (2015) emphasized shifting freight traffic to sustainable journey unless the consignee or consignor is situated at a rail freight
modes such as rail or intermodal railroad (IRR) to mitigate adverse ef terminal or in its immediate vicinity.
fects. Also, this transition is crucial for decarbonizing road freight
transport (Meyer, 2020). 1.1. Research motives
In a recent study, Halim (2023) examined the impact of three distinct
levels of ambition in modal shift programs for IRR freight transport on Many countries have employed the IRR freight transportation;
CO2 emissions and transportation costs, revealing that these initiatives however, the modal shift of freight transport from unimodal road to IRR
offer advantages in both environmental and economic dimensions. Also, is characterized by a slow pace (Nassar et al., 2023) and most freight
Pinto et al. (2018) stated that IRR operations exhibit up to 77.4% lower traffic is still handled by road mode (Pfoser, 2022). The modal shift of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gandhi6330@gmail.com (N. Gandhi), ravi.kant@med.svnit.ac.in (R. Kant), jitesh.thakkar@gsv.ac.in (J.J. Thakkar).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.12.003
Received 2 March 2023; Received in revised form 5 December 2023; Accepted 8 December 2023
Available online 13 December 2023
0967-070X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Gandhi et al. Transport Policy 146 (2024) 295–311
freight transport from unimodal road to IRR is challenging. Modal shift IRR freight transport. Secondly, it introduces a hybrid framework for
enablers (MSEs) assist in adopting modal shift to IRR freight trans evaluating and prioritizing MSBs from adopting MSEs. The assessment
portation. While existing literature discusses these enablers (Cannas employs the spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-AHP) to
et al., 2020; Colicchia et al., 2017; Elbert and Seikowsky, 2017), the determine MSEs’ weights and the spherical fuzzy technique for order of
logistics sector lacks awareness of IRR potential and associated modal preference by similarity to the ideal solution (SF-TOPSIS) to rank MSBs.
shift benefits (MSBs). Hence, understanding the MSBs derived from Lastly, the research provides actionable implications based on quanti
adopting MSEs becomes crucial. Past studies have not comprehensively tative assessments, benefiting logistics managers, practitioners, re
explored MSBs resulting from MSEs’ implementation in IRR freight searchers, and policymakers.
transport. This knowledge gap necessitates investigating both MSEs and The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 pre
MSBs concurrently concerning IRR adoption. Considering the subjective sents a systematic literature review process to identify MSEs and MSBs.
nature of a problem, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques Section 3 explains the solution methodologies adopted in this study.
are essential for assessing MSEs and associated MSBs (Lahane and Kant, Further, Section 4 describes the proposed research framework. Section
2021). Hence, an effective decision framework becomes crucial for 5 presents the application of the proposed research framework, followed
identifying and prioritizing MSBs and fostering IRR adoption in logistics. by results, discussion, and sensitivity analysis in Section 6. Section 7
The above points highlight the motivation and originality of this study. presents research implications and Section 8 provides the conclusions,
India has an extensive rail network spanning 68,048 route kilometers limitations, and future directions.
and effectively handled a substantial freight volume of 872,112 net ton-
kilometers in the fiscal year 2021-22. Despite these favorable elements, 2. Literature review
the share of rail freight in India’s total volume remained modest at 20.36
percent in the fiscal year 2020-21, indicating the prevalent preference This study examines key MSEs and MSBs linked to the modal shift
for road transport (Gandhi et al., 2022a). Challenges such as inflexi from unimodal road to IRR freight transport. This section offers an in-
bility, inadequate infrastructure, slower freight train speeds, and un depth analysis of existing research on MSEs and MSBs. As depicted in
predictable transit times of rail mode have contributed to this disparity Fig. 1, this research utilized a three-step systematic literature review
between road and rail modes (National Institution for Transforming procedure. Step 1 involves identifying studies from the Scopus database,
India and Rocky Mountain Institute, 2021). According to a report of the followed by a manual screening in Step 2 and corpus analysis in Step 3.
Indian National Transport Development Policy Committee (2014),
enhanced infrastructure, such as dedicated freight corridors (DFCs) and
IRR terminals, could achieve an equal modal distribution by 2032. 2.1. Modal shift enablers
However, the evaluation of MSEs’ impact on modal shift remains un
explored in the Indian logistics sector using MCDM approaches (Gandhi The factors that help in adopting a modal shift to IRR in freight
et al., 2022b). The Indian logistics sector must embrace MSEs that transportation are termed as MSEs. The major logistics stakeholders
facilitate the adoption of IRR within the stipulated timeframe. These must recognize the substantial MSEs to adopt IRR in freight trans
aspects underscore the rationale for selecting the Indian logistics sector. portation effectively. In contrast to developed nations such as the USA,
To fill the knowledge gaps, this study attempts to fulfil the following rail’s share in freight transportation is not encouraging in developing
research objectives (RO): (RO1) To explore and identify potential MSEs nations (OECD, 2018). Multiple authors have identified numerous MSEs
and MSBs associated with the shift from unimodal road to IRR freight in previous studies. Kumar and Anbanandam (2020) formulated a
transport, (RO2) To assess the local and global weights of the selected situation-actor-process (SAP) and learning-action-performance (LAP)
MSEs, (RO3) To prioritize the significant MSBs achieved through framework to address multimodal freight transport and suggested policy
implementing MSEs in the context of IRR adoption and delineate their measures to attain modal balance in India. In this context, ‘actions’ refer
essential implications. to activities aimed at promoting the adoption of multimodal freight
This study offers novel contributions to the existing literature on IRR transport. The prioritized actions to enhance freight transportation
freight transportation in several ways. Firstly, a three-step systematic sustainability include operationalizing DFCs and utilizing multimodal
literature review examines multiple MSEs and their potential MSBs in services for long-haul transportation. Moreover, Shankar et al. (2019)
identified enablers for DFCs in India, promoting the shift from road to
Fig. 1. Flowchart of systematic literature review.
296
Table 1
List of selected MSEs.
Main enablers Code Sub-enablers References
Environmental enablers ENVE1 Leveraging the better energy efficiency offered by IRR in comparison to Elbert and Seikowsky (2017); Salvucci et al. (2019)
(ENVEs) unimodal road freight transport
ENVE2 Implementing a low carbon transport measure that sets specific emission Kumar and Anbanandam (2020); Pongsayaporn et al.
reduction targets (2021)
ENVE3 Establishing a green freight transport system Cannas et al. (2020); Islam et al. (2016)
ENVE4 Leveraging the reduced GHG emissions on a per net tonne-kilometer basis Elbert and Seikowsky (2017); Salvucci et al. (2019)
offered by IRR in comparison to unimodal road freight transport
Economic enablers (ECOEs) ECOE1 Offering incentives to industries that utilize the IRR transport chain Tao et al. (2017)
ECOE2 Designing attractive freight tariff structure and incentivizing IRR transport Elbert and Seikowsky (2017); Kumar and Anbanandam
(2020)
ECOE3 Taking advantage of the benefits arising from the increased fuel, labour, Elbert and Seikowsky (2017); Eng-Larsson and Kohn
and management costs of unimodal road transport (2012)
ECOE4 Fostering investments towards DFCs, IRR terminals and transhipment Kramarz and Przybylska (2021); Kumar and
technologies in public-private agreement Anbanandam (2020)
ECOE5 Implementing transparent and well-documented mechanisms to Experts’ opinion
compensate for liquidity damage incurred to the goods
Social enablers (SCOEs) SCOE1 Raising customer awareness, fostering positive attitudes, and stimulating Eng-Larsson and Kohn (2012); Kramarz and Przybylska
demand for green products (2021)
SCOE2 Setting up education and training for the employees for efficient modal Experts’ opinion
shift
SCOE3 Organizing environmental awareness programs for major stakeholders Gonzalez-Aregall et al. (2021); Kumar and
Anbanandam (2020)
SCOE4 Exerting pressure on major stakeholders for environmental protection and Kumar and Anbanandam (2020)
sustainability
SCOE5 Integrating of IRR modal shift to the corporate social responsibility of the Elbert and Seikowsky (2017)
organization
SCOE6 Implementing strict control measures on truck drivers’ working hours, Elbert and Seikowsky (2017)
overloading, and travelling distances
Service quality & reliability SQRE1 Focusing on enhancing the speed, frequency, capacity, order size Islam et al. (2016); Kumar and Anbanandam (2020);
enablers (SQREs) flexibility and agility of freight trains Kurtuluş and Çetin (2020); Pongsayaporn et al. (2021)
SQRE2 Prioritizing punctuality and minimum delays Kim et al. (2018); Kurtuluş and Çetin (2020);
Pongsayaporn et al. (2021)
SQRE3 Imposing robust measures for protection against freight loss and damage Cannas et al. (2020); Islam et al. (2016)
during transportation
SQRE4 Prioritizing actions aimed to ensure the reliability and consistency of rail Islam et al. (2016); Kim et al. (2018)
operations through regular maintenance and adherence to schedules
SQRE5 Higher maintenance frequency of IRR cargo station and roads connecting Kim et al. (2018)
with IRR stations
Strategic & management SME1 Government strategic planning to support the infrastructural development Behrends (2017); Kramarz and Przybylska (2021)
enablers (SMEs) through its own resources and public-private partnerships
SME2 Long-term collaboration across the logistics stakeholders and their early Cannas et al. (2020); Kumar and Anbanandam (2020);
involvement Sallnäs et al. (2022)
SME3 Developing digital infrastructure to support multimodal freight Cannas et al. (2020); Islam et al. (2016); Pongsayaporn
transportation and easy tracking and tracing of shipments et al. (2021)
SME4 Commencing logistics efficiency enhancement programs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2021)
SME5 Establishing world-class third-party logistics service providers for Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2021)
developing and operating the logistics parks
Infrastructural enablers INFE1 Strategically locating terminals with sufficient capacity close to both sink Elbert and Seikowsky (2017); Pongsayaporn et al.
(INFEs) and source locations (2021)
INFE2 Establishing standardized containerization practices Experts’ opinion
INFE3 Establishment of DFCs and train services Colicchia et al. (2017); Kumar and Anbanandam (2020)
INFE4 Investing in capacity scalability, timetable adaptability, intermodal Cannas et al. (2020); Pongsayaporn et al. (2021)
compatibility, diversified composition offerings
INFE5 Integrating ‘terminal-to-terminal’ and ‘door-to-door’ operations Islam et al. (2016)
INFE6 Expanding transport network and terminals to minimize pre- and post- Experts’ opinion
haulage distance
Government policies & GPLE1 Policy measures to promote a modal shift from unimodal road to IRR Colicchia et al. (2017); Kramarz and Przybylska (2021);
legislation enablers (GPLEs) transportation Pongsayaporn et al. (2021)
GPLE2 Tax support and subsidies to the trucks operating between roads Kim et al. (2018)
connecting with IRR stations
GPLE3 Policy decisions to reduce fuel subsidies to road transport and incentives Eng-Larsson and Kohn (2012)
to rail transport
GPLE4 Government policies towards incentivizing the rail frequency, Experts’ opinion
punctuality, and customer services for capacity building of dedicated
freight rail corridors
GPLE5 Devise a suitable policy towards the fresh subsidy mechanism for the IRR Gonzalez-Aregall et al. (2021)
freight transportation sector
rail transportation. They categorized 16 enablers into strategic, tactical, Furthermore, Pongsayaporn et al. (2021) investigated the in
and operational levels. The study emphasizes the significance of prior terrelationships between critical factors affecting the efficiency of
itizing strategic-level enablers, including ‘active involvement of state multimodal transportation of agricultural goods in Thailand. They
government’, ‘encouraging industrial policies’, and ‘exploring diverse categorized these factors into infrastructure, operations, multimodal
funding sources’, to achieve sustainable freight transportation. service providers, market, and road constraints. Their study highlighted
297
that improving infrastructures related to multimodal or intermodal concerning both costs and environmental influence. Here, Table 2 pre
transportation, such as container yards and road connections to train sents the final list of selected 15 MSBs.
stations and ports, plays a crucial and important role in advancing
multimodal transportation in Thailand. 3. Methodology
Elbert and Seikowsky (2017) studied the determinants influencing
shippers’ choices to shift to IRR transport in Germany. They recognized The research methodology adopted in this study is detailed in the
six domains: economics, quality, infrastructure, management, policy, following sub-sections.
and sustainability. Their study emphasized significant factors, including
elevated fuel costs, reliable transport services, terminal proximity, 3.1. Spherical fuzzy set theory
favorable truck driver conditions, financial incentives, and environ
mental considerations, as key drivers for adopting IRR transport by The human preference model is often ambiguous, and decision-
analyzing 92 interviews. Tao et al. (2017) devised a comprehensive makers (DMs) face difficulty expressing their judgements in crisp
framework to evaluate the impact of an incentive policy on modal shift terms. To overcome this limitation, fuzzy set theory permits the DMs to
in China. Their results suggest that offering subsidies cannot be a admit their opinions in linguistic terms and also treats vagueness to
long-term strategy for IRR adoption. Also, Salvucci et al. (2019) develop models closer to real-life conditions (Zadeh, 1965). Spherical
analyzed the role of modal shift in decarbonizing the Scandinavian fuzzy sets (SFS) are the latest addition to the various extensions of or
transport sector. Moreover, Cannas et al. (2020) examined a group of dinary fuzzy sets. SFS, developed by Kutlu Gündoğdu and Kahraman
enablers aimed at facilitating the transition to IRR in the Italian dairy (2019), are 3D spherical geometry-based fuzzy sets that merge type-II
supply chain. They empirically validated these enablers through a intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS) and nuetrosophic sets (NS). SFS allow
qualitative analysis using multiple case studies. Furthermore, Gonzale individually assigning membership (μ), non-membership (ν), and hesi
z-Aregall et al. (2021) discovered 49 distinct modal shift initiatives tancy degrees (π) in a broader space than IFS since SFS treat the sphere
across 21 European port authorities. Their findings emphasize the as a volume rather than a solid, allowing for a more elegant solution to
crucial roles of government actions and technological solutions in suc uncertainty-related difficulties. SFS provides DMs with a broader pref
cessfully implementing modal shift strategies. Kurtuluş and Çetin (2020) erence domain than type-I IFS, type-II IFS, and NS (Fig. 2) (Menekşe and
examined the modal shift potential towards short-distance inland Camgöz Akdağ, 2022). In recent years, SFS have been applied to
container internodal transport. Colicchia et al. (2017) explored the numerous research applications such as distance learning tool (Menekşe
factors facilitating adopting IRR freight transport. The authors identified and Camgöz Akdağ, 2022), alternative fuel vehicles (Cihat Onat, 2022),
six categories of these enabling factors. Moreover, Kim et al. (2018) and renewable energy location (Kutlu Gündoğdu and Kahraman,
investigated factors influencing the increased adoption of rail trans 2020a). Hence, this research employs SFS to deal with the issues of
portation for New Zealand freight transportation. Their findings indicate imprecision and uncertainty in MCDM problems. The preliminary defi
that significantly enhancing the reliability of rail freight transport ser nitions and other important operators of SFS are presented in Appendix
vices would result in a notable reduction in the share of road transport. A.
Here, Table 1 presents the final list of selected 36 MSEs.
3.2. Spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-AHP)
2.2. Modal shift benefits
AHP, developed by Saaty (1980), is a powerful MCDM that considers
Freight transport-related operations are responsible for societal and pairwise comparison of criteria to solve decision-making dilemmas. AHP
environmental problems such as global warming, road congestion, and evaluates all decision-making criteria hierarchically. AHP offers the
accidents. The key participants in freight transportation are compelled following merits compared to other weighting MCDM methods (Khan
to adopt sustainable solutions for transporting goods, including shifting delwal and Barua, 2020): (1) AHP is applicable to both quantitative and
the volume of freight to intermodal railroad freight transport. Thus, qualitative data, (2) It uses a hierarchical structure to solve complicated
stakeholders must realize the main benefits of deploying MSEs for decision-making problems, (3) It assists DMs in determining the con
freight transportation. MSBs are the desired positive performance out sistency of the problem. Saaty (2006) argued that integrating fuzzy logic
comes that can be realized from implementing MSEs. is unnecessary since decision-making using the classic AHP inherently
Kumar and Anbanandam (2020) investigated the potential perfor accounts for a certain level of fuzziness. However, the outcomes of
mance improvements from implementing recommended actions for a classic AHP are sensitive to the level of fuzziness or uncertainty and are
modal shift to multimodal transportation in India. This includes significantly affected by human subjective judgments (Kordi and Brandt,
enhancing modal balance, reducing road congestion, improving freight 2012). Recently, SF-AHP has been applied in industrial robot selection
safety, reducing negative externalities, and achieving competitive (Kutlu Gündoğdu and Kahraman, 2020b) and fuel cell sustainability
transport costs. J. Zhang et al. (2021) evaluated the enhancement in air assessment (Acar et al., 2022). Consequently, this study integrates the
quality resulting from the modal shift to IRR freight transport in AHP with SFS to tackle the uncertainty related to MSEs of IRR freight
Shenzhen, China. The study emphasized the manifold advantages of the transportation. The present research utilizes SF-AHP to evaluate the
modal shift to multimodal transport, including reduced logistics costs, weights of MSEs.
improved efficiency, and decreased environmental pollution. Moreover, The SF-AHP approach involves the following steps (Menekşe and
Hrušovský et al. (2021) proposed a real-time decision support system Camgöz Akdağ, 2022).
and related benefits to improve the market dominance of IRR mode.
Step 1. Evaluate the criteria and sub-criteria: Each DM should use lin
Rotaris et al. (2022) presented the economic advantages gained by an
guistic phrases to fill out a pairwise comparison matrix for each set of
Italian company that adopted a modal shift to IRR. The authors also
criteria and sub-criteria presented in Table B1 (please refer Appendix
emphasized the significant benefits shippers and carriers can achieve
B). Depending on experiences, each DM may have a different weight, wj,
through modal shift, concluding that the case company successfully
where j = 1, 2, …, n. Eqs. (1) and (2) are used to obtain the score index
reduced transportation costs and related negative externalities.
of each linguistic term presented in Table B1.
Furthermore, Havenga and Simpson (2018) measured the economic
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
benefits (internalization of externality costs) that encourage the modal [( )2 ]⃒
⃒
transition to rail. Also, van Heeswijk et al. (2018) conducted a case study SI = |100∗ μÃs − πÃs − (vÃs − π Ãs )2 ⃒ for AMI; VHI; HI; SMI; and EI
on a logistics service provider in the Netherlands to assess the advan (1)
tages of IRR transportation. The study underscored substantial benefits
298
Table 2
List of selected MSBs.
Code Benefits derived from modal shift enablers References
MSB1 Improves the corporate image of companies adopting IRR transport chain for freight Experts’ opinion
transportation
MSB2 Improves delivery system reliability, carrying load capacity and distribution time Hrušovský et al. (2021)
MSB3 Improves the logistics efficiency of regions around multimodal logistics terminals nationwide Carboni and Orsini (2020)
MSB4 Reduces the congestion inside cities due to the presence of multimodal logistics parks outside Kumar and Anbanandam (2020)
cities
MSB5 Enables a reduction in vehicular pollution and related negative externalities Hrušovský et al. (2021); Kumar and Anbanandam (2020); Rotaris et al.
(2022)
MSB6 Reduces the freight transport costs, including storage and handling charges Havenga and Simpson (2018)
MSB7 Increases major stakeholders’ engagement and logistics service providers’ social Experts’ opinion
responsibility
MSB8 Reduces road accidents and injuries Goel (2018)
MSB9 Reduces cost and emission through batch consolidation from different shippers with varied van Heeswijk et al. (2018)
sizes
MSB10 Aids in meeting the government’s sustainable development goals and modal balance Kumar and Anbanandam (2020)
MSB11 Improves agility of freight transport to react in case of unexpected events or delays quickly Hrušovský et al. (2021)
MSB12 Improves accessibility across the nation fosters novel trade opportunities Experts’ opinion
MSB13 Cost-effective freight transportation compared to unimodal road mode Pinchasik et al. (2020)
MSB14 Facilitates safe and secure transportation of goods Kumar and Anbanandam (2020)
MSB15 Increases environmental consciousness of stakeholders Experts’ opinion
1 3.3. Spherical fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to

SI = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
[( )2 ]⃒ for EI; SLI; LI; VLI; and ALI ideal solution (SF-TOPSIS)
⃒
|100∗ μÃs − πÃs − (vÃs − πÃs )2 ⃒
TOPSIS method is developed based on the principle that the chosen
(2)
alternative should be closest to the positive ideal solution, which max
where μÃs , vÃs and πÃs represent the membership, non-membership, and imizes benefit criteria and minimizes cost criteria, and farthest from the
negative idea solution, which maximizes cost criteria and minimizes cost
hesitancy degrees, respectively.
criteria (Hwang and Yoon, 1981). TOPSIS possesses robust mathemat
Step 2. Convert assessments to spherical fuzzy numbers: To create ical foundations and the following advantages (Matbou and Maleki,
spherical fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices (SFPCMs), convert lin 2022): (1) TOPSIS allows for the analysis of numerous criteria without
guistic pairwise comparison matrices to their corresponding spherical limitations to determine the best alternative, whereas some other MCDM
fuzzy numbers. techniques experience reduced speed and accuracy when the number of
criteria increases significantly, (2) The equations employed for calcu
Step 3. Check the consistency: Check each SFPCM’s consistency ratio
lating normalized matrix distances and determining criteria weights are
(CR) using the score indices. The threshold of the CR is 10%. If any
optional and can be adjusted to suit the available information in the
SFPCM’s CR is less than 0.1, go to Step 4. Otherwise, return to Step 1 and
problem, (3) TOPSIS can be applied to both positive and negative
reevaluate that main or sub-criteria. Table B2 lists the random index (RI)
quantitative as well as qualitative criteria, (4) The impact of varying the
values needed to calculate CR.
criteria weights on evaluating alternatives can be observed numerically.
Step 4. Calculate spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrices: Eq. (A8) The classic TOPSIS approach cannot effectively handle imprecision and
(please refer Appendix A) combines SFPCMs to create spherical fuzzy vagueness in human judgments. Recently, the SF-TOPSIS method has
criterion weight matrices (SFCWMs). recently been employed in physician selection (Sarucan et al., 2022) and
Step 5. Aggregate SFCWMs: For each main and sub-criteria set,
combine SFCWMs from all DMs to create an aggregated spherical fuzzy
criterion weight matrix (ASFCWM).
Step 6. Transform the ASFCWM into its crisp form: Calculate score
indices by de-fuzzing ASFCWMs. Use the defuzzification operator from
Eq. (A9).
Step 7. Normalize the score indices: Normalize score indices by using
Eq. (3) and get the major criteria weights and local weights for the sub-
criteria.
( )
S w̃ sj
̃ sj = ∑n ( s )
w (3)
J=1 S w ̃j
Step 8. Evaluate global sub-criteria weights: Multiply the local weight of

each sub-criteria by the main criterion’s corresponding weight to obtain
the global sub-criteria weights.
Fig. 2. Geometric representation of multiple fuzzy sets (Source: Menekşe and

Camgöz Akdağ, 2022).
299
circular economy adoption (Toker and Görener, 2022). Therefore, this Normalized Euclidean distance to SF-PIS:
research employs the SF-TOPSIS method to rank the MSBs realized due √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
n ( )
to the adoption of MSEs. 1 ∑ ( )2
∗
D(Xi , X ) = μxi − μx∗ + (vxi − vx∗ )2 + (πxi − πx∗ )2 (12)
The steps involved in SF-TOPSIS are as follows (Kutlu Gündoğdu and 2n i=1
Kahraman, 2019; Toker and Görener, 2022).
Step 8 Calculate the closeness ratio to rank the alternatives: Apply Eq.
Step 1 Evaluate the alternatives: Let each DM complete the performance
(13) to determine the closeness ratio. The best alternative in a
evaluation matrix by utilizing the linguistic terms listed in
ranking is the one with the lowest closeness ratio value (Kutlu
Table C1 (please refer Appendix C). The effectiveness of each
Gündoğdu and Kahraman, 2019).
alternative is assessed in this stage concerning each sub-
criterion. D(Xi , X ∗ ) D(Xi , X − )
Closeness ratio = ζ(Xi ) = − (13)
Step 2 Convert performance evaluation matrix into spherical fuzzy decision Dmin (Xi , X ) Dmax (Xi , X − )
∗
matrix (SFDM): Utilizing the spherical fuzzy numbers specified in

Table C1, transform each DM’s judgments into an SFDM.
3.4. Proposed research framework
Step 3Construct aggregated spherical fuzzy decision matrix (ASFDM):
Develop the ASFDM denoting alternative Ai = {A1 , A2 , ...., An }; con
This research presents a hybrid SF-AHP and SF-TOPSIS framework
cerning criterion Cj = {C1 ,C2 , ....,Cj } by Cj (Ai ) = (μij , vij , πij ). D =
for prioritizing the MSBs realized from the adoption of MSEs. This in
(Cj (Xi ))Xi ))Cj m×n is a ASFDM. For SFSs, the ASFDM D = tegrated research framework consists of three stages. The flow chart of
(Cj (Xi ))Xi ))Cj m×n should be developed as presented in Eq. (4). the research framework is presented in Fig. 3.
⎡ ⎤
(μ11 , v11 , π11 ) ⋯ (μ1n , v1n , π1n )
( )
D = Cj (Xi ) m×n = ⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ (4) Stage-I: Selection and finalization of prominent MSEs and MSBs using
(μm1 , vm1 , πm1 ) ⋯ (μmn , vmn , πmn ) a systematic literature review.
Stage-II: Evaluation of main criteria and sub-criteria weights of MSEs
by applying the SF-AHP method.
Step 4 Construct aggregated weighted SFDM (AWSFDM): The AWSFDM Stage-III: Prioritization of MSBs realized from MSEs by employing the
is generated using Eq. (5) once the aggregated weights of the criteria SF-TOPSIS method.
and the aggregate rating of the alternatives have been established,
and the AWSFDM can be defined as follows: 4. Application of proposed research framework
⎡ ⎤
( ) (μ11w , v11w , π11w ) ⋯ (μ1nw , v1nw , π1nw )
D = Cj (Xiw ) m×n = ⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ (5) The proposed research framework is employed in the Indian logistics
(μm1w , vm1w , πm1w ) ⋯ (μmnw , vmnw , πmnw ) sector. Section 4.1 provides the details of the Indian logistics sector, and
subsequent sections present the application of the suggested research
framework.
Step 5 Defuzzification of AWSFDM: Use the suggested score function
(Eq. (6)) to de-fuzzify the aggregated weighted decision matrix.
4.1. Details of the case sector
( ) ( πijw )2 ( πijw )2
Score Cj (Xiw ) = 2μijw − − vijw − (6)
2 2 The Indian logistics sector is selected as a case in this research to
apply and validate the proposed research framework. The Indian freight
Step 6 Evaluate spherical fuzzy negative ideal solution (SF–NIS) and industry is anticipated to handle 15.6 trillion tonne-km of freight turn
spherical fuzzy positive ideal solution (SF-PIS): Determine SF-NIS and over in 2050. Road transport accounted for 95 percent of India’s freight
SF-PIS using Eq. (7)-(10). GHG emissions in 2020 (National Institution for Transforming India and
Rocky Mountain Institute, 2021). As the third-largest global CO2 emitter
For SF-NIS, after China and the USA, India targets to achieve sustainable develop
{ } ment goals (SDGs) by 2030 and a modal balance between rail and road
( )
X − = Cj , min < Score Cj (Xiw ) > | j= 1, 2,…n (7) by 2032. The limited share of rail transport in India’s total freight vol
i
ume hinders achieving sustainable freight transportation (Gandhi et al.,
{ ( ) ( ) ( )} 2022b). Thus, the Government of India (GOI) has developed the ‘PM
X − = 〈C1 , μ−1 , v−1 , π −1 〉, 〈C2 , μ−2 , v−2 , π−2 〉, …〈Cn , μ−n , v−n , π−n 〉 (8) Gati Shakti National Master Plan’ to reduce logistics costs to below 10
percent and promote IRR freight transit to achieve a modal balance. This
For SF-PIS, study identifies vital MSEs for modal transition and prioritizes signifi
{ }
( ) cant MSBs from MSE adoption in the Indian logistics sector. This study
X ∗ = Cj , max < Score Cj (Xiw ) > | j= 1, 2,…n (9) collected insights from six qualified DMs representing Indian logistics
i
stakeholders: transport service providers (TSPs), shippers, and Indian
{ ( ) ( ) ( ) }
X ∗ = 〈C1 , μ∗1 , v∗1 , π∗1 〉, 〈C2 , μ∗2 , v∗2 , π ∗2 〉, …〈Cn , μ∗n , v∗n , π∗n 〉 (10) Railways officials. Each category was represented by two experts with a
minimum of ten years of industry experience.
Step 7 Evaluate normalized Euclidean distance: Determine the

4.2. Stage-I: selection and finalization of prominent MSEs and MSBs
normalized Euclidean distance distances between alternative Xi and
the SF-NIS as well as SF-PIS using Eq. (11) and (12), respectively.
Based on the literature survey, 52 MSEs and 24 MSBs are identified.
Next, the validation of these MSEs and MSBs is performed through the
Normalized Euclidean distance to SF-NIS:
inputs of DMs. Several discussions with these DMs resulted in selection
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
1 ∑ n (
( )2 ) of 31 MSEs and 11 MSBs. Further, after consultation, DMs added five
D(Xi , X − ) = μxi − μx− + (vxi − vx− )2 + (πxi − πx− )2 (11) more MSEs and four more MSBs, extending the list to 36 MSEs and 15
2n i=1
MSBs. These finalized MSEs are categorized into seven major criteria.
Here, Fig. 4 shows the decision hierarchy of four levels with a goal at the
300
Fig. 3. Flowchart of proposed research framework: Spherical fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS.
peak level, main enablers at the second level, sub-enablers at the third ratio. The final ranking of MSBs based on the closeness ratio is presented
level, and benefits at the last level. in Table 4.
4.3. Stage-II: evaluation of main criteria and sub-criteria weights of 5. Results and discussion
modal shift enablers by applying the SF-AHP method
The adoption of MSEs facilitates the transition of freight trans
In the second stage, the SF-AHP method obtains the relative weights portation from unimodal road to IRR. This study seeks to rank the 15
of main enablers and sub-enablers. The evaluation is carried out using MSBs achieved through the application of 56 MSEs in logistics. As shown
the steps presented in Section 3.2. A sample calculation of weight in Table 3, government policies and legislation enablers (GPLEs) take
evaluation for main enablers using SF-AHP is given in Appendix B. The precedence, succeeded by infrastructural enablers (INFEs), strategic and
consistency ratio of each SFPCM is checked and found to be less than the management enablers (SMEs), economic enablers (ECOEs), service
threshold value of 0.10. Table 3 lists the final relative weights of the quality and reliability enablers (SQREs), and environmental enablers
main enablers as well as the local weights, globalized weights, and (ENVEs) and social enablers (SOCEs). The ranking underscores the
global ranks of the sub-enablers. These global weights will be used as the pivotal role of favorable government policies in expediting the modal
initial weights in the SF-TOPSIS stage. transition to IRR freight transportation. Considering India’s existing
infrastructure limitations, bolstering IRR infrastructure development is
4.4. Stage-III: prioritization of benefits realized from modal shift enablers crucial to catalyzing the modal shift. Within GPLEs, the sub-enablers’
by employing the SF-TOPSIS method priority sequence is GPLE1 > GPLE3 > GPLE5 > GPLE4 > GPLE2.
Notably, ‘policy measures to promote the modal shift from unimodal
In this stage, the SF-TOPSIS method is used to rank the MSBs gained road to IRR transportation’ (GPLE1) and ‘policy decisions to reduce fuel
from implementing MSEs. The calculation steps shown in Section 3.3 subsidies for road transport and incentivize rail transport’ (GPLE3) stand
are used to prioritize the MSBs. The global weights of MSEs obtained out as the most significant MSEs in this category. These outcomes align
using SF-AHP are used as input weights in the SF-TOPSIS method. A with the findings of Gonzalez-Aregall et al. (2021) and Pongsayaporn
sample calculation for ranking of MSBs using SF-TOPSIS is presented in et al. (2021), highlighting the impactful role of government policies in
Appendix C. The MSBs are ranked according to ascending closeness enhancing IRR-related infrastructures such as intermodal logistics
301
Fig. 4. Decision hierarchy for prioritization of MSBs derived from MSEs.
terminals and DFCs. Our results are consistent with Tao et al.’s (2017) Next, the sub-enablers of INFEs are prioritized as given: INFE1 >
emphasis on incentive and subsidy-based policies to foster the economic INFE3 > INFE4 > INFE6 > INFE2 > INFE5. ‘Strategically locating ter
viability and adoption of IRR transport. However, it’s worth noting that minals with sufficient capacity close to both sink and source locations’
Tao et al. (2017) recommended a long-term strategy encompassing (INFE1) and ‘establishment of DFCs and train services’ (INFE3) are this
various measures for sustained success in IRR transportation. category’s two most substantial MSEs. The proximity to the supply and
demand sources offers reduced pre- and post-haulage distances and
Table 3 related transportation costs. Elbert and Seikowsky (2017) highlighted
Relative weights and final ranking of sub-enablers. that the proximity of logistics parks to the sink or source is the most
crucial infrastructural facilitator, which aligns with our results. Devel
Main Relative Sub- Weights Globalized Global
MSEs weights enablers weights rank oping railway infrastructure, such as IRR terminals and DFCs, is essen
tial to expand freight volume by IRR. This observation reinforces the
ENVEs 0.1058 ENVE1 0.2997 0.0317 13
ENVE2 0.1922 0.0203 27
findings of Shankar et al. (2019).
ENVE3 0.2162 0.0229 24 Additionally, the sub-enablers of SMEs prioritized as follows: SME1
ENVE4 0.2920 0.0309 14 > SME2 > SME5 > SME3 > SME4 The two major MSEs are ‘Government
ECOEs 0.1335 ECOE1 0.1955 0.0261 19 strategic planning to assist the infrastructural development through its
ECOE2 0.1845 0.0246 21
own resources and public-private partnerships’ (SME1) and ‘long-term
ECOE3 0.1391 0.0186 31
ECOE4 0.2414 0.0322 10 collaboration across the logistics players and their early involvement’
ECOE5 0.2395 0.0320 12 (SME2). This supports Shankar et al.’s (2019) findings that strategic
SOCEs 0.0876 SCOE1 0.2012 0.0176 32 enablers such as government-promoted public-private partnerships help
SCOE2 0.1321 0.0116 35 IRR adoption and the implementation of tactical-level enablers such as
SCOE3 0.1358 0.0119 34
SCOE4 0.1861 0.0163 33
improved infrastructure, logistics facilities, and supply chains. This
SCOE5 0.2231 0.0195 30 synergy between strategic and tactical enablers promotes
SCOE6 0.1217 0.0107 36 operational-level enablers such as efficient freight handling and
SQREs 0.1252 SQRE1 0.2711 0.0339 8
SQRE2 0.1580 0.0198 29
SQRE3 0.1962 0.0246 22 Table 4
SQRE4 0.2158 0.0270 18 Final ranking of MSBs according to closeness ratio.
SQRE5 0.1590 0.0199 28
Code Closeness ratio Rank
SMEs 0.1601 SME1 0.2686 0.0430 3
SME2 0.2169 0.0347 7 MSB1 1.1164 9
SME3 0.1598 0.0256 20 MSB2 0.4668 3
SME4 0.1525 0.0244 23 MSB3 0.4826 4
SME5 0.2022 0.0324 9 MSB4 1.3497 10
INFEs 0.1866 INFE1 0.2376 0.0443 2 MSB5 0 1
INFE2 0.1213 0.0226 25 MSB6 0.4617 2
INFE3 0.1967 0.0367 6 MSB7 1.0396 8
INFE4 0.1655 0.0309 15 MSB8 1.3593 11
INFE5 0.1193 0.0223 26 MSB9 1.8464 15
INFE6 0.1595 0.0298 17 MSB10 0.6298 5
GPLEs 0.2012 GPLE1 0.2746 0.0552 1 MSB11 1.8247 14
GPLE2 0.1502 0.0302 16 MSB12 1.3628 12
GPLE3 0.2135 0.0429 4 MSB13 1.0313 7
GPLE4 0.1594 0.0321 11 MSB14 1.6043 13
GPLE5 0.2023 0.0407 5 MSB15 0.8591 6
302
seamless intermodal connections for daily IRR transportation execution. Additionally, adopting highly weighted MSEs of IRR provides greater
Collaboration among stakeholders strengthens relationships, providing reliability in terms of delivery timelines, reducing delays and ensuring
coordinated operations, efficient logistics, and improved freight ser smoother supply chain operations. This improved logistical efficiency
vices. This supports Sallnäs et al.’s (2022) observation that stakeholder results in cost savings for freight transportation, making it a more
participation is crucial to IRR transportation’s benefits. economical option for businesses. Adopting IRR facilitates a holistic
The sub-enablers within the ECOEs category are prioritized as approach to freight transportation that addresses environmental con
ECOE4 > ECOE5 > ECOE1 > ECOE2 > ECOE3. The most critical MSEs cerns, enhances operational performance, and offers economic advan
in this category include ‘fostering investments towards DFCs, IRR ter tages to the logistics sector. The ranking of MSBs will help government
minals and transshipment technologies in public-private agreement’ policymakers and logistics managers understand the substantial benefits
(ECOE4) and ‘implementing transparent and well-documented mecha of effective implementation of modal shift strategies.
nisms to compensate for liquidity damage incurred to the goods’ Moreover, a sensitivity analysis is undertaken to confirm the stability
(ECOE5). Similarly, the sub-enablers in the SQREs category are ranked of the obtained ranking. The sensitivity analysis assists in checking the
as SQRE1 > SQRE4 > SQRE3 > SQRE5 > SQRE2. Within the SQREs influence of criteria weights on the ranking of MSBs. The details of 19
category, top MSEs comprise ‘focusing on enhancing the speed, fre sensitivity analysis experiments are shown in Table D1 (please refer to
quency, capacity, order size flexibility and agility of freight trains’ Appendix D). In the first five experiments, the weights of MSEs are set
(SQRE1) and ‘prioritizing actions aimed to ensure the reliability and equal to (0.9,0.1,0.1), (0.7,0.3,0.3), (0.5,0.5,0.5), (0.3,0.7,0.3), and
consistency of rail operations through regular maintenance and adher (0.1,0.9,0.1), respectively. In the next 14 experiments, the weights of the
ence to schedules’ (SQRE4). The establishment of crucial infrastructural MSEs are set to highest one by one while other enablers are set to lowest
elements such as DFCs, IRR terminals, and transshipment technologies, and given equal weights. It can be observed from Table D1 that out of 19
supported by diverse funding sources, accelerates the shift to IRR experiments, ‘enables a reduction in vehicular pollution and related
transportation. Reliable shipment tracking and consistent goods de negative externalities’ (MSB5) has achieved the first rank in 15 experi
livery bolster IRR adoption, heightening logistics efficiency and security. ments (i.e., experiment numbers 1–8, 10–11, 13, 16–19). Similarly,
These results corroborate findings from Gonzalez-Aregall et al. (2021) ‘reduces the freight transport costs including storage and handling
and Gupta and Dhar (2022). The frequency of freight train services, charges’ (MSB6) has obtained the second rank in 12 experiments (i.e.,
being a pivotal enabler, significantly influences shippers’ choice of IRR experiment numbers 1–2, 4–6, 8, 13–14, 16–19) and first rank in the
over traditional road transport. Kumar and Anbanandam (2020) and experiment number 9. Furthermore, spearman’s rank correlation co
Kurtuluş and Çetin (2020) also advocated the importance of increasing efficients are evaluated to find the correlation between the final ranking
freight train service frequency for successful IRR promotion. To align (Table 4) and rankings obtained in the sensitivity analysis experiments
with these insights, a focus on more frequent and dependable freight (Table D1). The average value of Spearman’s rank correlation coeffi
train services can enhance IRR’s attractiveness. Additionally, Elbert and cient is 0.7913, suggesting a strong correlation between final and
Seikowsky’s (2017) underscored shippers’ willingness to pay more for sensitivity analysis rankings. Also, it can be concluded that the proposed
predictable and timely deliveries. To address this issue, the authors research framework is structurally robust.
highlighted implementing transparent and documented procedures for
compensating shippers for delayed or damaged deliveries, aligning with 6. Implications of the research
our analysis.
ENVEs and SOCEs occupy the sixth and seventh positions in the This study makes significant theoretical and practical contributions
priority hierarchy, and their sub-enablers are ranked as ENVE1 > to the sustainable freight transportation research domain. The following
ENVE4 > ENVE3 > ENVE2 and SOCE5 > SOCE1 > SOCE4 > SOCE3 > subdivisions propose the key implications for logistics practitioners,
SOCE2 > SOCE6, correspondingly. Among ENVEs, ‘leveraging the su researchers, and policymakers.
perior energy efficiency of IRR compared to unimodal road freight
transport’ (ENVE1) holds a prominent place. Similarly, in the SOCEs 6.1. Managerial implications
category, ‘integration of railroad modal shift into the organization’s
corporate social responsibility’ (SOCE5) stands out. Initiating manda This study integrates MSEs and MSBs, making it a unique, in-depth
tory corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and providing analysis of the literature on sustainable freight transportation. A deep
training to key stakeholders can amplify environmental awareness and understanding of each MSE and MSB will help industrial practitioners
the benefits of IRR modal shift (Elbert and Seikowsky, 2017). Compel and managers to implement modal shift measures. Firstly, logistics
ling companies to undertake CSR reporting drives them to acknowledge managers’ and practitioners’ active engagement with policymakers to
their environmental impact and make more transparent transportation advocate for and adopt policy measures promoting the modal shift from
choices. Additionally, educating logistics managers and industry prac unimodal road to IRR transportation (GPLE1) is crucial. By strategically
titioners enhances their comprehension of IRR’s advantages, including aligning with policies to reduce vehicular pollution and negative ex
reduced emissions and cost-efficiency. ternalities (MSB5), practitioners can contribute to improved environ
Further, MSBs realized due to the adoption of MSEs are prioritized mental conditions and public health. Furthermore, logistics managers of
using the SF-TOPSIS method (Table 4). The final ranking of the MSBs is TSPs should consider the strategic location of terminals with ample
in the following order: MSB5 > MSB6 > MSB2 > MSB3 > MSB10 > capacity near both source and sink locations (INFE1). Such approach can
MSB15 > MSB13 > MSB7 > MSB1 > MSB4 > MSB8 > MSB12 > MSB14 substantially enhance logistics efficiency (MSB3), reduce transit times,
> MSB11 > MSB9. ‘Enables reduction in vehicular pollution and related and facilitate seamless transfers (MSB2), ultimately optimizing the lo
negative externalities’ (MSB5) is ranked first, and ‘reduces the freight gistics network. Engaging in public-private partnerships (SME1) to
transport costs including storage and handling charges’ (MSB6) is support infrastructural development is another avenue that practitioners
ranked second in the priority list. This ranking also supports the findings can explore. By actively participating in such partnerships, the logistics
of the studies by Kumar and Anbanandam (2020), Salvucci et al. (2019) industry can accelerate the creation of essential infrastructure such as
and Pinto et al. (2018), in which authors claimed that modal transition DFCs and intermodal terminals, significantly enhancing connectivity,
to IRR reduces the adverse environmental impact and offers better operational reliability, and efficiency (MSB3).
reliability, logistical efficiency and economical freight transportation. Practitioners should also align with policy decisions to reduce fuel
By shifting from traditional unimodal road transport to IRR, there is a subsidies for road transport while incentivizing rail transport (GPLE3).
significant decrease in carbon emissions and other environmental pol By adopting cost reduction strategies in line with these policies, the
lutants, contributing to a greener and more sustainable logistics sector. industrial managers can decrease overall freight transport costs,
303
including storage and handling charges, and contribute to its financial Policymakers can work towards creating an ecosystem through collab
sustainability (MSB6). To foster modal balance, practitioners should orations that foster cooperative models and synergies.
advocate for formulating fresh subsidy mechanisms (GPLE5) for the IRR
freight transportation sector. Integrating sustainability-focused policies 7. Conclusions
encourages a modal shift, aligning business goals with environmental
preservation. Collaborative efforts among logistics stakeholders and The growth of the freight transportation industry is essential for
early engagement (SME2) prove vital, as they foster problem-solving, national economic development. The extensive utilization of road-based
streamlined processes, and innovation in adopting IRR freight trans freight transportation has substantially contributed to the rise of adverse
portation. Lastly, logistics managers can enhance operational efficiency externalities, including high energy usage, unregulated pollution, road
(MSB2) by focusing on improving the speed, frequency, capacity, order congestion, and traffic accidents. Therefore, the logistics sector must
size flexibility, and agility of freight trains (SQRE1). Such enhancements implement transition from unimodal road to IRR freight transportation
translate to better delivery system reliability and optimization of car to deal with such challenges. However, the implementation of IRR
rying load capacity and distribution times. within emerging economies is still nascent. The current research aims to
discover and prioritize the MSEs and MSBs of IRR freight transportation.
6.2. Research implications This study formulated a structural framework by combining SF-AHP and
SF-TOPSIS methods to rank MSBs resulting from MSEs’ implementation.
The ranking of MSBs realized through adopting MSEs offers a solid The practicality of the proposed framework is demonstrated in the In
foundation for researchers to delve into deeper investigations. Firstly, dian logistics sector. To fulfil RO1, we followed a three-step systematic
the proposed research framework is applied to the Indian logistics literature review process using the Scopus database. To achieve RO2, we
sector. Researchers from other developing nations can perform similar employed SF-AHP to evaluate the relative importance of primary MSEs
empirical analyses using the same framework with minor modifications, and the local and global weights of sub-enablers. To accomplish RO3, we
such as adding other country specific MSEs and MSBs, to achieve an used SF-TOPSIS to evaluate the prioritization of MSBs derived through
improved modal balance between road and rail mode. Through adopting MSEs. We also outlined the implications of the research for
comparative studies in diverse contexts, researchers can deepen logistics managers, researchers, and policymakers.
comprehension of MSEs and associated MSBs, facilitating broader From a research perspective, a corpus of 267 articles relevant to
knowledge dissemination and informed decision-making. Moreover, the MSEs and MSBs were identified from the Scopus database. An extensive
researchers can examine the dynamics between policy initiatives, corpus analysis resulted in the selection of 36 MSEs and 15 MSBs after
stakeholder engagement, and actual shifts in transportation patterns. reviewing the literature and DMs’ consultation. The SF-AHP result
Furthermore, the strategic positioning of terminals (INFE1) is an shows that the ‘government policies and legislation enablers’ (GPLEs)
intriguing subject for further research, where investigations could focus category is the most crucial. It is followed by ‘infrastructural enablers’
on optimal terminal placement and associated operational efficiencies. (INFEs), ‘strategic and management enablers’ (SMEs), ‘economic en
Also, researchers can delve into the complexities of partnership dy ablers’ (ECOEs), ‘service quality and reliability enablers’ (SQREs),
namics, funding mechanisms, and the socio-economic impacts of gov ‘environmental enablers’ (ENVEs), and ‘social enablers’ (SOCEs).
ernment strategic planning and collaborations (SME1). Lastly, Furthermore, the ranking based on the SF-TOPSIS method shows that
understanding the intricacies of formulating a suitable policy for a fresh ‘enables a reduction in vehicular pollution and related negative exter
subsidy mechanism (GPLE5) specific to IRR freight transportation can nalities’ (MSB5) is ranked first and ‘reduces the freight transport costs
pave the way for innovative solutions that bridge financial gaps and including storage and handling charges’ (MSB6) is ranked second in the
promote sustainable modal shifts. priority list of MSBs. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis result strongly
correlated with the final ranking. Also, the significant implications of
6.3. Policy implications this research will assist in decision-making regarding the modal shift to
IRR freight transportation.
The research findings underscore the substantial role that IRR freight From a practical perspective, the MSEs and their subsequent align
transport can play in assisting the GOI in achieving its ambitious goals, ment with the MSBs carry significant implications for the freight
notably the SDGs by 2030 and equitable modal share between rail and transportation industry. The global ranking of sub-enablers suggests the
road by 2032. The insights derived from this study provide a powerful stronger influence of GPLEs, INFEs, and SMEs for seamless mode tran
toolset for government policymakers such as implementing policies that sition to IRR freight transport. By emphasizing policy measures that
encourage a modal shift to IRR (GPLE1), enabling them to harness the promote the transition from unimodal road to IRR freight trans
full potential of IRR freight transport in realizing these crucial targets portation, policymakers can introduce a paradigm shift that reduces
through a reduction in vehicular pollution and related negative exter vehicular pollution and its adverse effects and contributes to sustainable
nalities (MSB5). Moreover, the strategic positioning of terminals development objectives. The strategic placement of terminals and
(INFE1) emerges as a focal point for policy interventions. Policymakers collaborative efforts among logistics stakeholders enhance efficiency
can be pivotal in facilitating regulatory frameworks that encourage and reliability while reducing overall costs. Moreover, policy decisions
optimal terminal placement and development. Next, by channeling re favoring rail transport and fresh subsidy mechanisms drive modal bal
sources and fostering public-private partnerships through the govern ance and support regions around multimodal logistics terminals.
ment’s strategic planning (SME1), policymakers can create an enabling The current study has some limitations, which leave room for future
environment for establishing key infrastructural components such as research. The first limitation of this research lies in its dependence on
DFCs and freight trains. These endeavors not only enhance trans the opinions of Indian DMs, potentially limiting the results’ relevance to
portation efficiency (MSB2) but also stimulate economic growth (MSB6) diverse geographical contexts. While the study employed SF-AHP and
and regional connectivity (MSB2). Furthermore, policy decisions to SF-TOPSIS to rank MSBs using Indian DMs’ inputs, adjusting the
reduce fuel subsidies to road transport while incentivizing rail transport framework can broaden its use to other areas, facilitating comparable
(GPLE3) can realign the cost dynamics, favouring the adoption of IRR outcomes. Second, the MSBs are prioritized using the SF-TOPSIS method
transportation. Policymakers can work towards designing robust in this study; however, it is possible to compare and examine the ranking
incentive structures that encourage a modal shift by addressing eco of this study with other MCDM techniques such as spherical fuzzy
nomic disparities between the modes. Lastly, policymakers can collab combinative distance-based assessment (SF-CODAS), spherical fuzzy
orate with industry stakeholders (SME2) to design targeted subsidy evaluation based on distance from average solution (SF-EDAS) and
frameworks that make IRR transport an economically attractive choice. spherical fuzzy combined compromise solution (SF-CoCoSo). Last,
304
attaining one benefit can lead to the realization of other MSBs. Thus, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Ravi Kant:
investigating the interdependencies between MSBs holds significant Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Jitesh J.
importance. Analytical tools such as interpretive structural modeling Thakkar: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
can be employed to examine these connections, providing valuable in
sights into the interrelationships among MSBs. Declaration of Competing Interest
Funding source None.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding Data availability
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data will be made available on request.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nevil Gandhi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Appendices.
Appendix A. Preliminaries of Spherical Fuzzy Sets
For SFS, Kutlu Gündoğdu and Kahraman (2019) developed the primary definitions, basic operations, aggregation operator, defuzzification
operator and normalized Euclidean distance as follows.
Primary definitions
{ }
̃s = u,μ (u),v (u),π (u) | u ∈ ∪
A Ãs Ãs Ãs
(A1)
where, μÃs (u): ∪ →[0, 1], vÃs (u): ∪ →[0, 1], πÃs (u): ∪ →[0, 1].
and
⃒
0 ≤ μ2Ã (u)+v2Ã (u)+π 2Ã (u) ≤ 1 ⃒ ∀u ∈ ∪ (A2)
s s s
where, μÃs (u), vÃs (u), and πÃs (u) are the membership degrees, non-membership degrees, and hesitancy degrees of u to A
̃ s , respectively. Eq. (A2)
becomes as below for on the surface of the sphere,
⃒
μ2Ã (u)+v2Ã (u)+π2Ã (u)= 1 ⃒ ∀u ∈ ∪ (A3)
s s s
Basic operations
Addition, multiplication, multiplication by a scalar, and power of spherical fuzzy sets are given as follows.
Addition
{( )1/2 (( ) ( ) )1/2 }
̃s ⊕ B
A ̃ s = μ2 + μ2 − μ2 μ 2
Ã B̃ Ã B̃
, vÃ s
vB̃ s
, 1 − μ 2
B̃
π 2
Ã
+ 1 − μ 2
Ã
π 2
B̃
− π 2
Ã
π 2
B̃
(A4)
s s s s s s s s s s
Multiplication
{ ( )1/2 (( ) ( ) )1/2 }
̃s ⊗ B
A ̃ s = μ μ , v2 + v2 − v2 v2
Ãs B̃s Ã B̃ Ã B̃
, 1 − v 2
B̃
π 2
Ã
+ 1 − v 2
Ã
π 2
B̃
− π 2
Ã
π 2
B̃
(A5)
s s s s s s s s s s
Multiplication by scalar (λ > 0)

{( }
( )λ )12 (( )λ ( )λ )12
̃s =
λ∗A 1 − 1 − μ2Ã , vλÃ , 1 − μ2Ã − 1 − μ2Ã − π 2Ã (A6)
s s s s s
Power of A ̃ s (λ > 0)
{ ( }
( )λ )12 (( )λ ( )λ )12
̃s λ = πλ , 1 − 1 − v2
A Ã Ã
, 1 − v2
Ã
− 1 − v2
Ã
− π 2
Ã
(A7)
s s s s s
305
Aggregation operator
Aggregation operator is used to assess a single value that represents a set of different members. Numerous input values are combined into a single
output value via an aggregation operator. In this study, we used the arithmetic mean operator for aggregating the matrices (refer Eq. (A8)).
Spherical Weighted Arithmetic Mean (SWAM)

{[ ]1 [ ]1 }
n (
∏ )wi 2 ∏ n n (
∏ ) wi ∏n ( )wi 2
(A8)
w1 w2 wn
̃ ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃
SWAMw (As1 , …, Asn ) = AS1 + AS2 + … + ASn = 1− 2
1 − μÃ , wi
v , 2
1 − μÃ − 2 2
1 − μÃ − πÃ
Si ÃSi Si Si Si
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
∑n
where, w = (w1 , w2 , …, wn ); wi ∈ [0,1]; i=1 wi = 1.
Other operators
Defuzzification is the process of turning a fuzzy integer into its crisp equivalent. A normalized Euclidean distance is used to determine the dif
ferences between two fuzzy sets. The Euclidean distance is useful in SFS because it considers the entire sphere and provides the shortest distance
between two points in three-dimensional space.
Defuzzification operator
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
[( ̅
( ) π )2 (vÃs )2 ]⃒⃒
̃ sj = |100∗ 3μÃs − Ãs −
S w − πÃs ⃒
⃒ (A9)
2 2
Normalized Euclidean distance

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
n (
1 ∑ ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 )
D(Ai , Ak ) = μAi − μAk + vAi − vAk + π Ai − πAk (A10)
2n i=0
Establish a MCDM problem with a collection of alternatives and the relevant major and sub-criteria. Converting cost criteria to benefit criteria will
create a single criteria type. Let Ai be the selected alternatives as: Ai = {A1 , A2 , ...., An }; Cj be the criteria set as: Cj = {C1 ,C2 , ....,Cj } and let wi be the
∑
weight vector of all criteria as: wi = {w1 ,w2 , ....,wn } where w = (w1 , w2 , ..., wn ); wi ∈ [0, 1] and ni=1 wi = 1.
Appendix B. SF-AHP Calculations

Table B1
Linguistic terms for SF-AHP and corresponding fuzzy numbers
Linguistic terms Spherical fuzzy number Score index
Absolutely more importance (AMI) (0.9,0.1,0.0) 9

Very high importance (VHI) (0.8,0.2,0.1) 7
High importance (HI) (0.7,0.3,0.2) 5
Slightly more importance (SMI) (0.6,0.4,0.3) 3
Equally importance (EI) (0.5,0.4,0.4) 1
Slightly low importance (SLI) (0.4,0.6,0.3) 1/3
Low importance (LI) (0.3,0.7,0.2) 1/5
Very low importance (VLI) (0.2,0.8,0.1) 1/7
Absolutely low importance (ALI) (0.1,0.9,0.0) 1/9
Table B2
Random consistency index (RI)
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
A sample calculation of SF-AHP method to determine relative weights of main enablers is shown below.
Table B3
Pairwise comparison matrix for the main MSEs in linguistic terms (all DMs)
DM1 (CR = 0.0337) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE DM2 (CR = 0.0559) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE DM3 (CR = 0.0869) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE
ENVE EI SLI … VLI ALI ENVE EI SLI … VLI VLI ENVE EI LI … LI ALI
ECOE SMI EI … SLI LI ECOE SMI EI … SLI VLI ECOE HI EI … SLI VLI
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
INFE VHI SMI EI SLI INFE VHI SMI EI EI INFE HI SMI EI SLI
GPLE AMI HI … SMI EI GPLE VHI VHI … EI EI GPLE AMI VHI … SMI EI
DM4 (CR¼0.0386) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE DM5 (CR¼0.0571) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE DM6 (CR¼0.0433) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE
ENVE EI EI … VLI ALI ENVE EI SLI … VLI VLI ENVE EI EI … VLI ALI
(continued on next page)
306
Table B3 (continued )
DM1 (CR = 0.0337) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE DM2 (CR = 0.0559) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE DM3 (CR = 0.0869) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE
ECOE EI EI … LI VLI ECOE SMI EI … VLI VLI ECOE EI EI … LI VLI

… … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
INFE VHI HI EI EI INFE VHI VHI EI SLI INFE VHI HI EI EI
GPLE AMI VHI … EI EI GPLE VHI VHI … SMI EI GPLE AMI VHI … EI EI
DM7 (CR¼0.0366) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE DM8 (CR¼0.0809) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE DM9 (CR¼0.0609) ENVE ECOE … INFE GPLE
ENVE EI SLI … VLI LI ENVE EI SLI … LI LI ENVE EI SLI … VLI LI
ECOE SMI EI … LI SLI ECOE SMI EI … LI SLI ECOE SMI EI … LI SLI
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
INFE VHI HI EI EI INFE HI HI EI SMI INFE VHI HI EI SMI
GPLE HI SMI … EI EI GPLE HI SMI … SLI EI GPLE HI SMI … SLI EI
Table B4
SFCWMs for the main MSEs (all DMs)
DM1 DM2 DM3
ENVE 0.3943 0.5692 0.3173 0.4219 0.5597 0.2998 0.4060 0.5819 0.2879
ECOE 0.5130 0.4669 0.3110 0.5121 0.4680 0.3217 0.5555 0.4310 0.2916
SOCE 0.3630 0.6166 0.2862 0.3533 0.6405 0.2705 0.3630 0.6166 0.2862
SQRE 0.4544 0.5069 0.3310 0.4569 0.5155 0.3270 0.4355 0.5568 0.3053
SME 0.5895 0.3904 0.3028 0.5955 0.3904 0.2887 0.6041 0.3684 0.3032
INFE 0.6544 0.3337 0.2603 0.6571 0.3281 0.2738 0.6158 0.3684 0.2883
GPLE 0.7664 0.2340 0.1917 0.7024 0.2852 0.2336 0.7794 0.2208 0.1795
DM4 DM5 DM6
ENVE 0.4176 0.5692 0.2986 0.3977 0.6045 0.2731 0.4176 0.5692 0.2986
ECOE 0.4544 0.5069 0.3310 0.4672 0.5167 0.3098 0.4399 0.5372 0.3141
SOCE 0.3329 0.6659 0.2552 0.3164 0.6902 0.2461 0.3270 0.6772 0.2533
SQRE 0.5244 0.4406 0.3262 0.5468 0.4406 0.2955 0.5236 0.4759 0.2900
SME 0.5955 0.3904 0.2887 0.6398 0.3477 0.2741 0.6075 0.3904 0.2729
INFE 0.6708 0.3149 0.2604 0.7095 0.2852 0.2317 0.7057 0.2852 0.2452
GPLE 0.7602 0.2340 0.2059 0.7402 0.2583 0.2047 0.7736 0.2208 0.1939
DM7 DM8 DM9
ENVE 0.4069 0.5491 0.3228 0.4210 0.5709 0.2897 0.4292 0.5491 0.3046
ECOE 0.5244 0.4406 0.3262 0.5609 0.4406 0.2788 0.5289 0.4669 0.2942
SOCE 0.3630 0.6166 0.2862 0.3329 0.6659 0.2552 0.3485 0.6424 0.2637
SQRE 0.4544 0.5069 0.3310 0.4665 0.5270 0.3007 0.4468 0.5270 0.3184
SME 0.5767 0.3904 0.3177 0.5804 0.4137 0.2877 0.5804 0.4137 0.2877
INFE 0.7332 0.2583 0.2194 0.6730 0.3203 0.2454 0.6924 0.3022 0.2318
GPLE 0.6393 0.3337 0.2886 0.6810 0.3203 0.2434 0.6422 0.3536 0.2589
Table B5
ASFCWM, score indices, normalized relative weights and ranking of main MSEs
ASFCWM Score indices Normalized weights Rank
ENVE 0.4127 0.5690 0.2996 10.882 0.1058 6

ECOE 0.5090 0.4737 0.3089 13.726 0.1335 4
SOCE 0.3450 0.6474 0.2677 9.0104 0.0876 7
SQRE 0.4814 0.4983 0.3142 12.87 0.1252 5
SME 0.5972 0.3879 0.2917 16.458 0.1601 3
INFE 0.6813 0.3092 0.2504 19.186 0.1866 2
GPLE 0.7264 0.2692 0.2212 20.685 0.2012 1
Similarly, the relative weights of the sub-enablers were calculated. The global weight of sub-enablers is obtained by multiplying the local weight of
each sub-enabler with corresponding weight of main enabler and the final ranking of sub-enablers is obtained based on the global weights (Table 3).
Appendix C. SF-TOPSIS Calculations

Table C1
Linguistic terms for SF-TOPSIS and corresponding fuzzy
numbers
Linguistic terms Spherical fuzzy number
Extremely high (EH) (0.9,0.1,0.1)

Very high (VH) (0.8,0.2,0.2)
High (HI) (0.7,0.3,0.3)
Medium high (MH) (0.6,0.4,0.4)
Medium (ME) (0.5,0.5,0.5)
Medium low (ML) (0.4,0.6,0.4)
307
Table C1 (continued )
Linguistic terms Spherical fuzzy number
Low (LO) (0.3,0.7,0.3)

Very low (VL) (0.2,0.8,0.2)
Extremely low (EL) (0.1,0.9,0.1)
A sample calculation of SF-TOPSIS method to determine ranking of MSBs is shown below. The final ranking is presented in Table 4.
Table C2
Performance evaluation matrix for the MSBs in linguistic terms (all DMs)
Alternatives (MSBs) Criteria (sub-enablers)
DM1 DM2 DM3
ENV1 ENV2 … GPLE4 GPLE5 ENV1 ENV2 … GPLE4 GPLE5 ENV1 ENV2 … GPLE4 GPLE5
MSB1 VH VH … MH VH HI HI … MH HI VH EH … MH VH
MSB2 EL ML … EH MH VL LO … EH MH EL ML … EH MH
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
MSB14 EL EL … HI ML EL EL … HI ML EL EL … HI ML
MSB15 EH EH … VH HI EH EH … EH VH EH EH … VH HI
DM4 DM5 DM6
MSB1 VH VH … ME VH VH VH … MH VH VH VH … MH VH
MSB2 VL LO … EH MH EL ML … EH MH VL LO … EH MH
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
MSB14 EL EL … HI ML EL EL … HI ML EL EL … HI ML
MSB15 EH EH … VH HI EH EH … VH HI EH EH … EH VH
DM7 DM8 DM9
MSB1 VH VH … MH VH VH EH … MH VH EH EH … HI EH
MSB2 EL ML … EH MH EL LO … EH MH EL ML … EH MH
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
MSB14 EL EL … HI ML VL EL … HI ML EL EL … VH ML
MSB15 EH EH … VH HI EH EH … VH HI EH EH … VH HI
Table C3
Aggregated spherical fuzzy decision matrix for MSBs
ENV1 ENV2 … GPLE4 GPLE5
MSB1 0.8071 0.1937 0.1979 0.8352 0.1661 0.1736 … … … 0.6040 0.3971 0.4001 0.8071 0.1937 0.1979
MSB2 0.1531 0.8541 0.1539 0.3600 0.6425 0.3625 … … … 0.9000 0.1000 0.1000 0.6000 0.4000 0.4000
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
MSB14 0.1157 0.8883 0.1161 0.1000 0.9000 0.1000 … … … 0.7137 0.2868 0.2883 0.4000 0.6000 0.4000
MSB15 0.9000 0.1000 0.1000 0.9000 0.1000 0.1000 … … … 0.8293 0.1714 0.1753 0.7266 0.2742 0.2768
Table C4
Aggregated weighted spherical fuzzy decision matrix for MSBs
ENV1 ENV2 … GPLE4 GPLE5
MSB1 0.5013 0.3977 0.3389 0.3490 0.5730 0.3307 … … … 0.2618 0.6231 0.4391 0.4316 0.4671 0.3664
MSB2 0.0951 0.8737 0.2056 0.1504 0.7710 0.3655 … … … 0.3901 0.5301 0.3425 0.3208 0.5636 0.4532
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
MSB14 0.0718 0.9031 0.1704 0.0418 0.9321 0.1543 … … … 0.3094 0.5774 0.3925 0.2139 0.6929 0.4281
MSB15 0.5590 0.3662 0.3071 0.3760 0.5623 0.3146 … … … 0.3595 0.5432 0.3575 0.3885 0.4988 0.3955
Table C5
Aggregated weighted spherical fuzzy decision matrix in defuzzified form, SF-PIS, and SF-NIS
ENV1 ENV2 ENV3 ENV4 … GPLE2 GPLE3 GPLE4 GPLE5
MSB1 0.0229 − 0.0584 − 0.0324 0.0171 … − 0.0233 − 0.0996 − 0.0024 − 0.0059

MSB2 − 0.4342 − 0.1182 − 0.4310 − 0.0229 … 0.0212 0.0428 − 0.0329 0.0053
MSB3 0.0600 − 0.4516 − 0.4310 − 0.0020 … − 0.0448 − 0.0002 − 0.0329 0.0093
MSB4 − 0.5638 − 0.3681 − 0.0606 − 0.3137 … − 0.0443 0.0021 − 0.0238 − 0.3132
… … … … … … … … … …
MSB12 − 0.4076 − 0.5922 − 0.3648 − 0.4041 … − 0.0416 − 0.3539 − 0.0331 0.0267
MSB13 − 0.0034 − 0.4135 − 0.4250 − 0.3309 … − 0.0324 0.0171 − 0.0316 − 0.0099
MSB14 − 0.5271 − 0.5922 − 0.4494 − 0.5595 … − 0.5523 − 0.5536 − 0.0273 − 0.0243
MSB15 0.0600 − 0.0576 − 0.0276 0.0497 … − 0.3554 0.0148 − 0.0345 − 0.0106
308
Table C5 (continued )
ENV1 ENV2 ENV3 ENV4 … GPLE2 GPLE3 GPLE4 GPLE5
SF-PIS 0.0600 − 0.0576 − 0.0276 0.0497 … 0.0212 0.0428 − 0.0024 0.0267

SF-NIS − 0.5638 − 0.5922 − 0.5761 − 0.5595 … − 0.5849 − 0.5536 − 0.5667 − 0.5524
Table C6
Euclidean distances of sub-enablers from SF-PIS and SF-NIS
D(MSB1, SF-PIS) 0.2541 D(MSB1, SF-NIS) 0.3033

Table C7
Closeness ratio of sub-enablers
MSBs Closeness ratio Rank
MSB1 1.1164 9
MSB2 0.4668 3
MSB3 0.4826 4
MSB4 1.3497 10
MSB5 0 1
MSB6 0.4617 2
MSB7 1.0396 8
MSB8 1.3593 11
MSB9 1.8464 15
MSB10 0.6298 5
MSB11 1.8247 14
MSB12 1.3628 12
MSB13 1.0313 7
MSB14 1.6043 13
MSB15 0.8591 6
Appendix D. Details of sensitivity analysis

Table D1
Summary of experiments
Exp. Description MSB1 MSB2 MSB3 MSB4 MSB5 MSB6 MSB7 MSB8 MSB9 MSB10 MSB11 MSB12 MSB13 MSB14 MSB15 Spearman’s
No. rank
correlation
coefficient
1 ENVE1-GPLE5 = 0.9622 0.3068 0.2368 1.2292 0 0.2185 0.9618 1.1524 1.6000 0.5495 1.5794 1.0983 0.8691 1.3613 0.8573 0.9891
(0.9,0.1,0.1)
2 ENVE1-GPLE5 = 1.0505 0.3349 0.2920 1.3210 0 0.2519 1.0507 1.2612 1.7765 0.6930 1.7132 1.2249 0.9758 1.4909 0.9851 0.975
(0.7,0.3,0.3)
3 ENVE1-GPLE5 = 0.5760 0.1788 0.2803 0.8219 0 0.1908 0.5271 0.7775 1.3005 0.5687 1.1451 0.9039 0.6377 0.9871 0.6633 0.95
(0.5,0.5,0.5)
4 ENVE1-GPLE5 = 0.7741 0.2935 0.3981 0.9716 0 0.2616 0.7718 1.0232 1.5743 0.8099 1.3870 1.0819 0.8453 1.2331 0.8817 0.9429
(0.3,0.7,0.3)
5 ENVE1-GPLE5 = 0.3547 0.0818 0.2138 0.3969 0 0.0733 0.4023 0.4706 0.9068 0.6184 0.6602 0.5631 0.4581 0.6430 0.5550 0.8143
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
6 ENVE1 = 0.3589 1.6458 0.1561 1.9311 0 0.0476 0.7258 1.7439 2.0035 0.4774 2.0792 1.8891 0.6681 2.0396 0.4025 0.8643
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE2-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
7 ENVE4 = 0.3595 1.0794 0.7029 1.7042 0 1.0724 0.2608 1.9744 2.2265 0.4715 1.4114 1.8918 1.7734 2.0721 0.4031 0.6857
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
309
Table D1 (continued )
Exp. Description MSB1 MSB2 MSB3 MSB4 MSB5 MSB6 MSB7 MSB8 MSB9 MSB10 MSB11 MSB12 MSB13 MSB14 MSB15 Spearman’s
No. rank
correlation
coefficient
ENVE1-ENVE3 &
ECOE1-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
8 ECOE4= 0.3632 0.0729 0.1771 1.2534 0 0.0565 0.6883 0.5245 0.7241 0.5237 0.8781 0.4888 0.5448 0.8089 0.5510 0.7714
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-ECOE3 &
ECOE5-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
9 ECOE5= 1.8151 0.1342 0.2206 1.6153 0.9691 0 0.6055 1.8778 2.1259 1.7426 1.7660 1.9284 1.5939 1.5721 1.8568 0.7
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-ECOE4 &
SOCE1-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
10 SOCE1= 0.5752 0.4233 0.5527 1.4726 0 0.9766 0.2608 0.8616 2.2265 0.4715 1.8572 1.8226 1.8138 0.9093 1.2878 0.6786
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-ECOE5 &
SOCE2-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
11 SOCE5= 0.1446 0.2634 1.4564 1.5598 0.0138 1.6084 0.1552 0.5117 2.0724 0.3472 1.9291 1.8721 1.5403 1.6738 0.2829 0.65
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-SOCE4 &
SOCE6-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
12 SQRE1= 0.6339 0 0.0866 1.5868 0.0697 0.1016 1.6803 1.8448 0.6653 0.5262 0.7705 0.9074 0.2325 1.2975 0.7539 0.7214
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-SOCE6 &
SQRE2-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
13 SQRE4= 1.9138 0.0669 0.1567 0.8411 0 0.0477 1.7559 0.6353 0.9261 0.4726 2.0853 0.7668 0.3530 2.0754 0.4040 0.8643
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-SQRE3 &
SQRE5-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
14 SME1= 1.7772 0 0.3323 0.8360 0.2484 0.1007 1.1027 0.7942 1.8751 0.4652 1.9444 0.4866 0.2584 0.8436 0.3849 0.8571
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-SQRE5 &
SME2-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
15 SME2= 1.3098 0.5512 0.3254 1.4281 0.9186 0.2425 0.8642 1.2712 1.7094 0.1957 0.9718 0.5939 0 1.5619 0.1126 0.6536
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-SME1 &
SME3-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
16 INFE1= 1.6705 0.2514 0.1667 0.3634 0 0.0515 1.6953 1.1916 0.9968 0.6270 1.2335 0.5633 0.3313 1.5020 0.5111 0.7179
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-SME5 &
INFE2-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
17 INFE3= 1.5201 0.0698 0.2974 0.3695 0 0.0521 1.3448 0.4900 0.7037 0.4971 1.4699 0.4344 0.3666 0.7802 0.4820 0.7214
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-INFE2 &
INFE4-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
18 GPLE1= 1.1244 0.7268 0.2076 0.3302 0 0.0873 1.6764 0.8300 1.6134 0.4866 0.9734 0.5489 0.3455 0.7573 0.4345 0.6857
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-INFE6 &
GPLE2-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
19 GPLE3= 1.0357 0.9260 0.2828 0.3921 0 0.0488 0.8618 0.4648 2.2648 0.5788 1.8918 1.8795 0.3131 2.1086 0.4374 0.7929
(0.9,0.1,0.1),
ENVE1-GPLE2 &
GPLE4-GPLE5 =
(0.1,0.9,0.1)
References Behrends, S., 2017. Burden or opportunity for modal shift? – Embracing the urban
dimension of intermodal road-rail transport. Transp. Policy 59, 10–16. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.06.004.
Acar, C., Beskese, A., Temur, G.T., 2022. Comparative fuel cell sustainability assessment
Cannas, V.G., Ciccullo, F., Pero, M., Cigolini, R., 2020. Sustainable innovation in the
with a novel approach. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47, 575–594. https://doi.org/
dairy supply chain: enabling factors for intermodal transportation. Int. J. Prod. Res.
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.10.034.
58, 7314–7333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1809731.
310
Carboni, A., Orsini, F., 2020. Dry ports and related environmental benefits: a case study Systems and Computing. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 988–996.
in Italy. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 8, 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23756-1_117.
cstp.2020.05.009. Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., Kahraman, C., 2019. Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy
Cihat Onat, N., 2022. How to compare sustainability impacts of alternative fuel Vehicles? TOPSIS method. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 36, 337–352. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-
Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 102, 103129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 181401.
trd.2021.103129. Lahane, S., Kant, R., 2021. A hybrid Pythagorean fuzzy AHP – CoCoSo framework to rank
Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., Dallari, F., 2017. Lean and green supply chain management the performance outcomes of circular supply chain due to adoption of its enablers.
through intermodal transport: insights from the fast moving consumer goods Waste Manag. 130, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.05.013.
industry. Prod. Plan. Control 28, 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Matbou, F., Maleki, A., 2022. Prioritizing strategic innovative energy technologies for
09537287.2017.1282642. development by a novel fuzzy approach based on distances from ideals (Case study:
Elbert, R., Seikowsky, L., 2017. The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and upstream technologies of Iran’s oil industry fields). Energy Rep. 8, 362–376. https://
facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.11.251.
unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight transport. J. Bus. Menekşe, A., Camgöz Akdağ, H., 2022. Distance education tool selection using novel
Econ. 87, 1083–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0847-7. spherical fuzzy AHP EDAS. Soft Comput. 26, 1617–1635. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Eng-Larsson, F., Kohn, C., 2012. Modal shift for greener logistics – the shipper’s s00500-022-06763-z.
perspective. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 42, 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Meyer, T., 2020. Decarbonizing road freight transportation – a bibliometric and network
09600031211202463. analysis. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 89, 102619 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
European Commission, 2015. EU Transport in Figures - Statistical Pocketbook. EU trd.2020.102619.
Transp. Fig. https://doi.org/10.2832/63317. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, 2021. Logistics Efficiency Enhancement
Gandhi, N., Kant, R., Thakkar, J., 2022a. Sustainable performance assessment of rail Program (LEEP) on Development of Multimodal Logistics Parks. https://morth.nic.
freight transportation using triple bottom line approach: an application to Indian in/sites/default/files/circulars_document/File2186.pdf. (Accessed 22 February
Railways. Transp. Policy 128, 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2023).
tranpol.2022.08.023. Nassar, R.F., Ghisolfi, V., Annema, J.A., van Binsbergen, A., Tavasszy, L.A., 2023.
Gandhi, N., Kant, R., Thakkar, J., 2022b. A systematic scientometric review of A system dynamics model for analyzing modal shift policies towards decarbonization
sustainable rail freight transportation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/ in freight transportation. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag., Decarbonizing freight transport:
10.1007/s11356-022-22811-5. Transitions towards net zero 48, 100966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Goel, R., 2018. Modelling of road traffic fatalities in India. Accid. Anal. Prev. 112, rtbm.2023.100966.
105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.12.019. National Institution for Transforming India and Rocky Mountain Institute, 2021. Fast
Gonzalez-Aregall, M., Cullinane, K., Vierth, I., 2021. A review of port initiatives to Tracking Freight in India: A Roadmap for Clean and Cost-Effective Goods Transport.
promote freight modal shifts in Europe: Evidence from port governance systems. National Institution for Transforming India and Rocky Mountain Institute, India. htt
Sustainability 13, 5907. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115907. ps://rmi-india.org/insight/fast-tracking-freight-in-india-a-roadmap-for-clean-and-c
Gupta, D., Dhar, S., 2022. Exploring the freight transportation transitions for mitigation ost-effective-goods-transport. (Accessed 22 February 2023).
and development pathways of India. Transp. Policy 129, 156–175. https://doi.org/ OECD, 2018. Indicators: Energy and Environment, Transport Statistics. https://stats.
10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.10.013. oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ITF_GOODS_TRANSPORT#. (Accessed 10 July
Halim, R.A., 2023. Boosting intermodal rail for decarbonizing freight transport on Java, 2023).
Indonesia: a model-based policy impact assessment. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag., Pfoser, S., 2022. Developing user-centered measures to increase the share of multimodal
Decarbonizing freight transport: Transitions towards net zero 48, 100909. https:// freight transport. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 43, 100729 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100909. rtbm.2021.100729.
Havenga, J.H., Simpson, Z.P., 2018. Freight logistics’ contribution to sustainability: Pinchasik, D.R., Hovi, I.B., Mjøsund, C.S., Grønland, S.E., Fridell, E., Jerksjö, M., 2020.
systemic measurement facilitates behavioural change. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Crossing borders and expanding modal shift measures: effects on mode choice and
Environ. 58, 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.08.035. emissions from freight transport in the nordics. Sustainability 12, 894. https://doi.
Hrušovský, M., Demir, E., Jammernegg, W., Van Woensel, T., 2021. Real-time disruption org/10.3390/su12030894.
management approach for intermodal freight transportation. J. Clean. Prod. 280, Pinto, J.T. de M., Mistage, O., Bilotta, P., Helmers, E., 2018. Road-rail intermodal freight
124826 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124826. transport as a strategy for climate change mitigation. Environ. Dev. 25, 100–110.
Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer Berlin, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.07.005.
Heidelberg. Pongsayaporn, P., Chinda, T., Ammarapala, V., 2021. Interrelationships among factors
Indian National Transport Development Policy Committee, 2014. India transport report- influencing multimodal transportation efficiency of agricultural products in
moving India to 2032. In: Planning Commission. Routledge, New Delhi. http://plann Thailand. Eng. Manag. J. 0, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
ingcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/NTDPC_Vol_01.pdf. (Accessed 22 February 10429247.2021.1979866.
2023). Rotaris, L., Tonelli, S., Capoani, L., 2022. Combined transport: cheaper and greener. A
Islam, D.M.Z., Ricci, S., Nelldal, B.-L., 2016. How to make modal shift from road to rail successful Italian case study. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag., 100792 https://doi.org/
possible in the European transport market, as aspired to in the EU Transport White 10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100792.
Paper 2011. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 8, 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-016- Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
0204-x. Allocation. McGraw-Hill International Book Company.
Janic, M., 2007. Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport Saaty, T.L., 2006. There is no mathematical validity for using fuzzy number crunching in
network. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 12, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. the analytic hierarchy process. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 15, 457–464. https://doi.org/
trd.2006.10.004. 10.1007/s11518-006-5021-7.
Kaack, L.H., Vaishnav, P., Morgan, M.G., Azevedo, I.L., Rai, S., 2018. Decarbonizing Sallnäs, U., Rogerson, S., Santén, V., 2022. Trusting the power: facilitating a modal shift
intraregional freight systems with a focus on modal shift. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, in relationships between shippers and logistics service providers. Res. Transp. Bus.
083001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad56c. Manag., 100864 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100864.
Khandelwal, C., Barua, M.K., 2020. Prioritizing circular supply chain management Salvucci, R., Gargiulo, M., Karlsson, K., 2019. The role of modal shift in decarbonizing
barriers using fuzzy AHP: case of the Indian plastic industry. Glob. Bus. Rev, the Scandinavian transport sector: applying substitution elasticities in TIMES-
0972150920948818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920948818. Nordic. Appl. Energy 253, 113593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kim, H.C., Kusumastuti, D., Nicholson, A., 2018. Modal shift for New Zealand shippers apenergy.2019.113593.
for various policy scenarios. N. Z. Econ. Pap. 52, 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Sarucan, A., Baysal, M.E., Engin, O., 2022. A spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method for solving
00779954.2017.1359659. the physician selection problem. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 42, 181–194. https://doi.org/
Kordi, M., Brandt, S.A., 2012. Effects of increasing fuzziness on analytic hierarchy 10.3233/JIFS-219185.
process for spatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 36, Shankar, R., Pathak, D.K., Choudhary, D., 2019. Decarbonizing freight transportation: an
43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.07.004. integrated EFA-TISM approach to model enablers of dedicated freight corridors.
Kramarz, M., Przybylska, E., 2021. Multimodal transport in the context of sustainable Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 143, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
development of a city. Sustainability 13, 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ techfore.2019.03.010.
su13042239. Tao, X., Wu, Q., Zhu, L., 2017. Mitigation potential of CO2 emissions from modal shift
Kumar, A., Anbanandam, R., 2020. A flexible policy framework for analysing multimodal induced by subsidy in hinterland container transport. Energy Pol. 101, 265–273.
freight transportation system in India: SAP–LAP and efficient IRP method. Glob. J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.049.
Flex. Syst. Manag. 21, 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-019-00226-5. Toker, K., Görener, A., 2022. Evaluation of circular economy business models for SMEs
Kurtuluş, E., Çetin, İ.B., 2020. Analysis of modal shift potential towards intermodal using spherical fuzzy TOPSIS: an application from a developing countries’
transportation in short-distance inland container transport. Transp. Policy 89, perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02119-7.
24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.01.017. van Heeswijk, W.J.A., Mes, M.R.K., Schutten, J.M.J., Zijm, W.H.M., 2018. Freight
Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., Kahraman, C., 2020a. A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy consolidation in intermodal networks with reloads. Flex. Serv. Manuf. J. 30,
process and its renewable energy application. Soft Comput. 24, 4607–4621. https:// 452–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-016-9259-1.
doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04222-w. Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-
Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., Kahraman, C., 2020b. Spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process 9958(65)90241-X.
(AHP) and its application to industrial robot selection. In: Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., Zhang, J., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Bao, S., Yang, D., Xu, H., Wu, R., Wang, R., Yan, M.,
Cevik Onar, S., Oztaysi, B., Tolga, A.C., Sari, I.U. (Eds.), Intelligent and Fuzzy Wu, Y., Hao, J., 2021. Air quality improvement via modal shift: assessment of rail-
Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making, Advances in Intelligent water-port integrated system planning in Shenzhen, China. Sci. Total Environ. 791,
148158 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148158.
311

1-s2.0-S0967070X23003311-main (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

1-s2.0-S0967070X23003311-main (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transport Policy 146 (2024) 295–311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation of benefits due to adoption of enablers of unimodal road to

1. Introduction levels of pollution, up to 43.48% greater fuel efficiency, and up to 50%

Fig. 1. Flowchart of systematic literature review.

1 3.3. Spherical fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to

Step 8. Evaluate global sub-criteria weights: Multiply the local weight of

Fig. 2. Geometric representation of multiple fuzzy sets (Source: Menekşe and

matrix (SFDM): Utilizing the spherical fuzzy numbers specified in

Step 7 Evaluate normalized Euclidean distance: Determine the

Fig. 3. Flowchart of proposed research framework: Spherical fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS.

Fig. 4. Decision hierarchy for prioritization of MSBs derived from MSEs.

Funding source None.

Nevil Gandhi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,

Appendix A. Preliminaries of Spherical Fuzzy Sets

Multiplication by scalar (λ > 0)

Spherical Weighted Arithmetic Mean (SWAM)

Normalized Euclidean distance

Appendix B. SF-AHP Calculations

Linguistic terms Spherical fuzzy number Score index

Absolutely more importance (AMI) (0.9,0.1,0.0) 9

ECOE EI EI … LI VLI ECOE SMI EI … VLI VLI ECOE EI EI … LI VLI

DM1 DM2 DM3

ASFCWM Score indices Normalized weights Rank

ENVE 0.4127 0.5690 0.2996 10.882 0.1058 6

Appendix C. SF-TOPSIS Calculations

Linguistic terms Spherical fuzzy number

Extremely high (EH) (0.9,0.1,0.1)

Low (LO) (0.3,0.7,0.3)

Alternatives (MSBs) Criteria (sub-enablers)

DM1 DM2 DM3

ENV1 ENV2 … GPLE4 GPLE5

ENV1 ENV2 … GPLE4 GPLE5

ENV1 ENV2 ENV3 ENV4 … GPLE2 GPLE3 GPLE4 GPLE5

MSB1 0.0229 − 0.0584 − 0.0324 0.0171 … − 0.0233 − 0.0996 − 0.0024 − 0.0059

SF-PIS 0.0600 − 0.0576 − 0.0276 0.0497 … 0.0212 0.0428 − 0.0024 0.0267

D(MSB1, SF-PIS) 0.2541 D(MSB1, SF-NIS) 0.3033

D(MSB2, SF-PIS) 0.1889 D(MSB2, SF-NIS) 0.3693

MSBs Closeness ratio Rank

Appendix D. Details of sensitivity analysis

You might also like