Development of an Agile and Sustainable Framework for Resilient and Inclusive Public Transport Organizations

Abstract

This study developed an integrated framework to enhance agility, resilience, sustainability, and inclusiveness in Emirati public transport organizations. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research combined semi-structured interviews with 19 experts and a structured questionnaire administered to 38 specialists. The DEMATEL method was applied to analyze and visualize the interdependencies among key factors influencing transport system performance. Results indicate that operational efficiency, demand–supply forecasting, and ridership estimation are central to agility; green migration strategies, governance, and service design drive resilience; service diversity, technology, and infrastructure adequacy underpin sustainability; and service level types and seamless transfers are critical to inclusiveness. These dimensions were synthesized into a cohesive model that captures both strategic alignment and system adaptability. The study contributes a validated, multi-dimensional decision-making tool for policymakers and transport authorities, offering practical guidance for aligning transport strategies with national goals and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. While tailored to the UAE context, the framework is adaptable to other urban environments undergoing rapid transformation. While tailored to the UAE context, the framework is adaptable to other urban environments undergoing rapid transformation. The study’s empirical rigor is established through a validated questionnaire and expert-based DEMATEL analysis, ensuring theoretical robustness and real-world applicability.

1. Introduction

Public transportation is important in society, as it enhances the economy by providing new jobs, promoting urbanization, and supporting communication [1]. Urban public passenger road transportation plays a crucial role in social infrastructure development, attracting investment and raising living standards dramatically [2]. Furthermore, it is distinguished by low pollution, affordability, and time efficiency.

To guarantee the efficient operation of public transportation networks, public transport authorities are essential for planning, regulating, and governing [3]. They are in charge of organizing various stakeholders, defining objectives, assigning resources, and defining roles and responsibilities [4]. However, these authorities face complex challenges, such as updating regulations for service delivery, ensuring legal responsibility, protecting customer rights, and responding to global disruptions such as pandemics [5].

Enhancing public transportation efficiency has become a multidisciplinary goal involving the development of new network-based accessibility metrics [6], multi-criteria methods for evaluating public transportation performance [7], and spatial measurement models that integrate population density and geographic distribution [8]. However, the issues facing the future of public transport may not be addressed adequately through traditional strategies. As noted by [9], relying solely on retrofitting or capacity expansion, while helpful, is insufficient unless supported by robust, theory-driven resilience planning. Moreover, the need for integrated, system-wide approaches that address interdependencies and vulnerability across urban transport networks, as emphasized by [10].

The theoretical underpinnings of infrastructure resilience often remain vague, with limited real-world application and lack of dynamic models that integrate agility and inclusive planning [11]. Previous research has looked at how to assess the resilience of urban transport by studying the distinct characteristics of metro and road systems [9,11], and findings have demonstrated the need to analyze transportation systems more holistically, considering not only their design and operation but also their ability to adapt and recover from disruption.

Urban transport services are provided and regulated by profile-based administrative entities in many cities, creating overlapping and conflicting functions in these areas [12]. This may complicate the implementation of policies and reduce service efficiency. A defined institutional structure for urban transport governance is essential to address such issues [13]. The administration of urban transportation networks encompasses multiple domains, including financial, regulatory, social, and infrastructure issues, underscoring the intricacy of the undertaking. Policymakers can better understand urban dynamics and address social exclusion by examining accessibility through transportation networks [14].

Recently, climate change, pandemics, terrorism, and economic volatility have presented major challenges to cities [15]. These unforeseen disruptions have placed significant burdens on public service delivery and governance, necessitating a reevaluation of traditional urban resilience strategies. Urban resilience is increasingly understood as not only the ability to bounce back after shocks and stresses but also the capacity to adapt to new circumstances while maintaining essential services and societal well-being. It encompasses social cohesion, sustainable infrastructure, and responsive governance systems [16]. The COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, has underscored the importance of resilient planning and comprehensive disaster response strategies, including preparedness, financial competency, and recovery capacity.

In light of these challenges, public transport authorities (PTAs) must become more agile, inclusive, and resilient in their operations. There is growing demand for decision-support tools that assist PTAs in managing these evolving demands while ensuring sustainable service delivery and equitable access. However, most PTAs continue to struggle with fragmented governance, limited data systems, and the absence of integrated frameworks capable of responding to dynamic urban conditions.

While existing studies have proposed performance metrics or capacity expansion models, few offer a systemic, stakeholder-driven framework that integrates resilience, agility, sustainability, and inclusiveness into a single governance-oriented structure. This research responds to that gap by developing the ASRI framework, tailored specifically for public transport authorities navigating dynamic urban conditions. Methodologically, the study adopted a hybrid mixed-method approach, combining expert interviews with the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) technique. This enabled the identification of causal relationships among critical decision variables, offering a deep, structured understanding of resilience factors that conventional statistical models may overlook. This integrated design represents both a theoretical advancement and a practical decision-support tool especially suited for Gulf-region cities seeking alignment with global urban development frameworks.

Based on this context, the aim of this study was to develop an integrated and inclusive framework, guided by agility and resilience principles for public transport authorities to achieve sustainable operational efficiency, economic stability, and effective capacity management. The proposed framework intends to serve both as a conceptual model and a practical tool for real-world application within public transportation systems.

To achieve this aim, the study set out to accomplish the following objectives: (i) conduct a comprehensive and critical review of current strategies related to agility, resilience, inclusiveness, and public transport management; (ii) identify and measure the influence of key variables within each domain; (iii) propose a responsive and adaptable framework for enhancing agility in public transportation; (iv) explore mechanisms for improving environmental, social, and economic sustainability; (v) develop strategies that strengthen PTAs’ ability to withstand shocks such as pandemics and economic downturns; (vi) investigate approaches to ensure inclusive access to services for all demographic groups; and (vii) validate the framework through case-based empirical analysis.

Correspondingly, the research was driven by several guiding questions: What validated frameworks currently exist for agility, resilience, inclusiveness, and sustainability? What are the critical decision-making variables for PTAs within these frameworks? How can agility be operationalized to enable quick adaptation to shifting conditions? In what ways can transport systems be made more socially and environmentally sustainable? What mechanisms can help PTAs endure future disruptions while promoting inclusive access and service equity? And how can the proposed model be validated and applied to meet long-term sustainability goals?

The significance of this study lies in its potential to fill a critical gap in urban transport planning by offering a validated, multi-dimensional framework that integrates fragmented strategies into a coherent system. This contribution is timely and relevant, especially for fast-developing urban regions such as the UAE, where complex infrastructure demands, socio-economic diversity, and national development priorities call for innovative, inclusive, and adaptive public transport solutions aligned with global sustainability standards such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Governance

Governance in public transport has been recognized as a foundational pillar for promoting sustainability, accessibility, and resilience in urban mobility systems. As noted by [3], effective governance extends beyond regulatory functions to encompass institutional coordination, stakeholder engagement, and policy alignment. Similarly, as emphasized by [17], organizational capacity and decision-making processes significantly shape the outcomes of public transportation systems yet often lack the flexibility required to respond to rapidly evolving urban demands.

Prior research has explored governance responses to mobility as a service (MaaS), where a variety of strategies from proactive regulation to data-centric monitoring have been identified [18]. However, these approaches tend to be fragmented and reactive, revealing a persistent gap in comprehensive governance frameworks capable of managing both innovation and institutional complexity. Existing models frequently overlook the interplay between technological disruption and governance adaptability.

The increasing complexity of global urban systems also underscores the need for intergovernmental cooperation and multi-level governance to address challenges such as climate change and economic inequality [19]. Nevertheless, coordination across administrative layers remains inconsistent, often leading to misaligned policies and operational inefficiencies. As highlighted by [20], the performance of urban transport systems is frequently obscured by diverse organizational configurations, making outcome evaluation difficult and impeding efforts at system-wide reform.

Adaptive governance mechanisms have emerged in response to such limitations. Self-regulation and agile management practices, supported by digital technologies, have been increasingly adopted to improve responsiveness and institutional flexibility [21]. Despite this shift, the literature lacks robust models linking such practices to resilience outcomes in the context of public transport, particularly with respect to social inclusion and long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, while governance had been widely acknowledged as a critical determinant of transport system performance, most studies treat agility, resilience, and inclusiveness as separate concerns. This fragmented approach has created a gap in the development of integrated governance frameworks. The present study sought to address this by proposing a unified, adaptive model for public transport authorities (PTAs) to enhance institutional responsiveness, ensure equitable service delivery, and support sustainable urban mobility.

2.2. Public Transportation Authorities and Activities

Public transport authorities (PTAs) are frequently portrayed in the literature as central agents in designing and maintaining sustainable, accessible, and efficient urban transport networks [3]. Their capacity to coordinate intermodal integration and harmonize fare systems has been associated with administrative optimization and service delivery improvements [22]. However, this perspective often remains descriptive, failing to interrogate the institutional complexities and limitations that hinder the actual realization of such outcomes in practice.

Although [23] emphasized PTAs’ expanding role in overseeing infrastructure development, regulation, and stakeholder coordination, there is insufficient critical engagement with the operational and strategic tensions that emerge from balancing these responsibilities. Similarly, Ref. [24] pointed to trust and shared objectives as mechanisms for service optimization, yet the literature does not sufficiently explore how these relational dynamics are institutionally structured or how they vary across different governance contexts.

The emergence of mobility as a service (MaaS) and public–private partnerships (PPPs) is presented as a remedy to funding limitations and performance inefficiencies [25], but the operationalization of such models remains under-theorized, particularly in contexts with divergent regulatory capacities. The pandemic further exposed critical vulnerabilities in PTA operations, as studies such as [26,27] have reported the importance of adaptability and stakeholder coordination; yet again, these contributions largely describe best practices without sufficiently dissecting the governance structures and conditions that enable or constrain such responsiveness.

The literature suggests that PTAs are evolving toward more agile and resilient models capable of supporting inclusive, future-oriented mobility [28]. Nonetheless, what remains unclear and under-researched is how PTAs navigate the institutional frictions that arise from attempting to operationalize sustainability, digital integration, and equity simultaneously. Furthermore, most studies adopt a normative stance, assuming PTAs are inherently capable of adapting to urban complexity, without empirically interrogating the mechanisms that support or impede such transformations.

This study addresses this gap by critically examining the intersection of institutional design, stakeholder engagement, and adaptive governance within PTAs. It builds on prior research but shifts from a descriptive to an analytical lens to interrogate how PTAs can effectively mediate competing pressures and policy demands in rapidly evolving urban contexts.

2.2.1. Agile Framework

Workforce flexibility has been widely acknowledged as a strategic necessity in public transportation systems, where it contributes to improved service standards and supports the resolution of persistent organizational challenges [29]. Agile methodologies, originally developed in the context of American manufacturing during the 1980s, have since evolved and found applications beyond their industrial roots, most recently in the realm of public transportation [30]. However, despite their growing popularity, the adaptation of agile frameworks within public transit remains only partially understood. Much of the current literature emphasizes their potential rather than offering robust, evidence-based accounts of their effectiveness in real-world urban mobility systems.

The promise of the agile concept lies in its capacity to support dynamic performance tracking, assess environmental impacts, and improve traffic safety and energy efficiency [31]. However, there remains a lack of critical analysis regarding the practical implementation of these goals within real-world public transportation systems. While examples such as São Paulo’s use of agile for demand forecasting and platform integration suggest success [32], these case studies are often context-specific and rarely provide comparative or longitudinal data that allow for generalizable conclusions. Furthermore, the prevailing discourse focuses on technical or procedural gains while downplaying the institutional, regulatory, and social conditions under which agile can or cannot thrive.

Recent studies highlight significant implementation challenges, especially in ensuring regulatory compliance, guaranteeing operational safety, and reconciling legacy systems with newer mobility technologies [33,34]. Although authors like [35] have recommended greater transparency and inter-organizational collaboration as key enablers, the literature remains thin on how trust and governance mechanisms shape the sustainability of agile in different transit ecosystems.

More broadly, agile is increasingly portrayed as a solution for public-sector complexity, extending its utility to service design, policy development, and digital transformation efforts [36]. Nevertheless, much of this work rests on normative assumptions about agile’s transferability from private to public sectors, often without interrogating the structural, cultural, and institutional differences that may hinder such translation.

This study fills a critical gap by moving beyond the optimistic narratives that dominate the literature, offering a more nuanced, empirically grounded analysis of agile implementation in public transportation. By focusing on the intersection of workforce flexibility, technological adaptation, and institutional capacity, this paper seeks to clarify the conditions under which agile frameworks can meaningfully contribute to urban transit transformation.

2.2.2. Resilience Framework

The concept of resilience has evolved significantly beyond its initial roots in 19th-century medical discourse, where it described biological defense mechanisms. Today, it functions as both a theoretical lens and a policy tool, particularly in psychology and systems thinking, to address complex societal and institutional disruptions [37]. Within this broader framing, resilience is increasingly conceptualized as a dynamic process involving continual adaptation, the transformation of challenges into opportunities, and the absorption of systemic shocks [38]. However, the operational meaning of resilience remains contested, and its applicability across domains especially public transportation warrants more critical investigation.

In urban mobility, resilience frameworks are commonly invoked to explain how transport systems respond to environmental pressures, human-induced disruptions, and infrastructure volatility. Core mechanisms such as network integration, contingency planning, and built-in safety protocols are cited as instrumental in sustaining service continuity during crises. For instance, empirical work has demonstrated how Beijing’s integration of bus and rail systems improved resilience without service disruption, while Singapore’s metro optimizations enhanced both network robustness and rider satisfaction [39]. Yet, these case studies often emphasize outcomes over mechanisms, offering little insight into how resilience is institutionally embedded and practically realized.

A key challenge in resilience research lies in the persistent lack of theoretical coherence and methodological rigor. Scholars have highlighted two primary issues: the difficulty of developing robust, quantitative benchmarks and the prevalence of conceptual ambiguity particularly concerning the definition of “disturbance” and its modeling [40]. Moreover, organizational and disciplinary inconsistencies in how resilience is defined and operationalized hinder the creation of standardized assessment frameworks. As note by [41], many resilience strategies are implemented without sufficient empirical validation, raising questions about their effectiveness and transferability across contexts.

Recent advances, such as hierarchical resilience modeling using hypergraphs and integrated fault detection systems, represent promising directions for improving system responsiveness and adaptive capacity [42]. Likewise, emerging research from psychological resilience, such as the affect-regulation approach, offers theoretical insights that could inform more user-centered applications in transport planning [43]. Still, these contributions remain largely siloed, and interdisciplinary integration is limited.

This study addresses these gaps by critically examining how resilience is interpreted, implemented, and measured within urban transportation systems. It moves beyond case-based validation to explore the governance structures, inter-agency coordination, and data-driven tools that shape resilience as a functional rather than rhetorical concept. In doing so, it contributes to developing adaptive, user-centered transit networks capable of withstanding future disruptions while supporting sustainable urban growth.

Theoretical Factors Influencing Organizational Resilience in Public Transport Systems

The theoretical foundation for the resilience of public transport systems draws from several key studies. Shrivastava and Rana (2022) [44] proposed an adaptive governance model tailored to critical infrastructure systems, arguing that urban transit resilience is largely dependent on how institutional flexibility and multi-level governance are embedded across decision layers. Complementing this perspective, Nthite (2020) [45] explored leadership agility within public sector institutions and emphasized the need for foresight-driven governance to ensure responsiveness in volatile contexts. Recent advancements in urban transport systems increasingly emphasize the integration of digital technologies to bolster infrastructure resilience and operational adaptability. For instance, Ref. [46] proposed a hierarchical fault modeling framework combining Reliability Block Diagrams (RBD), Fault Trees (FT), and Continuous-Time Markov Chains (CTMC), to evaluate the reliability of IoT-based infrastructures. Saja et al. (2019) [41] critically examined various resilience assessment frameworks used in disaster risk management, highlighting social resilience as an underutilized but essential component of transportation resilience planning. To address systemic shocks in urban transport, Ref. [47] proposed a systems-based Bayesian Network model to evaluate the resilience of urban transportation systems from a sustainability perspective. Their framework considers interdependencies across planning, design, operation, and governance, enabling decision-makers to simulate various disruption scenarios and optimize responses. Collectively, these studies contribute to a holistic understanding of the institutional, technological, financial, and relational factors that shape the resilience of public transportation organizations.

2.2.3. Sustainability Framework

Sustainability has emerged as a cornerstone concept in organizational strategy, encompassing the simultaneous pursuit of environmental protection, resource efficiency, social equity, and economic viability [48]. While often defined as meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs, the operationalization of sustainability remains context-dependent and uneven across sectors. Historically rooted in 18th-century forestry practices and evolving through post-World War II environmentalism, the concept now functions as both a normative vision and a strategic imperative across global systems [49]. Yet, despite its widespread adoption, critical evaluation of how sustainability is embedded in public transportation planning and governance remains limited.

In the public transportation sector, sustainability frameworks emphasize equity, environmental responsibility, and operational efficiency [50]. Tools such as checklists, databases, and performance indicators offered through programs like the Sustainability National Road Administration (SUNRA) are designed to guide infrastructure development in line with these principles [51]. However, much of the literature tends to describe these instruments in procedural terms, without interrogating their actual impact on policy coherence, accountability structures, or long-term performance outcomes.

The financial dimension of sustainability also introduces notable tensions. While socially sustainable practices have been associated with improved financial performance, environmental initiatives may impose short-term costs or operational trade-offs, particularly in smaller or resource-constrained organizations [52]. Research also suggests that larger entities are more likely to engage in comprehensive sustainability efforts, revealing a structural gap in the equitable diffusion of sustainability across the transport sector [53]. These disparities raise important questions about the scalability, institutional capacity, and inclusiveness of sustainability transitions.

The case of the United Arab Emirates provides a relevant example of national-level integration of sustainability principles, linking climate policy with education and knowledge economy development [54]. However, while such examples demonstrate political will and strategic alignment, they offer limited insight into how sustainability frameworks function in practice at the operational level of transport systems.

This study addresses this gap by examining how sustainability is internalized within public transportation institutions, focusing on the translation of sustainability rhetoric into operational realities. It critically investigates the institutional mechanisms, performance trade-offs, and socio-political dynamics that shape sustainable transportation outcomes, contributing to a more grounded and actionable understanding of sustainability in practice.

2.2.4. Inclusiveness and Integration

Inclusiveness, as a concept, goes beyond the notion of equal treatment to encompass equitable access to opportunities and targeted support for historically marginalized or disadvantaged populations. It demands an appreciation of diverse individual profiles and encourages dialogue across intersecting social identities [55]. While group-based interventions addressing systemic bias, such as those related to gender, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status, have demonstrated potential for structural change, the literature often under-theorizes the mechanisms through which these interventions translate into long-term institutional transformation [56].

The notion of integration, originally grounded in political economy discourse, has broadened to incorporate legal, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions. Urban governance increasingly treats integration as a strategic necessity to address both demographic shifts and humanitarian obligations [57]. In public transportation, this has manifested through the adoption of frameworks that align international human rights commitments, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with sector-specific principles like the Rail Sustainable Development Principles [58]. However, there remains a lack of empirical research that examines how these high-level commitments are operationalized in day-to-day transit governance and design.

Despite policy attention, gender disparities remain entrenched, with women continuing to face threats to safety and security in their use of public transportation [59]. Technological adaptations such as mobile applications, audio-visual guidance systems, and interface personalization are often cited as tools to enhance access for diverse user groups [60]. While such interventions may enhance user experience, the literature typically focuses on functionality rather than investigating how these technologies address deeper social inequities or intersecting barriers to access.

Efforts to enhance full journey accessibility have become increasingly central to modern transport planning, particularly in urban environments where multimodal integration is essential to user satisfaction and system inclusiveness. As noted by [61], the goal should be to establish a “seamless” system in which all passengers including those with disabilities can access, travel on, and transfer between different transport modes with ease and safety.

Inclusive transport planning also incorporates disability rights and universal design principles, yet there is limited critical engagement with how these frameworks are shaped by institutional capacity, political will, or user co-creation [58,62]. While recent studies suggest that inclusive infrastructure enhances comfort and environmental satisfaction [63], questions remain around the scalability, equity, and long-term maintenance of such improvements.

“Door-to-door mobility” models and socially informed design practices hold promise for improving both the sustainability and attractiveness of public transit [64], particularly for children, older adults, and users with physical or cognitive disabilities. Nevertheless, the relationship between inclusiveness and broader systemic outcomes such as social equity, urban resilience, and public trust is still underexplored.

This study addresses these gaps by critically analyzing how inclusiveness is embedded, negotiated, and sometimes contested within public transport systems. By investigating the translation of inclusive design principles into everyday practice and the socio-political contexts that shape this process, this research offers a deeper understanding of how transportation infrastructure can support equity, accessibility, and social sustainability in meaningful and measurable ways.

2.3. Conceptual Framework: Integrating Agility, Sustainability, Resilience, and Inclusiveness (ASRI)

This study proposes an integrative conceptual framework that unifies agility, sustainability, resilience, and inclusiveness (ASRI) within a single adaptive governance model tailored for public transport systems. While these elements have traditionally been treated as discrete concepts in the literature, their convergence is increasingly recognized as vital to managing complex urban systems under uncertainty and transformation pressures [65].

Agility is understood as the system’s capacity to respond swiftly and reconfigure dynamically in the face of change. It serves as a critical enabler of real-time institutional adaptation in governance, particularly under crisis or volatility [45]. In public service leadership, agility has been highlighted as a foundation for responsiveness and strategic foresight [66].

Resilience, closely linked to agility, refers to the capacity of the system to absorb shocks while preserving its core functions. Research has emphasized that resilience cannot exist in a vacuum; it is often enabled by agile processes and must be embedded across governance layers [44]. This synergy is particularly salient in public transport systems, which require continual adjustment to disruptions ranging from infrastructure failure to social unrest.

Sustainability serves as the temporal anchor in this framework, ensuring that agility and resilience are aligned with long-term visions of environmental integrity, economic viability, and social equity. The imperative for sustainable urban infrastructure is increasingly being linked to the performance of agile and resilient governance systems, especially in the context of green public service delivery and digital transformation [65].

Inclusiveness functions both as a normative goal and an operational mechanism. The integration of inclusiveness into governance frameworks enhances the diversity of inputs into decision making, thus increasing institutional legitimacy and systemic adaptability. As noted by [66], citizen participation and inclusivity are essential for creating high-performing, future-ready public systems. Moreover, inclusive feedback loops ensure that marginalized groups are not only considered but actively shape governance responses, reinforcing both agility and sustainability [67].

The ASRI model thus conceptualizes agility as the system’s engine, resilience as its safeguard, sustainability as its compass, and inclusiveness as its ethical and operational foundation. Together, these elements create a dynamic, iterative governance loop: inclusiveness brings diverse perspectives into the system; agility allows their rapid integration; resilience sustains system functions under stress; and sustainability aligns these mechanisms toward long-term, transformative outcomes. This integrated perspective not only addresses conceptual fragmentation in existing scholarship but also advances a governance model that is operationally adaptive, ethically grounded, and future-oriented.

3. Methodology

To ensure methodological clarity and coherence, this study followed a structured approach encompassing five key components: research philosophy, research approach, strategy, data collection, and data analysis. A mixed-methods design underpins the study, combining qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to facilitate both depth of understanding and empirical generalizability. Sampling strategies, data collection instruments, and validation procedures were explicitly aligned to support the development and evaluation of the ASRI framework.

3.1. Research Philosophy

Research philosophy involves understanding many epistemological stances, such as realism, positivism, interpretivism, and pragmatism, that shape researchers’ choices regarding methodology, data, collection, and analysis [68]. It is described by the three fundamental and interrelated concepts of ontology, epistemology, and axiology [69]. Pragmatism was used as a research philosophy for this study, as it allows for methodological flexibility to accommodate the dynamic nature of creating an adaptable and sustainable framework. Furthermore, this philosophy was selected to tackle the intricate, real-world problem of public transit. This study can successfully address the various facets of the research issue and provide a comprehensive framework that is both theoretically sound and practically usable by embracing a pragmatic research philosophy.

The research philosophy of pragmatism was selected for studies on public transit because it may successfully combine quantitative and qualitative approaches, overcoming the drawbacks of more established paradigms such as constructivism and positivism [70].

3.2. Research Approach

In the analysis of data, the two main methods are inductive and deductive. Observing is the first step of an inductive or “bottom-up” technique. As the investigation progresses, patterns are classified, and theories based on these intermediate research procedures are developed. The deductive research approach involves the testing of theoretical propositions using a specifically designed research strategy [71]. Also, it involves the creation of a conceptual and theoretical structure before its results are applied across empirical observation [71]. This study applied both deductive and inductive research. The inductive method works well for investigating fresh perspectives from users, public transportation authorities, and stakeholders’ interviews. Based on the qualitative data, themes, patterns, and hypotheses are developed that aid in the framework’s growth. Using inductive reasoning creates the flexibility to modify and improve the framework in response to new information. However, questionnaires can be used to confirm some of the framework parts or hypotheses or by implementing the deductive approach. Also, organizing the results using collected data is useful because the deductive method helps generalize results taken from a larger sample. If such a combination is reached, an extensive framework may be developed that depends on the deductive–empirical type of research and has its basis in induction, i.e., actual observation of reality.

3.3. Research Strategy

The research strategy describes how the study will accomplish its objectives and address its questions [72]. The research strategy might be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both [71]. Accordingly, measurement is required for quantitative research, which assumes that the phenomenon being examined can be measured [73]. However, qualitative research offers an adaptable, unconstrained, and rigorous method for examining how subjective reasoning and local perceptions influence behavior [74].

The integration of both approaches was essential for achieving a well-rounded understanding of the research problem. Public transport systems are inherently complex, involving both human-centric and technical elements. Therefore, a dual approach was deemed appropriate to ensure depth (through qualitative exploration) and generalizability (through quantitative validation).

3.4. Data Collection

Data collection was executed in two phases using semi-structured interviews and structured questionnaires. This dual method enabled triangulation and strengthened the internal validity of the study. Interviews explored stakeholder perspectives, while the questionnaire quantitatively validated interrelationships among framework elements.

3.4.1. Interviews

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 19 specialists, including decision-making managers/directors, operational department heads, franchise operators, technology vendors, and customers. Interviews followed a structured script to ensure consistency while allowing flexibility for participants to elaborate on key themes. This approach was selected for its ability to produce in-depth insights and rich data while providing structure for comparison across interviews. Interview questions were predominantly closed-ended, guided by a script to minimize interviewer bias and ensure comparability. The number of interview participants (n = 19) was determined based on the principle of data saturation, where additional interviews no longer yield novel insights. A purposive sampling strategy was used to ensure representation across key stakeholder groups in public transport, including strategic planners, operational heads, franchise operators, technology vendors, and users. Participants were selected based on their responsibility, experience, and background, enabling a multifaceted understanding of public transport systems. Demographic characteristics of interviewees reflected diverse nationalities, professional seniority, and years of experience (see

Table 1. Demographic information.

		N	%
Age Groups (years)	Over 60	2	10.5%
	30–40	6	31.6%
	41–50	5	26.3%
	51–60	5	26.3%
	Total	18	94.7%
Level of Education	Bachelor’s	9	47.4%
	Master’s	4	21.1%
	Ph.D.	5	26.3%
	Total	18	49.7%
Nationality	Emirati	10	52.6%
	Indian	3	15.8%
	Jordanian	1	5.3%
	Canadian	1	5.3%
	Turkish	1	5.3%
	Egyptian	1	5.3%
	Australian	1	5.3%
	Dutch	1	5.3%
	Total	19	100%
Country of Residence	USA	17	89.5%
	KSA	1	5.3%
	The Netherlands	1	5.3%
Years of Experience	Less than 5	1	5.3%
	6–10	3	15.7%
	11–15	3	15.7%
	16–20	5	26.3%
	Over 20	7	36.8%
	Total	19	100%

). The goal was to identify and compare the significance of factors contributing to the agile, resilience, sustainability, and inclusiveness frameworks.

This study followed ethical research standards. All participants were informed about the study objectives, their voluntary participation, and their anonymity. Written informed consent was obtained before each interview. The research did not involve vulnerable populations or sensitive personal data and was conducted in line with institutional guidelines for minimal-risk studies.

3.4.2. Questionnaire

A self-administered structured questionnaire was employed to quantify the relative priorities of each framework element using pairwise comparisons based on Saaty’s 1–9 scale. This prioritization approach corresponds to the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which was used to derive the relative weights of each element. In parallel, the same questionnaire also gathered expert judgments about the degree of influence that each element had on the others, which served as input for the DEMATEL (Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method.

Thus, the questionnaire was designed to support both AHP and DEMATEL applications simultaneously: the pairwise comparisons using Saaty’s scale were applied to generate priority weights (AHP), while influence scores were captured to identify cause-and-effect relationships (DEMATEL).

While DEMATEL was used to analyze the cause–effect relationships among factors, the structured nature of the questionnaire supported consistent data collection across a sample of 38 experts. Participants were selected using purposive sampling to target individuals with extensive domain knowledge, managerial experience, and active involvement in public transport operations. Selection criteria included a minimum of 10 years of experience and roles in strategic, operational, or technical departments. The expert pool was drawn from various UAE public transportation organizations, including both government and franchise bodies.

To ensure reliability and internal consistency, expert responses were reviewed for coherence and completeness. Although a formal Cronbach’s alpha was not calculated due to the nature of the DEMATEL-AHP structure, content validity was assured through expert selection criteria and triangulation with the qualitative interview findings. This approach enhances face and construct validity for the identified framework elements.

The data were collected over two months, using digital distribution via email and follow-up reminders. Participants completed the questionnaire anonymously through a secure online survey platform to ensure consistency and data integrity.

Although expert participants came from multiple transport organizations, the sample primarily reflected institutional expertise. As acknowledged in the discussion, future work should include broader stakeholder groups, such as passengers, civil society, and frontline workers, to enrich the inclusiveness and real-world applicability of the framework.

The combined use of interviews and questionnaires helped to validate insights, mitigate the limitations inherent to each method, and provide both qualitative depth and quantitative structure to the findings. Together, these instruments provided a robust basis for both exploratory insight and empirical validation.

3.5. Data Analysis

The primary data in this study were collected from interviews with executives and higher management (decision makers) of public transport authorities. These interviews aim to refine and validate a set of factors that will be used to develop an agile, sustainable, resilient, and inclusive public transport framework. To show the participants’ prioritization of all mentioned aspects, they were required to rate each of them from 1 to 5. Subsequently, the mean of every individual’s perspective regarding every factor was determined. Thereafter, the mean of every participant’s perception of every factor was computed and valued at not less than 2.5.

Subsequently, data from the questionnaire were analyzed using the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) technique, a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tool suitable for mapping complex cause–effect relationships. DEMATEL converts interdependencies into structured digraphs, enabling the identification of influential variables and relationships within the framework. This approach was deemed appropriate due to its effectiveness in capturing the dynamic interconnections that characterize complex transport systems. However, the study acknowledges that more advanced uncertainty modeling techniques, such as rough Fermatean sets, fuzzy DEMATEL, and hybrid MCDM frameworks, offer superior capabilities for handling vague, imprecise, or hesitant expert judgments. Recent studies have highlighted these models’ strengths in capturing higher-order uncertainties and semantic richness in decision environments [75]. These methods were reviewed but not employed here due to the exploratory and stakeholder-centric nature of this study. Nevertheless, they present promising alternatives for future research, especially when scaling the framework or adapting it to contexts involving deeper ambiguity and complexity.

In parallel, the pairwise comparison data derived from Saaty’s 1–9 scale were processed using the AHP method to calculate the relative priority weights of each element. This allowed the study to identify not only the most influential factors but also their relative importance in the overall structure. The integration of AHP and DEMATEL in the analysis was sequential but complementary: AHP results were used to rank elements by weight, while DEMATEL results provided a causal structure among them

The DEMATEL analysis categorized the ASRI framework components into cause-and-effect groups. Agility and inclusiveness emerged as primary “cause” factors variables that exert influence on others, while resilience and sustainability appeared predominantly as “effect” factors, i.e., those that are shaped by the former.

This distinction holds critical implications for public transport reform. For example, improving institutional agility through digitization, policy flexibility, and real-time data use can cascade positive impacts on both resilience and long-term sustainability. Similarly, inclusive engagement practices (e.g., stakeholder co-design, equitable service access, etc.) do not just promote equity but actively enhance the legitimacy and responsiveness of the system, thereby reinforcing resilience.

Resilience and sustainability, being effect variables, serve as performance outcomes rather than immediate levers. Reform efforts, therefore, should prioritize investments in enabling conditions like agile governance structures and inclusive feedback mechanisms. These are the “drivers” that indirectly generate stronger resilience to disruptions and deeper alignment with long-term environmental and social goals.

Moreover, understanding these relationships helps authorities prioritize interventions. Rather than treating each pillar in isolation, policymakers can focus on strengthening high-leverage, upstream factors. This targeted approach fosters systemic change while ensuring efficient resource allocation. For instance, enhancing digital integration across agencies (an agility driver) can simultaneously boost responsiveness (resilience) and reduce environmental inefficiencies (sustainability).

Thus, the DEMATEL model not only validates the ASRI components but offers a roadmap for practical implementation. It reveals that transformational change in public transport systems requires activating the right set of inputs of agility and inclusiveness to drive desired system-level outcomes in resilience and sustainability.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Interviews

In the light of the study, all items that the participants appraised were deemed as relevant. In each of the factors, participants were required to give a score between 1 and 5, reflecting on how they considered the different components of the proposed framework to be significant. Before proceeding to the analysis of data, the scores’ mean value for each component in each participant was calculated. The level of understanding regarding the priorities of the group was then ascertained and comprised of the mean score towards each element across all participants.

From the study, it was evident that the overall mean score for each framework component was above 2.5, in which all participants attached relevance to all the components. The fact that all these elements scored beyond the threshold provides evidence that specific aspects of the framework met the values and concerns of the research participants, thereby increasing the robustness and relevance of the framework. This finding confirms the complete validation and recognition of the assessed components, which provides credibility regarding their role in enhancing the general framework addressed in the present research.

4.2. Results of DEMATEL Analysis

Each of the 38 experts received a brief introduction to the DEMATEL idea and the questionnaire’s completion method. The average time each expert spent completing the questionnaire was 45 min to an hour. The analysis proceeded once it was certain each expert’s responses were true. To ensure the accuracy of the analysis of the results, the above specialists were also consulted.

Since it was required to allow decision makers to compare the n criteria pairwise and determine if there was a relationship between them, an initial direct relationship n × n matrix was established. The simple average of the judgments made by the decision makers was used to develop the direct relationship fuzzy matrix.

4.2.1. Agile Framework

This analysis evaluated several factors that are crucial to developing an agile framework for UAE public transportation. Table 1 shows the relevance (R), contribution (C), relevance-plus-contribution (R + C), and relevance-minus-contribution (R − C). These are the criteria for assessing these elements. They are known as “cause” or “effect” based on the executive and active role they play within the growing realm of a more adaptive transportation plan. Results show that fleet/asset demand–supply forecast, population density, technology development and innovation, fleet/assets diversity, technology adaptations, legislation, assets readiness, resources availability, data quality, integration, marketing/communication/awareness, and payment gateway present cause factors of agile framework, whereas ridership estimation, operational time, process development, service levels, estimated time of arrival (ETA), operational efficiency, financial sustainability, human capital, meeting customers’ expectations, fare structure, operational plans, and fleet deployment present effect factors.

The combined measure R + C, which represents the overall relevance and contribution (importance) of each element, may be used to rank the agile framework elements according to their importance. Based on the results in

Table 2. The Final Results (Agile Framework).

Criteria	R	C	R + C (Importance)	R − C	Identify
Fleet/Asset Demand–Supply Forecast	15.240	15.088	30.328	0.152	Cause
Ridership Estimation	15.096	15.202	30.298	−0.107	Effect
Population Density	15.084	13.104	28.188	1.980	Cause
Technology Development and Innovation	15.094	14.693	29.787	0.400	Cause
Operational Time (Service Time)	15.035	15.109	30.144	−0.074	Effect
Fleet/Assets Diversity	14.407	14.196	28.603	0.211	Cause
Technology Adaptations	15.319	14.617	29.936	0.702	Cause
Process Development	14.576	14.925	29.501	−0.349	Effect
Legislation	13.507	13.483	26.990	0.024	Cause
Service levels (On-Time Performance—OTP)	14.939	15.568	30.507	−0.628	Effect
Speed (Estimated Time of Arrival—ETA)	14.980	15.646	30.626	−0.666	Effect
Assets Readiness	14.759	14.735	29.493	0.024	Cause
Resources Availability	15.301	14.773	30.074	0.528	Cause
Operational Efficiency (Reliability)	15.237	15.693	30.930	−0.457	Effect
Financial Sustainability	14.913	15.634	30.547	−0.722	Effect
Human Capital	14.441	14.769	29.210	−0.328	Effect
Data Quality	14.657	14.518	29.176	0.139	Cause
Meeting Customers’ Expectations	15.162	15.416	30.578	−0.254	Effect
Integration	15.046	14.754	29.800	0.292	Cause
Fare Structure	14.153	14.342	28.495	−0.189	Effect
Operational Plans	14.882	15.739	30.622	−0.857	Effect
Fleet Deployment	14.583	15.126	29.709	−0.542	Effect
Marketing/Communication/Awareness	14.102	13.628	27.729	0.474	Cause
Payment Gateway	13.662	13.416	27.078	0.246	Cause

, we can conclude that operational efficiency (reliability) has the highest importance in the agile framework, whereas legislation has the least importance in the agile framework.

4.2.2. Resilience Framework

Table 3. The Final Results (Resilience Framework).

Criteria	R	C	R + C (Importance)	R − C	Identify
Green Migration and Strategies	30.04	29.80	59.84	0.23	Cause
Emission Impact Levels	28.85	28.50	57.35	0.35	Cause
Network Optimization	29.39	28.70	58.09	0.69	Cause
Pricing and Schedules	28.55	29.13	57.67	−0.58	Effect
Expenditure Efficiency	28.75	29.38	58.13	−0.63	Effect
Fare Affordability	27.98	29.23	57.21	−1.26	Effect
Higher Coverage (accessibility)	28.49	29.53	58.02	−1.03	Effect
Health and Safety Features	29.21	28.58	57.79	0.63	Cause
Service Design	29.85	29.91	59.76	−0.05	Effect
Legislations/Regulations	29.72	28.19	57.91	1.54	Cause
Governance	29.79	29.45	59.24	0.33	Cause
Ethics	28.73	28.96	57.69	−0.22	Effect

shows that green migration and strategies, emission impact levels, network optimization, health and safety features, legislations/regulations, and governance are the cause factors of resilience framework, whereas pricing and schedules, expenditure efficiency, fare affordability, higher coverage (accessibility), service design, and ethics are the effect factors for resilience framework. For importance ranking, the results show that green migration and strategies is the most important factor of the resilience framework, whereas fare affordability is the least important factor.

4.2.3. Sustainability Framework

Table 4. The Final Results (Sustainability Framework).

Criteria	R	C	R + C (Importance)	R − C	Identify
Risk Assessment and Mitigation	26.71	27.33	54.04	−0.63	Effect
Operational Planning	26.98	27.95	54.93	−0.98	Effect
Capacity and Diversity	26.52	27.68	54.20	−1.16	Effect
Alternative Services	27.21	27.02	54.23	0.19	Cause
Network Ability	27.18	26.74	53.92	0.44	Cause
Infrastructure Adequacy	26.94	25.97	52.91	0.98	Cause
Technology	27.85	26.89	54.74	0.96	Cause
On-Demand Services	27.03	26.91	53.94	0.12	Cause
Modes Substitutions	26.84	26.96	53.81	−0.12	Effect
Services Diversity	27.48	27.53	55.01	−0.06	Effect
Customer Need Adaptation	27.15	27.26	54.42	−0.11	Effect
Market Sound (Adaptation)	26.96	26.75	53.70	0.21	Cause
Knowledge Management	26.28	26.04	52.32	0.25	Cause
Innovations	27.18	27.27	54.45	−0.09	Effect

shows that alternative services, networkability, infrastructure adequacy, technology, on-demand services, market sound (adaptation), and knowledge management are the cause factors for the sustainability framework, whereas risk assessment and mitigation, operational planning, capacity and diversity, modes substitutions, services diversity, customer need adaptation, and innovations are the effect factors. For importance ranking, services diversity has the highest importance factor, and knowledge management has the least importance factor.

4.2.4. Inclusiveness and Integration Framework

Table 5. Final Results (Inclusiveness and Integration).

Criteria	R	C	R + C (Importance)	R − C	Identify
Type of Service Levels	22.882	23.312	46.194	−0.430	Effect
Operational Optimizations	22.813	22.745	45.558	0.068	Cause
Network Connectivity	22.256	22.400	44.656	−0.144	Effect
Seamless Transfers	22.439	23.004	45.443	−0.564	Effect
Teamwork	22.209	22.019	44.228	0.190	Cause
Complaints Management	21.898	21.759	43.657	0.139	Cause
Customers Awareness	22.648	21.906	44.554	0.742	Cause

shows that operational optimizations, teamwork, complaints management, and customer awareness are the cause factors for the inclusiveness and integration framework, whereas type of service levels, network connectivity, and seamless transfers are effect factors. For importance ranking, service level type has the highest importance and ranks first, whereas teamwork ranks last in importance in the inclusiveness and integration framework.

5. Discussion

5.1. Agile Framework for Public Transportation System

The UAE’s PTS is implementing an agile framework guided by several crucial drivers that enhance adaptability and flexibility in meeting current and future demands. Demand–supply forecasting is crucial for the system’s adaptability concerning the management of fleets and assets, reducing waste, optimizing resources, and ensuring service reliability, which are in line with [76]. Population density is also an important factor that requires resource allocation to meet the shift in demand [77].

The implementation of technology advances improves functioning with features such as automation, real-time monitoring, and operating mode interconnectivity. These innovations make customer interactions better and allow for easier adaptation to changes in operations [78]. Technologies like advanced data analysis and the use of information technologies in resource management also enhance efficiencies and cut costs of fleet operations as well as enhance service dependability [79] and inventory procurement, covering financial, material, and human resources and ensuring flexibility and sustainability [80].

Data integration and quality emerge as the critical components of the proven agile framework for delivering business value that is needed for decision making and system responsiveness in today’s fast-paced world. The quality of the data used also provides the right operational information and quick action to address problems that impact performance in total system control [81]. They capture the readiness of the framework to deliver on customer satisfaction and the operational as well as strategic requirements [82]. It can also be noted that customer satisfaction/expectations have a pivotal role in the framework, which is very much in tune with user demands, which in turn reflects in the quality of service and loyalty [83].

The study also determined the performance of the identified agile framework variables. Operation efficiency was the most critical variable that needs to be adopted across the systems, followed by demand–supply forecasting, ridership estimation, and financial sustainability. Lower-ranking variables like human capital, data quality, and technological adaptation, though often ignored, are perhaps some of the most fundamental for long-term agility-prone capabilities. The investigation’s results share similarities with [82], revealing the significant implication of a multimodal approach, innovative technologies, and strategies regarding the fleet and its management in the case of achieving both sustainability and efficiency improvements.

In other words, the UAE’s dynamic PTS framework provides a strategic mix of demand–supply, resources, technology, and analytics. This ensures that the system is capable of accommodating change in its operating environment and maintains customer satisfaction and operational goals, thus making the public transport system an example of a robust transport system. Importantly, the components identified, such as predictive analytics, real-time monitoring, and automation, are not context-specific to the UAE. They represent scalable tools that can be adapted to a variety of urban environments globally. For example, cities in rapidly urbanizing regions can adopt lightweight demand–supply analytics to optimize limited fleets [84], while highly digitized systems in Europe or East Asia can enhance agility through cloud-based multimodal coordination. This indicates that the agile framework can inform digital transition strategies in both resource-constrained and tech-forward settings.

These adaptive tools and technologies also advance SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by promoting responsive, inclusive, and sustainable urban mobility infrastructure. By facilitating real-time responsiveness and user-centric planning, the agile framework contributes to building resilient infrastructure and fostering innovation within transport systems [65].

5.2. Resilience Framework for Public Transportation System

The findings of this study show that green migration strategies are a critical factor in the resilience framework for PTS in the UAE. Promising types of migration contribute to CO₂ emission reductions by adopting hybrid and electrified transit systems that help to enhance urban air quality [85]. Moreover, sustainable transport practices are consistent with climate change goals around the world and improve urban sustainability [86]. Accompanying these measures, legal acts and norms guarantee the rational functioning and safe work of public transportation. These legal instruments provide the baseline for performance, covering driver appropriateness, vehicle condition, and the fastest service delivery possible. Accommodation of health and safety is highly important for passengers and drivers. Moreover, some networks optimize their operations by applying new models, including the theory of complex networks, to increase route planning and decrease transport time and, as a result, passenger satisfaction [87]. This optimization, which combines the effective management of resources, contributes to the creation of more diverse, customer-oriented transportation [88].

These implications can be considered aligned with the assumptions regards sustainable urban systems and resilience noted in the previous studies. For instance, the integration of green logistics in the transportation system in Abu Dhabi shows a way that sustainable strategies support urban resilience [89]. Likewise, infrastructure and rules enable advancements in PTMs since Dubai has incorporated smart ICT options into its e-mobility platforms [90]. Measures of health and safety also correlate with organizational trends for passenger care in transport systems [91]. Network optimization could be related to lean logistics and agile supply chains that improve the efficiency of transport systems in the urban context [92].

Further, this study highlights effect variables for the resilience framework in UAE’s public transportation, such as service specification, cost-effective spending, coverage, price, and timing. This explains why service design for system resilience improves flexibility to address disturbances, as can be seen in the metro service in Dubai [93]. In this regard, Ref. [94] stated that higher coverage is advantageous in reducing mobility gaps in urban areas and in providing equal transport access required by users of different abilities. Pricing and scheduling guarantee reliability and cost optimization to satisfy user expectations using operational resilience adjustments [95].

The ranking importance of the framework variables reveals that green migration strategies have the most impact on sustainability and system capacity despite their immediate importance [96]. Service design was ranked next, involving user-oriented planning and managing changes during disruption [93]. Governance stands out, as it maintains resilience through sound policy regimes and institutional frameworks [97].

Although lower-ranked, health and safety, ethical considerations, emission impact levels, and fare sensitivity remain crucial as the results of resilience initiatives. Such balanced prioritization indicates developing more adaptable, healthy public transport systems that comply with international resilience standards.

From a policy perspective, resilience planning as illustrated here has global relevance: cities in climate-vulnerable regions (e.g., Southeast Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa) can prioritize hybrid fleets and network redundancy [98], while municipalities in post-industrial economies may focus on retrofitting legacy infrastructure for health, safety, and emission compliance. Furthermore, resilience should be embedded in legal and institutional design, encouraging robust public–private partnerships and decentralization where applicable. The framework thus offers reform templates that can be tailored to each city’s risk profile, governance maturity, and sustainability priorities. The resilience framework supports SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) by emphasizing low-emission fleets, health and safety protocols, and institutional preparedness. This aligns with global recommendations for smart mobility resilience in climate-sensitive and rapidly urbanizing regions [99].

5.3. Sustainability Framework for Public Transportation System

This research investigates the antecedent variables of the sustainability framework of PTS in the UAE, namely choice of other services, connectedness, and sufficiency of infrastructures, technology, knowledge management, market orientation, and on-demand solutions. Alternative mobility options such as ridesharing and carpooling support sustainability by reducing emissions and single-vehicle reliance [29]. Intermodal connectivity increases demand for service provision and system utilization, as confirmed by the examined experience of Dubai’s bus and metro systems. Road cleanliness, stations and facilities, and favorable ratings have a positive impact on service delivery and public transport preference over personal cars, making infrastructural standards and developments durable and sustainable [100].

Integration of technology also expands sustainability for the wide application of automated fare collection, real-time tracking, and electric buses because they satisfy the passengers, reducing negative impacts on the environment and enhancing the system performance [101]. Knowledge management is also an important component of the model that embraces the flow and storage of information for enhanced planning, route factors, and resources. This proactive management of data is beneficial for strategic decision making as well as for system development [102]. In the same way, market optimization, i.e., the capacity of the organizational system to adapt service standards according to customer expectations and geographic conditions, affordably maintains the program financially and perpetuates its function [103].

Operational planning leads to an improvement in service quality since resources are efficiently utilized, and performances obtained in transit are improved. Availability and variety in the transportation options help to ease congestion and capacity in the system, as it can handle fluctuating traffic density. This study also focuses on mode substitution to provide environmental and traffic coefficient implications of transitioning from private to public transport.

The first advantage is the flexibility in meeting the needs of the customers to improve ridership and satisfaction with the services offered by the transport systems [102]. On the other hand, innovation is a change maker in sustainability, where smart ticketing and especially the use of neural networks enhances the passenger experience and optimizes the operational profitability [101].

These principles carry direct implications for reform efforts in both emerging and developed urban systems. For instance, African and Latin American cities can prioritize scalable low-cost infrastructure [104], while European cities may focus on customer-driven service optimization and eco-efficiency [105]. The sustainability framework also underscores that long-term viability requires adaptive planning not only in transport modes but in financing models and knowledge governance. This reinforces the value of flexible regulation, iterative policymaking, and data-driven investment strategies across different urban scales.

The study ranks the sustainability framework factors as follows: service differentiation, operational strategies, technology advancement, AR, client niche, substitutes, capacity and options, the assessment and minimization of risks, impulse services, compatibility, mode substitution, market conditions, adequate infrastructure, and knowledge management. The lower ranking of infrastructure and knowledge management show their sustaining, supporting roles in maintaining operational effectiveness and flexibility.

Thus, this research confirms the complexity of sustainability in PTS and the centrality of various services, innovation, planning, and customer-oriented strategies. All these factors taken together meet the specific needs of the UAE in transportation to enable strong, effective, and efficient public transport. This sustainability model aligns with SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 11, and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by promoting clean transport modes, intermodal planning, and knowledge-based innovation strategies. These priorities are consistent with smart city policies that integrate sustainability and inclusive energy solutions [106].

5.4. Inclusiveness and Integration Framework for Public Transportation System

The findings show that customer awareness is crucial for the integration framework of PTS given that informed customers use public transport effectively to gain more satisfaction, which increases ridership. Information delivery campaigns and status update programs are well supported by the targeted public as elements in increasing public transport use. To deliver efficient public transport services to the targeted citizens, the integrated work of public transport operators, governmental organizations, and communities is a vital factor into consideration. These results are in line with [24,107]. Technological advancements in intelligent transport systems (ITS) and the application of research findings into timetable and route adjustments and effective resource utilization lead to reductions in costs while improving service delivery. Lastly, complaints management guarantees the satisfaction of passengers’ complaints and allows obtaining useful information about services to build trust and inclusion [39].

The results obtained in this study correspond to the earlier research carried out concerning the principles of inclusiveness and integration. Disparities in the level of services were mentioned to be the result of operational inefficiencies, including scheduling and resource allocation, as identified by [108]. The impact variables as per this study are as follows: The service level type was implemented to investigate connectivity features, and seamless transfers were also considered in the study. The service level type including comfort, speed, and convenience is important for assessing service quality and for solving transport problems. Telecommunication vigor increases accessibility plus physical mobility since routing is direct with minimum interference. Intermodal transfers enhance the efficient swapping between one mode of transport with another or between modes and impound on personal car usage, thus enhancing system utilization. Evidence from real life shows that altogether, these factors enhance the uptake and use of PT in inclusiveness and integration in the international community.

The findings of this research are in line with prior research concluding, for instance, that the integration of intermodal connections is crucial for cooperation, as acknowledged by [109]. According to [110] transfer efficiency, access, and connection with transport stops are the most critical problems for development. Dubai Roads and Transport Authority’s strategic goals also concern multimodal integration aimed at enhancing the mobility of the population with the help of public transport and making the city accessible to different categories of the population, including those with restricted access [111].

The study ranks inclusiveness and integration framework variables as follows: service level type, operation improvement, flow, network accessibility, customer alertness, and department cooperation. The service level type comes first because it influences the accessibility of each service and the overall satisfaction of customers. Litman (2017) [105] focused on the opinion that perceived service quality has an impact on satisfaction and accessibility. Following it, operational improvements as necessary for effectiveness and feasibility. Gkiotsalitis and Cats (2020) [112] noted the importance of effective scheduling and resource allocation. Seamless transfers are ranked in third place, as reduced transfer time enhances the availability and passengers’ requests. Connectivity is pro-equity, as it provides a means for the satisfaction of the basic human needs of the sections of society that may be locked out from such services based on prejudice [113].

Customer awareness is another factor that was found to be subordinate to operation and service delivery infrastructure considerations. According to [114], users are more informed when they are in possession of real-time information.

Consequently, the investigation defined and categorized critical factors defining the degree of PTS integration and inclusiveness in the UAE setting. Through its focus on customer awareness, operations, and integration, the framework can make public transportation systems better connected, equal, and customer-friendly.

This dimension of the framework is particularly crucial for cities facing social fragmentation or mobility inequities. Urban areas with high migrant populations, informal settlements, or ageing demographics (e.g., in South Asia or Eastern Europe) can leverage this framework to guide inclusive service planning [115]. Its emphasis on user information, digital equity, and co-governance resonates with global goals such as the UN’s SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Additionally, the framework offers a replicable logic for embedding transport equity into policy: ensure multimodal access, involve marginalized users in design, and create grievance redress mechanisms [116]. Moreover, this framework advances SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by supporting equitable multimodal access, prioritizing marginalized users, and embedding accountability mechanisms into transport governance. These approaches reflect emerging global practices in inclusive mobility strategies [117,118].

5.5. Limitations and Transferability

While the integrated framework proposed is contextually grounded in the UAE’s unique transport environment, characterized by centralized governance, rapid urban development, and high infrastructure investment, its transferability to other regions may be constrained. The framework may not directly apply to public transport systems in countries with decentralized planning, lower funding, or more fragmented governance structures. For instance, transport systems operating in more fragmented governance structures or under constrained public budgets may struggle to implement the same strategic levers identified in the study. This underscores the need for careful adaptation and customization before broader application. Moreover, while the sample included a robust set of professionals, it did not include end-users, vulnerable communities, or civil society groups. This represents a gap in the inclusiveness dimension and is a recommended area for future research. The analytical tool employed, i.e., DEMATEL, is also relatively specialized and may limit accessibility for practitioners unfamiliar with decision-analysis techniques. Furthermore, the method’s effectiveness depends on the availability of precise and high-quality data, which may not be feasible in regions with an underdeveloped data infrastructure. To improve applicability in such contexts, future research may explore simplified versions of DEMATEL or hybrid models with lower data demands.

To further enhance the robustness and global relevance of the study, future research should also focus on longitudinal validation of the proposed framework across diverse urban settings, assessing its responsiveness under stress scenarios (e.g., pandemics, infrastructure failures, or climate shocks). Comparative analyses with established public transport frameworks from other countries would provide additional insights into contextual adaptability. Moreover, integrating metrics that capture passenger experience and behavioral adaptation over time could yield a more dynamic evaluation of system inclusiveness and service equity. Lastly, the development of open-access implementation guides for simplified analytical tools would support greater uptake by policymakers and practitioners, especially in low-resource environments.

Additionally, while the DEMATEL-AHP combination provides strong causal mapping from expert judgments, future research should explore statistical validation methods such as structural equation modeling (SEM) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the predictive reliability of the ASRI framework. Including longitudinal or multi-stakeholder datasets could also enhance generalizability and reveal dynamic changes in priority factors over time.

6. Conclusions

This study presents an integrated ASRI framework centered on agility, sustainability, resilience, and inclusiveness to advance the effectiveness of public transport systems in rapidly evolving urban contexts. Drawing on a mixed-methods approach combining stakeholder interviews and DEMATEL-based analysis, the framework was empirically validated in the Emirati context, revealing critical interdependencies that shape transport performance.

The findings offer strategic guidance for transport authorities aiming to modernize systems in line with national development priorities and global objectives, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals. While context-specific, the framework’s structure and analytical logic provide a transferable model for cities worldwide, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where fast-paced urbanization, environmental stress, and social inequality converge.

Practically, the ASRI framework empowers decision makers to align infrastructure investments with inclusive and sustainable development principles. It encourages urban planners to integrate technical, institutional, and social dimensions, making transport reform both future-proof and citizen-centered. By capturing causal linkages among planning elements, it offers a robust roadmap for policy interventions. Recognizing the evolving complexity of urban governance, this study recommends expanding stakeholder participation to include frontline workers and end-users, ensuring broader legitimacy and adoption. Methodologically, while DEMATEL proved effective for mapping interrelations, future research should explore advanced tools, such as rough Fermatean fuzzy sets, intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL, and hybrid grey–fuzzy MCDM models, to better handle uncertainty, linguistic hesitation, and high system volatility. Overall, this work contributes both a conceptual foundation and a decision-support tool that can guide cities toward more adaptive, equitable, and resilient public transport systems, positioning mobility as a lever for sustainable urban transformation.