IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v132y2020icp465-489.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multicriteria analysis of planned intercity bus terminals in the metropolitan city of Istanbul, Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Akin, Darcin
  • Kara, Derya

Abstract

This paper proposes a methodology of decision making and policy guidance based on a multi-criteria decision aiding (MCDA) method for a comprehensive evaluation of intercity bus terminals in Istanbul, Turkey. Since decisions on the location of bus terminals in large agglomerations determine transportation costs and the quality of service of public transport passengers, the use of multicriteria analysis becomes necessary. In that respect, the intercity bus terminals proposed by 2023 Long-Range Landuse Plan (LRLUP) and 2023 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) of Istanbul are examined based on decision criteria of accessibility and suitability within the environment they are located. The multi-criteria analysis was performed using the additive value (AV) model to evaluate the locations of existing and planned intercity bus terminals in Istanbul based on their specific location characteristics defined. Criteria used in the analysis are the location within the region, population coverage and density, land value, accessibility by highway and public transit modes, availability of land for capacity expansion, and the surrounding land-use and geological characteristics. Based on the design criteria assessed, a general score for the location of each intercity bus-terminal (two existing and nine planned) was calculated using normalized importance weights obtained from an expert survey, and then the terminals were ranked based on their scores calculated for the base (2010 and before) and plan years (2023), respectively. Based on their total score, they were ranked and grouped into three categories as follows: (1) scores higher than 0.75, (2) between 0.51 and 0.75, and (3) equal to or smaller than 0.50. All planned terminals scored equal or higher than 0.50 (two out of nine are in the first category, six are in the second category, and one is in the third category), and this proved that all of them were planned where they were needed. Then, an availability analysis was carried out to identify the configurations of the bus terminals depending on each other, which is deemed to yield their best configuration. The results of this paper will be of relevance to urban and transportation planners facing a decision to make and prioritize transport planning decisions concerning the spatial planning of a metropolitan city based on chosen decision criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Akin, Darcin & Kara, Derya, 2020. "Multicriteria analysis of planned intercity bus terminals in the metropolitan city of Istanbul, Turkey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 465-489.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:132:y:2020:i:c:p:465-489
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856418303823
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    2. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834.
    3. Wendy Proctor & Martin Drechsler, 2006. "Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, April.
    4. Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A., 2007. "A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 11-26, January.
    5. Hawas, Yaser E. & Hassan, Mohammad Nurul & Abulibdeh, Ammar, 2016. "A multi-criteria approach of assessing public transport accessibility at a strategic level," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 19-34.
    6. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    7. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    8. Barbosa, Samuel Borges & Ferreira, Marcelo Gitirana Gomes & Nickel, Elton Moura & Cruz, Jorge Alcides & Forcellini, Fernando Antônio & Garcia, Jéssica & Guerra, José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de An, 2017. "Multi-criteria analysis model to evaluate transport systems: An application in Florianópolis, Brazil," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhang, Junyi & Hayashi, Yoshitsugu & Frank, Lawrence D., 2021. "COVID-19 and transport: Findings from a world-wide expert survey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 68-85.
    2. Elzbieta Broniewicz & Karolina Ogrodnik, 2021. "A Comparative Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods for Sustainable Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Fernández, Eduardo & Figueira, José Rui & Navarro, Jorge & Solares, Efrain, 2022. "Handling imperfect information in multiple criteria decision-making through a comprehensive interval outranking approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PB).
    4. Champagne, Marie-Pier & Dubé, Jean & Barla, Philippe, 2022. "Build it and they will come: How does a new public transit station influence building construction?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Atefeh Taghavi & Reza Ghanbari & Khatere Ghorbani-Moghadam & Alireza Davoodi & Ali Emrouznejad, 2022. "A genetic algorithm for solving bus terminal location problem using data envelopment analysis with multi-objective programming," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 309(1), pages 259-276, February.
    6. Krister Ian Daniel Roquel & Raymund Paolo Abad & Alexis Fillone, 2021. "Proximity Indexing of Public Transport Terminals in Metro Manila," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1255-1286 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ahrens, Heinz & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2007. "Integrating Ecological And Economic Aspects In Land Use Concepts: Some Conclusions From A Regional Land Use Concept For Bayerisches Donauried," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7986, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Shuang Liu & David Cook, 2016. "Eradicate, contain, or live with it? Collaborating with stakeholders to evaluate responses to invasive species," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 49-59, February.
    4. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    5. Khraibani, R. & de Palma, A. & Picard, N. & Kaysi, I., 2016. "A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 67-81.
    6. Kuldeep Kavta & Arkopal K. Goswami, 2021. "A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3059-3084, December.
    7. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    8. Ahrens, Heinz & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2007. "Integrating ecological and economic aspects in land use concepts for agricultural landscapes," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 56(03), pages 1-9.
    9. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2005. "Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1860-1872, December.
    10. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    11. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    12. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    13. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1255-1286 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Guirao, Begoña & Campa, Juan Luis, 2015. "The effects of tourism on HSR: Spanish empirical evidence derived from a multi-criteria corridor selection methodology," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 37-46.
    15. Margarida Rodrigues & Mário Franco, 2022. "Bibliometric review about eco-cites and urban sustainable development: trend topics," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(12), pages 13683-13704, December.
    16. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    17. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    18. Ahrens, Heinz & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2007. "Integrating ecological and economic aspects in land use concepts for agricultural landscapes," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 56(3).
    19. Ru, Zice & Liu, Jiapeng & Kadziński, Miłosz & Liao, Xiuwu, 2022. "Bayesian ordinal regression for multiple criteria choice and ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 600-620.
    20. Volker Meyer & Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase, 2009. "A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 48(1), pages 17-39, January.
    21. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    22. Mavrommati, Georgia & Borsuk, Mark E. & Kreiley, Allison I. & Larosee, Christopher & Rogers, Shannon & Burford, Klancey & Howarth, Richard B., 2021. "A methodological framework for understanding shared social values in deliberative valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:132:y:2020:i:c:p:465-489. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.