IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i7p666-d581238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining Traffic Microsimulation Modeling and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Sustainable Spatial-Traffic Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Irena Ištoka Otković

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek, Croatia)

  • Barbara Karleuša

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia)

  • Aleksandra Deluka-Tibljaš

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia)

  • Sanja Šurdonja

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia)

  • Mario Marušić

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek, Croatia)

Abstract

Spatial and traffic planning is important in order to achieve a quality, safe, functional, and integrated urban environment. Different tools and expert models were developed that are aimed at a more objective view of the consequences of reconstruction in different spatial and temporal ranges while respecting selection criteria. In this paper we analyze the application of the multi-criteria analysis method when choosing sustainable traffic solutions in the center of a small town, in this case Belišće, Croatia. The goal of this paper is to examine the possibility of improving the methodology for selecting an optimal spatial–traffic solution by combining the quantifiable results of the traffic microsimulation and the method of multi-criteria optimization. Socially sensitive design should include psychological and social evaluation criteria that are included in this paper as qualitative spatial–urban criteria. In the optimization process, different stakeholder groups (experts, students, and citizens) were actively involved in evaluating the importance of selected criteria. The analysis of stakeholders’ survey results showed statistically significant differences in criteria preference among three groups. The AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) multi-criteria analysis method was used; a total of five criteria groups (functional, safety, economic, environmental, and spatial–urban) were developed, which contain 21 criteria and 7 sub-criteria; and the weights of criteria groups were varied based on stakeholders’ preferences. The application of the developed methodology enabled the selection of an optimal solution for the improvement of traffic conditions in a small city with the potential to also be applied to other types of traffic–spatial problems and assure sustainable traffic planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Irena Ištoka Otković & Barbara Karleuša & Aleksandra Deluka-Tibljaš & Sanja Šurdonja & Mario Marušić, 2021. "Combining Traffic Microsimulation Modeling and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Sustainable Spatial-Traffic Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-26, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:7:p:666-:d:581238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/7/666/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/7/666/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sapfo Τsolaki-Fiaka & George D. Bathrellos & Hariklia D. Skilodimou, 2018. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for an Abandoned Quarry in the Evros Region (NE Greece)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Chiara Gruden & Irena Ištoka Otković & Matjaž Šraml, 2020. "Neural Networks Applied to Microsimulation: A Prediction Model for Pedestrian Crossing Time," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Zahabi, Seyed & Miranda-Moreno, Luis & Patterson, Zachary & Barla, Philippe, 2012. "Evaluating the effects of land use and strategies for parking and transit supply on mode choice of downtown commuters," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 5(2), pages 103-119.
    4. Tullio Giuffrè & Salvatore Trubia & Antonino Canale & Bhagwant Persaud, 2017. "Using Microsimulation to Evaluate Safety and Operational Implications of Newer Roundabout Layouts for European Road Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Button, Kenneth, 2006. "The political economy of parking charges in "first" and "second-best" worlds," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 470-478, November.
    6. Su, Shiliang & Zhou, Hao & Xu, Mengya & Ru, Hu & Wang, Wen & Weng, Min, 2019. "Auditing street walkability and associated social inequalities for planning implications," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 62-76.
    7. Ivan Blečić & Tanja Congiu & Giovanna Fancello & Giuseppe Andrea Trunfio, 2020. "Planning and Design Support Tools for Walkability: A Guide for Urban Analysts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Kadir Diler Alemdar & Ahmet Tortum & Ömer Kaya & Ahmet Atalay, 2021. "Interdisciplinary Evaluation of Intersection Performances—A Microsimulation-Based MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Wang, Xiaoting & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2008. "Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-63, February.
    10. Irena Ištoka Otković & Aleksandra Deluka-Tibljaš & Sanja Šurdonja & Tiziana Campisi, 2021. "Development of Models for Children—Pedestrian Crossing Speed at Signalized Crosswalks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Gunnar Flötteröd & Yu Chen & Kai Nagel, 2012. "Behavioral Calibration and Analysis of a Large-Scale Travel Microsimulation," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 481-502, December.
    12. Vincent Kaufmann & Manfred Max Bergman & Dominique Joye, 2004. "Motility: mobility as capital," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 745-756, December.
    13. Harutyun Shahumyan & Brendan Williams & Laura Petrov & Walter Foley, 2014. "Regional Development Scenario Evaluation through Land Use Modelling and Opportunity Mapping," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-34, September.
    14. Florentino Morales & Walter Timo de Vries, 2021. "Establishment of Land Use Suitability Mapping Criteria Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with Practitioners and Beneficiaries," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, February.
    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. Ulfia Annette Lenfers & Nima Ahmady-Moghaddam & Daniel Glake & Florian Ocker & Jonathan Ströbele & Thomas Clemen, 2021. "Incorporating Multi-Modal Travel Planning into an Agent-Based Model: A Case Study at the Train Station Kellinghusenstraße in Hamburg," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Ying Liang & Wei Song & Xiaofeng Dong, 2021. "Evaluating the Space Use of Large Railway Hub Station Areas in Beijing toward Integrated Station-City Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.

    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. Li, Weigang & Liu, Jian, 2023. "Analysis of the evolution of pedestrian crossing based on dynamic penalty mechanism," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 623(C).
    2. Irena Ištoka Otković & Aleksandra Deluka-Tibljaš & Sanja Šurdonja & Tiziana Campisi, 2021. "Development of Models for Children—Pedestrian Crossing Speed at Signalized Crosswalks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Alessandro Severino & Giuseppina Pappalardo & Salvatore Curto & Salvatore Trubia & Isaac Oyeyemi Olayode, 2021. "Safety Evaluation of Flower Roundabout Considering Autonomous Vehicles Operation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.
    4. Zobena, Aija & Lace, I. & Benga, Elita, 2012. "Service provision and social cohesion in rural areas: interaction between commuting, mobility and the residential preferences in Latvia," 126th Seminar, June 27-29, 2012, Capri, Italy 126119, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.
    6. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    7. Judith Schröder & Susanne Moebus & Julita Skodra, 2022. "Selected Research Issues of Urban Public Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-28, May.
    8. Lupo, Toni, 2015. "Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 249-259.
    9. Michailidou, Alexandra V. & Vlachokostas, Christos & Moussiopoulos, Νicolas, 2016. "Interactions between climate change and the tourism sector: Multiple-criteria decision analysis to assess mitigation and adaptation options in tourism areas," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Mahmut Baydaş & Orhan Emre Elma & Željko Stević, 2024. "Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, December.
    11. Javier Velázquez & Javier Infante & Inmaculada Gómez & Ana Hernando & Derya Gülçin & Fernando Herráez & Víctor Rincón & Rui Alexandre Castanho, 2023. "Walkability under Climate Pressure: Application to Three UNESCO World Heritage Cities in Central Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, April.
    12. Gabriella Vitorino Guimarães & Tálita Floriano Santos & Vicente Aprigliano Fernandes & Jorge Eliécer Córdoba Maquilón & Marcelino Aurélio Vieira da Silva, 2020. "Assessment for the Social Sustainability and Equity under the Perspective of Accessibility to Jobs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Hackl, Andreas, 2018. "Mobility equity in a globalized world: Reducing inequalities in the sustainable development agenda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 150-162.
    14. Kadi Padur & Anna-Helena Purre, 2022. "Optimizing post-mining land-use decision making in cooperation with stakeholders," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 4875-4900, April.
    15. Junxi Qian, 2015. "No right to the street: Motorcycle taxis, discourse production and the regulation of unruly mobility," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(15), pages 2922-2947, November.
    16. Mohammad Hamed Abdi & Ali Soltani, 2022. "Which Fabric/Scale Is Better for Transit-Oriented Urban Design: Case Studies in a Developing Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    17. Katrien Ramaekers & Sofie Reumers & Geert Wets & Mario Cools, 2013. "Modelling Route Choice Decisions of Car Travellers Using Combined GPS and Diary Data," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 351-372, September.
    18. Tian Gao & Rui Song & Ling Zhu & Ling Qiu, 2019. "What Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces and Recreational Activities Do Self-Reported Stressed Individuals Like? A Case Study of Baoji, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Ayona Datta, 2014. "Gendered Nature and Urban Culture: The Dialectics of Gated Developments in Izmir, Turkey," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 1363-1383, July.
    20. Roy, B. & Figueira, J.R. & Almeida-Dias, J., 2014. "Discriminating thresholds as a tool to cope with imperfect knowledge in multiple criteria decision aiding: Theoretical results and practical issues," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 9-20.

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:7:p:666-:d:581238. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.