Selection Criteria and Assessment of The Impact of Traffic Accessibility On The Development of Suburbs

sustainability
Article
Selection Criteria and Assessment of the Impact
of Traffic Accessibility on the Development
of Suburbs
Milan Stanković 1, * ID
, Pavle Gladović 2 , Vladimir Popović 1 ID
and Vesko Lukovac 3
1 College of Applied Technical Sciences, Aleksandra Medvedeva 20, 18000 Niš, Serbia;
[email protected]
2 Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; [email protected]
3 Department of logistics, Military Academy, University of Defense in Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +381-63-440-494

Received: 9 April 2018; Accepted: 7 June 2018; Published: 12 June 2018
Abstract: When defining criteria that have an influence on traffic accessibility in suburbs, it is
necessary to take into account the specificity of a concrete urban unit. In existing scientific papers,
the authors have dealt with the impact of the remoteness of settlements and their accessibility from
the city center. The main aims of this paper are to define and quantify the criteria that have the
greatest influence on traffic accessibility in suburban areas, that is, to develop a model of traffic
accessibility. This model refers to traffic accessibility in suburban areas, where an urban public
transport system is operational and represents a qualitative approach to research. Research has
shown that factors such as a network of public transport (PT) lines, a network of accessible roads in
a settlement, travel time, and timetables are of great importance in the description and generation
of a new model. This model was tested in 23 suburban districts with regard to the needed walking
time. The Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) method, one of the most popular methods for multi-criteria decision
making, was used. Based on the results presented in this paper, it is expected that the application of
this model will enable development and sustainability in suburban areas, as well as greater social
equality and involvement of dwellers (especially the younger generation) in social activities, in view
of achieving a better quality of life.
Keywords: traffic accessibility; sustainability of suburbs; public transport; multi-criteria decision;

case study; assessment of the impact of accessibility
1. Introduction
Traffic accessibility as a function of public transport strengthens the economy, deals with the
conservation of energy and resources, reduces congestion, improves the quality of air and our health,
provides critical assistance in emergency situations and catastrophes, increases the development and
value of real estate, increases mobility in small urban and rural communities, and reduces health costs.
All of this contributes to a better quality of life.
This paper aims to develop a model for the assessment of the impact criteria of traffic accessibility,
which could (to a smaller or a greater extent, if previously stated facts are taken into account) influence
the development of suburban areas. The city of Niš in Serbia was taken as an example. Relevant criteria
for traffic accessibility were described and measured (taking into account social equality). These criteria
influence the reduction of the usage of passenger vehicles in suburban areas and create a more favorable
environment for urban public transport in view of improving efficiency of the transport system and its
sustainable development. As instruments of transport policy, measures that can be taken to manage
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1977; doi:10.3390/su10061977 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1977 2 of 23
the transportation needs of users (passengers) do not ask for great material investment, making them
even more attractive. In accordance with this, the following hypotheses were tested:
- Is it possible to define criteria for traffic accessibility as generators of the development and
sustainability of suburban areas, as well as demographic development within them?
- By selecting the key criteria, is it possible to assess the influence of traffic accessibility on the
development of suburban areas?
Similarly, the issue was raised as to whether the improvement of traffic accessibility will lead to
an increase in population mobility from suburban areas or whether better and higher-quality public
transport will influence the decrease of population migration in suburban areas.
There are authors whose research is based on the sustainability and accessibility of settlements,
but only in the sense of planning, real estate value, distance and accessibility from the town center
and its contents. Temporal and spatial components of settlement accessibility are taken into account,
but there is no data on traffic accessibility through infrastructure in the settlement, level of household
motorization, comfort in a vehicle, and tariff systems or the cost of transport. This paper represents
a qualitative approach and not an analytical one. Experts were consulted to measure the different
criteria. This approach is in essence based upon opinion and not mathematical or scientific accuracy.
Therefore, the starting point in this paper is the fact that it is possible, based on current experience,
to gain an insight into the potentials of a new approach to observing traffic accessibility, especially in
suburban areas where the urban public transport system is operative.
This paper has been organized into several sections. Section 2 describes the demography in
suburban areas, defines traffic accessibility, and establishes the groups of criteria that describe traffic
accessibility. Section 3 presents in two parts the research methodology that was used in this paper.
The first part discusses the mathematical procedure used to select the important criteria to evaluate
traffic accessibility. In the second part, fuzzy rules for the assessment of the impact of traffic accessibility
are provided, on the basis of previously-set criteria. Section 4 shows the results of the conducted
research, that is, the testing of the model by observing the city of Niš. The last two chapters contain the
discussion and conclusion.
Literature Review
Traditional public transport implies the movement of vehicles on a fixed route, with fixed stops
and according to a predefined time schedule of departures. Therefore, the main disadvantage of this
mode of transport is the incompatibility with passenger requirements. This practically means that
rural residents who do not have another transport alternative are forced to adapt their transportation
needs to the defined way of public transport functioning. Many residents are thus forced to give up
certain travel wishes, and this often implies the abandonment of searching for jobs outside the place of
residence, the abandonment of education, healthcare, cultural and sporting events, and the like [1,2].
Only 32% of all rural municipalities have access to public transport services; thus, if the 28% of
communities that have limited access to public transport are taken into account, it becomes clear that
the remaining 40% of the population in suburban areas is left without the option of public transport [3].
A recent survey determined that 92% of Canadians thinks that public transport makes their community
a better place to live in [4].
According to Donnges (1999), accessibility is based on three elements [5]:
1. Household location;
2. Location of content and services;
3. A transport system that connects the first two elements.
However, the listed elements are physical and regulatory elements of accessibility, and the
characteristics of households and individuals are omitted. For example, low-income households may
not be able to access specific content because transport services are expensive [2,6–8].
By the beginning of this century, rural transport policy measures focused on ensuring mobility.
This meant that a passenger car should offer an appropriate alternative, so that the principle of
sustainability is respected. Such solutions are usually expensive and state subsidies are needed.
However, in Norway, instead of a passenger car, an alternative to travel was offered [9]. This idea
changed the approach to addressing accessibility issues—instead of bringing rural people closer to the
content, the content approaches them. This method has experienced rapid expansion, and Great Britain
was one of the first countries to accept it [10].
In the paper by Ambarwati et al. (2014), the aim was the analysis of strategy improvement for
public transport systems. The research was conducted and analyzed using microscopic data in order
to assess the impact of settlement development in suburban areas by improving public transport [11].
This paper speaks about different combinations of public transport systems that could take into account
a decrease in travel time of 35%, which would lead to an increase in the use of public transport.
The international project MORECO (mobility and residence costs) explains the conjuncture
between future places of living and accessibility. Special emphasis is put on the consequences that the
uncontrollable spread of settlements cause to public transport services. The main goal of the project
was to promote sustainable mobility through the development of a polycentric system of settlements.
The main operative goal of the project was to promote the implementation of decisions made by
private and public actors on locations that are close to public transport stops [12]. Many economic,
social and ecological problems worldwide are, after all, urban problems; cities are located where the
people are. The expression “quality of life” is usually used not only in the area of environment and
land use, but also in planning economic development and infrastructure [13].
Litman (2017) writes about the concept of accessibility and the ways it can be incorporated into
transport planning. Many factors can have an impact on accessibility, including moveability (physical
motion), quality of transport, connectedness of traffic systems, mobility, and land use [14].
Simeunović (2012) carried out a systematic analysis of the integration of a transport offer within the
public transport system and quantified its influence on accessibility. The quantification of the influence
of transport offer integration on accessibility was carried out including space as a limiting factor, as well
as other factors such as time, cost and general impact on travel realization [15]. The analyses confirmed
that the integration of a transport offer had a significant influence on accessibility in linear-type
networks for suburban corridors.
A huge contribution was made in the dissertation by Ranković-Plazinić (2015), which defines
a methodology for the classification of urban and rural settlements, and types of rural settlements
in relation to traffic accessibility. The specificity of rural population transport requirements was
determined, as well as the factors that influence the mobility and selection of the forms of transport [16].
A survey was conducted among households in selected rural settlements in four municipalities
in Serbia.
As a result of the review of the existing scientific literature, it can be concluded that accelerated
development and industrialization in the past decades has led to the depopulation of suburban (rural)
areas and, consequently, their marginalization in relation to modern socio-economic relations. This has
had a negative impact on the quality of life of rural residents, which significantly depends on the
quality of the public transport system and its performance, in order to provide a satisfactory level of
accessibility and opportunities. This practically means that rural residents who do not have a transport
alternative have to adapt their transportation needs to the defined way in which public transport
functions. As a result, many residents are forced to give up on certain travel wishes, and this often
implies the abandonment of searching for jobs outside the place of residence, education, health care,
cultural and sporting events, and the like [1,2].
2. Base of Research
This section elaborates the demography of suburban areas in the general sense, defines the term
traffic accessibility and sets the influential criteria that characterize accessibility in settlements.
2.1. Demography in Suburban Settlements

Settlements are the permanent or temporary place of residence of people, in which new production
and other activities related to their social and private lives are visible. They are divided into urban
(urban) and suburban (rural).
A rural community with a relatively high population may look drastically different from a rural
community of a similar size with a smaller population [17]. One definition cited by the Economic
Research Service (USDA) in the USA describes rural areas as non-metropolitan regions. According to
this definition, almost two-thirds of the total of 3142 regions are rural, and rural communities account
for 17% of the population (49 million people) [18].
On a global scale, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas, and 47% of the world’s
population lived in urban areas in 2014. In 1950, 30% of the world’s population lived in urban areas,
and by 2050, 66% of the population is expected to be urban [19]. It is expected that the world’s urban
population will increase significantly in the coming decades. By the middle of the 21st century, the
world’s urban population is likely to be the size of the current total population [20].
2.2. Accessibility
Accessibility as a term should be regarded as the extent to which potential passengers, who have
certain transportation needs, have access to the city area.
Accessibility is a broad term that refers to the ease of reaching contents in the settlement. It can be
defined in several different ways:
“Accessibility is an ability or easiness of reaching different destinations or places that offer the
possibility for a desired activity” [21];
“Accessibility describes the location of the area in relation to possibilities, activities or means that
exist in other areas or in the very area, where “area” stands for a region, a city or a corridor” [22];
“Accessibility implies that people can reach certain content at a reasonable cost, for a reasonable
time and with reasonable easiness” [2];
“Accessibility stands for a range of possibilities and choices that people have concerning working
places, services, friends and family” [23];
“Accessibility refers to the easiness of reaching goods, services, activities and destinations,
which are altogether called possibilities” [24].
The SEU [2] report determines that accessibility depends upon:
- Existence of transport services connecting people and content;

- Informing people about transport services;
- Physical and financial limitations of access to transportation services
- Remoteness of content and activities
Accessibility can be:
- Spatial—referring to the spatial arrangement of contents in relation to users who set the
requirements for their use;
- Temporal—referring to the time when a certain service is offered during the day, week or a longer
period of time in relation to the available time of users for this service.
The spatial measurement of accessibility in Australia is represented by the ARIA index

(Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia). A method to calculate the ARIA index is based
on the measurement of the shortest distance (measured at traffic arteries) from a settlement and five
categories of content centers that people travel to in order to have access to goods or services [25].
The measurement of traffic accessibility in certain areas of South Africa observes the ease of access
to the following content: closest ambulance, hospital, primary school, secondary school, grocery store,
public transport stop, post office, and center for social welfare [26]. It is not specifically defined in
relation to which form of transport accessibility is observed, but is measured by time needed for travel
by the “usual” form of transport. Authors [27] have suggested that the index of accessibility of a certain
content for poor households in India is calculated on the basis of time spent on travel, then the form of
transport, and finally the quality of transport service.
Accessibility and other criteria/factors can be measured exactly. One study explains how transport
connectivity is measured in London [28]. Here the authors describe the different tools used for
connectivity assessment and the techniques they are based on. They present three main types of
connectivity assessment, which can be undertaken either for London today or for future scenarios,
once the city’s population and transport networks have changed. Accessibility is the most difficult to
measure, because it requires taking into account land use, mobility and mobility substitutes, but most
accurately reflects the ultimate goal of transportation, and allows the widest range of transport
problems and solutions to be considered. For example, an accessibility perspective may identify
low-cost solutions to transportation problems, such as improving local walkability; encouraging a land
use mix such that common destinations such as stores, schools and parks are located near residential
areas; and improving communication services for isolated people and communities [29].
2.3. Set of Criteria of Traffic Accessibility

The first phase involves the identification and classification of criteria. In this phase, it is
recommendable to use information on the functioning of the analyzed systems. It was also necessary
to classify criteria according to their type, sub-system they belong to, and the level of decision-making.
A certain number of set elements of the preliminary criteria were identified on the basis of physical,
functional and other characteristics of the system, which was the subject of the study. The second part
of the preliminary criteria was defined on the basis of scientific and practical research and the analysis
of literature on the subject. The third part of the set of preliminary criteria was identified on the basis
of earlier experience with similar projects worldwide. Combining these three approaches, the number
of set elements of the preliminary criteria for the assessment of the impact of traffic accessibility
was obtained.
On the basis of the experience and recommendations mentioned above, as well as the opinion of
relevant experts, it is suggested that the assessment of traffic accessibility be made based on 13 factors
(sub-criteria) categorized into four groups (Table 1).
Table 1. Impact criteria of traffic accessibility on suburb development.
Criteria Sub-Criteria
Network of PT lines
Remoteness of the railway
Transport
Characteristics of the settlement
Possession of a car in the household
Built infrastructure
Space Network of access roads
Remoteness from the most significant contents
Comfort in a vehicle
Quality of service Travel time
Transfer points
Timetable
System quality Transport costs
Tariff system
Network of public transport lines: Public transport in rural areas is characterized by long
distances, long travel times, a relatively small number of departures, the non-directness of lines,
and low profitability. Forms of public transport that function in rural areas worldwide [30–33] can be
classified into two groups:
1. Traditional public transport—referring mainly to buses (in some cases to the railway if accessible),
characterized by a fixed mode of operation
2. Non-traditional public transport—referring to other forms of public transport, which can be
further categorized as:
- Demand-responsive transport (DRT)

- Transport services that integrate the transport of goods and passengers
- Transport services that encompass several purposes
Remoteness of the railway: Although the rail system has a great advantage in the daily
functioning of people and goods, the general use of its capacity is not sufficient and varies depending
on the region in the country.
Characteristics of the settlement: In hilly and mountainous areas, households are usually
spatially separated from one another, i.e., they belong to a broken type of settlement, and in
such cases, it is difficult to provide adequate infrastructure and traffic connections to urban areas.
Suburban settlements adjacent to cities are sure to have better access to amenities, necessary resources,
better infrastructure, and offer faster integration into contemporary socio-economic flows.
Possession of a car in the household: According to Plazinic-Rankovic (2015), the availability of
cars for rural inhabitants can be considered a measure of the comfort in planning a trip, given the
number and quality of other transport alternatives. The possession of a means of transport by
a household does not necessarily mean that it is available to all members or drivers in the household.
If there are no other transport options, other members of the household will have less accessibility to
content outside the local environment [16].
Built infrastructure: Infrastructure in suburban areas is often poorer than in urban ones. It is
often old, damaged, or prone to damage. The density of the traffic network is smaller, and the quality
of the roads is subject to change. In addition, internet connection coverage, as well as mobile and fixed
networks, also vary from one suburb to another.
Network of access roads: Access roads in suburbs that connect a place of living (source) with
a travel destination are envisioned as a branched network of traffic arteries, which could connect
a settlement with different centers, thus fulfilling travel purposes. A network of road traffic arteries
can be divided into suburban roads, town roads, and streets. Undoubtedly, the existence of a greater
(smaller) number of entries, that is, exits from the settlement, can increase (decrease) its accessibility in
terms of alternative ways of reaching it, thus affecting the mobility of residents.
Remoteness from the most significant contents: The distance from individual content, in spatial
or temporal form, can be a determinant of rurality in terms of accessibility. In general, in England,
a fixed value of 15 min to 20 min of travel is on foot [34]. This value is used for general content
accessibility, but others are used for individual content.
Comfort in a vehicle: The quality of service is based on the behavioral approach, i.e., the subjective
experience of certain parameters and the entire transport service, which results in the objectively realized
use of public transport, which is, as a rule, different from the expected use. Comfort in a vehicle means
no crowds, cleanliness, temperature, vehicle illumination, number of seats, easy movement through the
vehicle, etc.
Travel time: Travel time consists of the time needed to walk from one’s residence to the public
transport stop, time spent waiting, time spent on travel in a vehicle, transient time (if any), and the time
taken to walk from the stop to the final destination. The time taken to walk to catch public transport in
suburban areas is tolerated, depending on the remoteness of the settlement from the city, size of the
settlement, development of the street network, and the scope of transport needs.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

Transfer points: This is one of the most important elements of public transport. A network consists of
aoftransfer pointofand
a network PTalines
line, and
andrepresents
timetablesthe
(onessence of the
the basis oforganization.
transfer points)It is composed of a network
for functional of PT
and efficient
lines and timetables (on the basis of transfer points) for functional and efficient transportation.
transportation.
Timetable: Timetables prescribe the mode of operation of vehicles on a prescribed line during
the day. Its primary goal is to satisfy the authoritative transport transport needs
needs of of passengers
passengers during
during thethe day,
day,
envisaging
envisaging an an acceptable
acceptablewaiting
waitingtime.
time.Since
Sincetimetables
timetablesdefine
definethe
thetime
time ofof
departure,
departure,that is the
that time
is the of
time
arrival of aof
of arrival vehicle and the
a vehicle andfollow-up interval
the follow-up between
interval individual
between vehicles,vehicles,
individual the control
theofcontrol
a timetable
of a
should
timetablebe should
based on bechecks
based on of punctuality and the even
checks of punctuality anddistribution of intervals.
the even distribution of intervals.
Transport costs: ItIt can
Transport costs: can bebesaid
saidthat
thatthe
thecost
costofoftransportation
transportation is is primarily
primarily a social
a social category.
category. It
It cannot cover the costs of the public transport system, and especially the development
cannot cover the costs of the public transport system, and especially the development of this system, of this system,
as well as competitive and high-quality public transport. transport.
Tariff system:Every
Tariff system: Everycity with
city an organized
with an organizedpublic transport
public systemsystem
transport faces the problem
faces of choosing
the problem of
an optimal tariff system for its network. The complexity of the task is reflected
choosing an optimal tariff system for its network. The complexity of the task is reflected in in requirements that
take into consideration
requirements that take theintointerests of passengers
consideration and transport
the interests organizers.
of passengers The applied
and transport tariff system
organizers. The
should
appliedalso consider
tariff system the
shouldinterest
alsoof the whole
consider the community.
interest of the whole community.
3. Methodology
3. Methodology
The methodology in
The methodology in this
this report
report consists
consistsofofseveral
severalparts.
parts.For For all levels
all levels of assessment,
of assessment, the
the methodology must be harmonized in the following respects: general approach
methodology must be harmonized in the following respects: general approach to method selection, to method selection,
assessment, selection of
assessment, selection of relevant
relevant criteria and method
criteria and method of of measurement,
measurement, which
which needs
needs toto be
be consistent
consistent
for each suburban area. Therefore, as a first step, criteria are defined and grouped
for each suburban area. Therefore, as a first step, criteria are defined and grouped accordingly. accordingly.
Subsequently,
Subsequently, depending
depending on on the
the aim
aim of
of the
the research,
research, aa method
method of of multi-criteria
multi-criteria decision-making
decision-making waswas
selected.
selected. The next step involved the formation of a group of experts who assessed and defined the
The next step involved the formation of a group of experts who assessed and defined the
traffic
traffic accessibility
accessibility criteria. Finally, according
criteria. Finally, according to to model
model rules,
rules, the
the impact
impact ofof the
the criteria
criteria on
on traffic
traffic
accessibility
accessibility was
was evaluated
evaluated forfor suburbs
suburbs (Figure
(Figure 1).
1).
Assessment
Defining of
Defining Selection Assessment of Impact of
Impact
Criteria Method of Experts Traffic
Criteria
Accessibility
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Scheme
Scheme of
of the
the methodology
methodology applied
applied in
in the research.
the research.
The selection criteria for traffic accessibility that have an impact on the development of suburbs
The selection criteria for traffic accessibility that have an impact on the development of
is a complicated process. It requires a detailed and permanent analysis of all relevant factors, which
suburbs is a complicated process. It requires a detailed and permanent analysis of all relevant
can have a smaller or greater impact. In order to identify the right criteria and sub-criteria that affect
factors, which can have a smaller or greater impact. In order to identify the right criteria and
traffic accessibility, it is necessary to possess real knowledge of transportation systems, city
sub-criteria that affect traffic accessibility, it is necessary to possess real knowledge of transportation
infrastructure, demographic conditions, geographical surroundings, and fields related to
systems, city infrastructure, demographic conditions, geographical surroundings, and fields related to
decision-making and management.
decision-making and management.
In selecting the best assessment or decision-making method for criteria selection, research and
In selecting the best assessment or decision-making method for criteria selection, research and the
the scientific literature in this field show that the problem could be solved by applying the
scientific literature in this field show that the problem could be solved by applying the multi-criteria
multi-criteria decision-making method. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi-criteria
decision-making method. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi-criteria method that supports
method that supports decision making with conflict criteria and alternatives. It has been thoroughly
decision making with conflict criteria and alternatives. It has been thoroughly studied and improved
studied and improved through various scientific papers at prestigious universities worldwide [35–
through various scientific papers at prestigious universities worldwide [35–37]. The AHP method has
37]. The AHP method has great significance for problem structuring and the decision-making
great significance for problem structuring and the decision-making process. Comparison was later
process. Comparison was later carried out by pairs of elements in the hierarchy (aims, criteria and
carried out by pairs of elements in the hierarchy (aims, criteria and alternatives). These assessments
alternatives). These assessments can be made as comparisons between two elements at a set level of
the hierarchy, taking into account their influence at a higher level. The comparison of the elements in
pairs reveals the relevance of a specific element in comparison to another to meet the level of the
aims and the criteria [38].
can be made as comparisons between two elements at a set level of the hierarchy, taking into account
their influence at a higher level. The comparison of the elements in pairs reveals the relevance of
a specific element in comparison to another to meet the level of the aims and the criteria [38].
This paper applies the extended method for making decisions—the fuzzy analytical hierarchical
process (FAHP).
Let X = {x_1, x_2, . . . , x_n} be a set of objects, and U = {u_1, u_2, . . . , u_m} set of goals. According
to the methodology of the expanded analysis by Chang (1996), for each taken object, an expanded
analysis of the goal uj was carried out. The values of the extended analysis m for each object can be
presented as follows [39]:
m
M1gi , M2gi , Mgi , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, (1)
j
where is Mg , j = 1, 2, . . . , m, fuzzy triangular numbers.
Chang’s extended analysis contains the following steps:
Step 1: Values of fuzzy extensions for i-th object are:
" # −1
n n m
∑ ∑∑
j j
Si = Mgi × Mgi , (2)
j =1 i =1 j =1
j −1
h i
In order to obtain the expression ∑in=1 ∑m
j=1 M gi , it is necessary to carry out additional fuzzy
operations with m values of extended analysis, given in the following expressions:
!
m m m m
∑ ∑ lj , ∑ mj , ∑ uj
j
Mgi = ; (3)
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
and !
n m n n n
∑∑ ∑ li , ∑ m i , ∑ u i
j
Mgi = . (4)
i =1 j =1 i =1 i =1 i =1
Inverse vector: " # −1

n m
1 1 1
∑∑
j
Mgi = , , . (5)
i =1 j =1 ∑in=1 li ∑in=1 mi ∑in=1 ui
Step 2: Level of probability S2 > S1 is defined as:

 

 1, i f m2 ≥ m1 
V ( S2 ≥ S1 ) = 0, i f l1 ≥ u 2 (6)
l1 − u 2
, other 

 
(m2 −u2 )−(m1 −l )
1
For comparison of S1 and S2 , both values are required V (S1 ≥ S2 ) и V(S2 ≥ S1 ).

Step 3: The level of probability that states that the convex fuzzy number is greater than k convex
number Si (i = 1, 2, . . . , k) can be defined by the expression:
V (Si ≥ S1 , S2 , . . . , Sk ) = minV (Si ≥ Sk ), i = 1, 2, . . . k (7)
The weight vector is shown by the following expression:

T
W 0 = d 0 ( A1 ), d 0 ( A2 ), . . . , d 0 ( A n ) , (8)
where:
d0 ( Ai ) = minV (Si ≥ Sk ), k 6= i, k = 1, 2, . . . , n; (9)
and Ai (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) n of the element.

Step 4: Through normalization, the weight vector is:
W = (d( A1 ), d( A2 ), . . . , d( An )) T , (10)
where W does not represent a fuzzy number.

Through the application of the fuzzy AHP method, the main disadvantage of the classical AHP
method is alleviated, and this is indicated by an insufficiently large scale of comparisons. To this end,
a different scale has been developed, based on fuzzy triangular numbers, where the decision-maker
has the ability to evaluate the significance of the criteria much more closely and with ease. In Table 2,
linguistic variables are converted into triangular fuzzy numbers:
end, a different scale has been developed, based on fuzzy triangular numbers, where the
decision-maker has the abilityTable 2. Linguistic
to evaluate scale of significance
the significance [40].
of the criteria much more closely and with
ease. In Table 2, linguistic variables are converted into triangular fuzzy numbers:
Linguistic Scale TFNs Reciprocal TFNs
Table 2. Linguistic scale of significance [40].
Equally important (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
Weakly more
Linguistic important
Scale (1/2,
TFNs 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1,TFNs
Reciprocal 2)
Strong more
Equally important
important (3/2,
(1, 1,2,1)5/2) (2/5,
(1, 1/2,
1, 1) 2/3)
Very strong
Weakly moremore important
important (5/2,1,3,3/2)
(1/2, 7/2) (2/7,
(2/3,1/3,
1, 2)2/5)
Absolutely
Strong more more important
important (7/2,2,4,5/2)
(3/2, 9/2) (2/9, 1/4,2/3)
(2/5, 1/2, 2/7)
Very strong more important (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
Absolutely more important (7/2, 4, 9/2) (2/9, 1/4, 2/7)
When defining the set of criteria and sub-criteria for assessment of the impact of traffic accessibility
on the development of suburbs, an expert economics team from the fields of transport systems and
When defining the set of criteria and sub-criteria for assessment of the impact of traffic
public accessibility
transport was consulted.
on the development of suburbs, an expert economics team from the fields of transport
Detailed
systems calculations for thewas
and public transport selection of the relevant criteria of the model to assess the impact of
consulted.
Detailed calculations
traffic accessibility as well as for
thethe selection
final valuesof of
theother
relevant criteriaofofcriteria
groups the model
aretoprovided
assess the impact of
in Appendix A.
traffic accessibility as well as the final values of other groups of criteria are provided in Appendix A.
Quantification of the Criteria of Traffic Accessibility
Quantification of the Criteria of Traffic Accessibility
Previously selected criteria (network of PT lines, network of access roads, travel time and
Previously selected criteria (network of PT lines, network of access roads, travel time and
timetable) were used
timetable) in theindevelopment
were used the developmentof of
thethe
model
modeltotoassess
assess traffic accessibility.Since
traffic accessibility. Since journey time
journey
is a complex
time isterm, for further
a complex analysis
term, for furtheritanalysis
will beitdivided
will be into twointo
divided parts:
two walking time and
parts: walking timedriving
and time.
The fuzzy output
driving time.variable
The fuzzyevaluates traffic
output variable accessibility
evaluates in suburban
traffic accessibility areas (Figure
in suburban 2).
areas (Figure 2).
FigureFigure
2. The2. appearance
The appearance of the structure of the model to assess the impact of traffic accessibility.
of the structure of the model to assess the impact of traffic accessibility.
The model proposed in this paper was developed in a way that has not been used in the
literature so far. It contains parameters (for the quality of service and public transport system for the
observed area) from a transportation and spatial group of criteria. Parameters referring directly to
The model proposed in this paper was developed in a way that has not been used in the literature
so far. It contains parameters (for the quality of service and public transport system for the observed
area) from a transportation and spatial group of criteria. Parameters referring directly to humans
(settlement dwellers)
Sustainability 2018, 10,have beenREVIEW
x FOR PEER included as well, from an economic and social point of10view. of 23
Fuzzy output variable A, as well as the fuzzy input variables B, C, D, E, and F are taken into
humans (settlement
consideration. Fuzzy output dwellers) have A
variable been includedthe
estimates as assessment
well, from anof economic and of
the impact social point
traffic of
accessibility
view.
in suburban settlements. It is assumed that the traffic accessibility assessment can be “Insufficient”,
Fuzzy output variable A, as well as the fuzzy input variables B, C, D, E, and F are taken into
“Good”consideration.
or “Excellent”, Fuzzy and the quantification
output of the
variable A estimates theestimation
assessmentis offrom 0 to 10
the impact (Figure
of traffic 3). The
accessibilityfunctions
of affiliation
inhumans are(settlement
suburban defined
settlements.as follows:
It is assumed that the traffic accessibility assessment can be “Insufficient”,
dwellers) have been included as well, from an economic and social point of
“Good”
view. or “Excellent”, and the quantification of the estimation is from 0 to 10 (Figure 3). The
functions of affiliation are defined as follows: 0, x≤4
Fuzzy output variable A, as well as the fuzzy input variables B, C, D, E,
 and F are taken into



x −4
1,
consideration.


 x ≤ 4 
Fuzzy output variable A estimates

 , 4 ≤ x ≤ 4.5
 0.5 0, the assessment
4 of the impact

 x≤7
of0,traffic accessibility
in =
µ ATAI 1,
4.5− x settlements.
0.5 , 4 ≤ x ≤ 4.5
suburban It4is ,assumed 1,−traffic
µ ATAG =that the 4 4.5 accessibility
, µ ATAE = 0,can
4≤ x ≤ 74.5 , assessment , 7 ≤ x 7≤ 7.5
x −7 be “Insufficient”, (11)
 4.5 −  0.5 − 0.5
7
= 0.5 1,, 7 x ≥7.5
“Good”
 or “Excellent”, and the quantification of the estimation is from 0 to 10 (Figure 3). The
= 0, 0.5 , x ≥44.5 4.5 ,
  7.5 − x
 0.51, , 7 ≤4.5x ≤ 7.5 7 ,

7.5
= (11)
 
functions of 0,
affiliation are defined as follows:
 7.5 −

≥ 4.5 1, ≥ 7.5
0, , x 7≥ 7.5 7.5

0.50, 4
1, 4 0,− 4 ≥ 7.5 0, 7
, 4 4.5 −7
4.5 − 0.5
= , 4 4.5 , = 1, 4.5 7 , = , 7 7.5
0.5 0.5 (11)
0, ≥ 4.5 7.5 − 1, ≥ 7.5
, 7 7.5
0.5
0, ≥ 7.5
Figure 3. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set A.

Figure 3. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set A.
Fuzzy input variable B represents a network of public transport lines in settlements. In this case,
it is assumed that the PT line network can be “Simple” (if it exists or passes through a settlement of
Fuzzy input variable B represents a network of public transport lines in settlements. In this case, it is
less than two lines) or “Complex”
Figure
(ifThe
there are (or passes through a settlement of) two or more lines)
assumed that the PT line network
(Figure 4):
can3.be functions of
“Simple” (ifaffiliation
it existsoforfuzzy set A.through a settlement of less than
passes
two lines) or “Complex” (if there are (or passes through a settlement of) two or more lines) (Figure 4):
1,
Fuzzy input variable B represents a1 0, in settlements.
network of public transport lines 1 In this case,
it is assumed that
 the PT 2 − network
= line , 1 can 2be, “Simple” (if it exists −1, 1through2a settlement
= or passes (12)of
0,x ≤ (if ≥ 2 are (or passes through a settlement
1,
less than two lines)
 or 1, “Complex” 1 there  0, of)≥two
2 xor≤more
1 lines)

 
(Figure
µ 4): = 2 − x, 1 ≤ x ≤ 2 , µ = x − 1, 1 ≤ x ≤ 2 (12)
BNPTS BNPTC
1, 1 0, 1

 

 0, x≥2  1, x≥2
= 2− , 1 2 , = − 1, 1 2 (12)
0, ≥2 1, ≥2
Figure 4. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set B.
The fuzzy input variable C describes a network of access roads. It is assumed that the network
of access roads can be “Less Good” (if there is a maximum of two access roads in the settlement
from different directions that according to the technical exploitation characteristics correspond to
the movement of public transport vehicles) or “Good” (if there are more than two access roads in
the settlement from different directions that according to the technical exploitation characteristics
correspond to the
Sustainability movement
2018, ofREVIEW
10, x FOR PEER public transport vehicles) (Figure 5): 11 of 23
the movement of public transport vehicles) or “Good” (if there are more than two access roads in
 

the settlement from
1,
 different
 x≤2  0,
directions that according to the technical
x≤2
exploitation characteristics

µCN ALGto =
correspond 3 − x, 2of≤public
the movement 3 ,
x ≤ transport vehicles) (Figure 5): = x − 2, 2 ≤ x ≤ 3
µCN AG (13)
Sustainability 2018, 10,
x FOR PEER REVIEW
  11 of 23
1, x ≥ 32 0,  21,

 0, x≥3
= 3− , 2 3 , = − 2, 2 3 (13)
the movement of public transport
0, vehicles)
≥ 3 or “Good” (if there 1,
are more ≥than
3 two access roads in
the settlement from different directions that according to the technical exploitation characteristics
correspond to the movement of public transport vehicles) (Figure 5):
1, 2 0, 2
= 3− , 2 3 , = − 2, 2 3 (13)
0, ≥3 1, ≥3
Figure 5. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set C.

Figure 5. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set C.
The fuzzy input variable D describes the time taken to walk from the place of residence to the
stop in theinput
The fuzzy observed settlement
variable and vice the
D describes versa.time Thetaken
time, that
to walk is, the walking
from distance,
the place of does not to the
residence
have to be measured on roads and built surfaces, because it is often the case that in suburban
stop in the observed settlementFigure and vice 5. Theversa. The
functions time, that
of affiliation is, the
of fuzzy setwalking
C. distance, does not have to
settlements there are shortcuts that cannot be classified into classical pedestrian paths. It is assumed
be measured
that theon roads and
walking time built
may surfaces, because“Satisfactory”
be “Acceptable”, it is often theorcase that in suburban
“Unacceptable” (Figuresettlements
6). The there
The fuzzy input variable D describes the time taken to walk from the place of residence to the
are shortcuts
functionsthat cannot be
of affiliation areclassified into classical pedestrian paths. It is assumed that the walking
defined as follows:
stop in the observed settlement and vice versa. The time, that is, the walking distance, does not
time may be “Acceptable”, “Satisfactory” or “Unacceptable”
have to be measured on roads and built surfaces, 0, 5
because
(Figure 6). The functions of affiliation are
it is often the case that in suburban
1, 5 −5 0, 10
definedsettlements
as follows: there
10 − ,
are shortcuts that cannot be5 classified 5 10 classical pedestrian
into − 10 paths. It is assumed
= , 5 10 , = , = , 10 15 (14)
that the walking5 time may be “Acceptable”, 15 − “Satisfactory” or “Unacceptable” 5 (Figure 6). The
0, ≥ 10 , 10 15 1, ≥ 15
50, x≤5
functions of affiliation
x ≤ 5 are defined as follows:
 
 
0, ≥ 15 x ≤ 10
 1,  0,
 
 
  x−
 5
, 5 ≤ x≤

10 − x 50, 5 10 x − 10
µ DWTA = 5 , 5 ≤1,x ≤ 10
, µ DWTS = 15−−x5
5
, µ DWTU0, = 5 , 1010 ≤ x ≤ 15
(14)
55 , , 105 ≤ x ≤ 1015
  
10 −≥ 10 − 10  1,
  
 0,
= x , 5 10 , =


150, , = , 10 15 x ≥ 15
(14)
5 − x ≥ 1515 5
0, ≥ 10 , 10 1, ≥ 15
5
0, ≥ 15
Figure 6. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set D.

The fuzzy input variable E describes the driving time of the vehicle from the entry point in
the settlement to the exit point at the destination of the journey with intermittent holdings
at the
interconnectors and vice versa. It is assumed that this driving time may be “Acceptable”, “Satisfactory”
The fuzzy
or “Unacceptable” input variable
(Figure 7). TheEfunctions
describes the
of driving timeare
affiliation of the vehicleasfrom
defined the entry point in the
follows:
settlement to the exit point at the destination of the journey with intermittent holdings at the

interconnectors and vice versa. It is  assumed that x ≤this
20 driving time may be “Acceptable”,
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  0, 12 of 23
  
 1,
“Satisfactory”
 ≤ 20
orx“Unacceptable” (Figure7).x−The
20 functions of affiliation are defined
 x ≤ 35
0, as follows:
≤ ≤
  
35− x

15 , 20 x 35 
x −35
µ EDTA = The ≤x≤
, 20input
15fuzzy variable EDTS = the
35 , Eµdescribes 0,
driving time20of the ,vehicle = the
µ EDTUfrom ≤x≤
, 35point
15 entry in 50
the (15)
 1, 20  50− x
−, 20 35 ≤ x ≤ 50 0,  35
settlement 15
0, to the 35 exit
x −≥ point at the destination of, the
20 journey
35 with intermittent
− 35 holdings at the
  
 35
, 20 35

= 0, 15
 
, 35
1, 50
x ≥ 50
= vice versa. It, is assumed x ≥this ,
50 driving =time

interconnectors 15
and 50 − that 15 may be “Acceptable”, (15)
0, ≥ 35 , 35 50 1, ≥ 50
“Satisfactory” or “Unacceptable” (Figure 7). The 15functions of affiliation are defined as follows:
0, ≥ 50
0, 20
1, 20 − 20 0, 35
35 − , 20 35 − 35
= , 20 35 , = 15 , = , 35 50
15 50 − 15 (15)
0, ≥ 35 , 35 50 1, ≥ 50
15
0, ≥ 50
Figure
Figure 7. The
7. The functions of
functions of affiliation
affiliation ofof
fuzzy set E.
fuzzy set E.
The fuzzy input variable F describes the timetable and is an important parameter to assess traffic
The fuzzy input
accessibility. It isvariable
assumed Fthatdescribes the timetable
the timetable, depending and on theis an important
number parameter
of departures to assess
that the
settlement hasItduring
traffic accessibility. a working
is assumed thatday,
Figure Themay
7. the be “Inappropriate”,
timetable,
functions depending
of affiliation “Average”
onset
of fuzzy the or “Relevant”
E. number (Figure 8).that the
of departures
The has
settlement functions
during of affiliation
a working are defined
day, may as follows:
be “Inappropriate”, “Average” or “Relevant” (Figure 8).
The fuzzy input variable F describes0, the timetable
8 and is an important parameter to assess traffic
The functions of affiliation
1,
are
8
defined as−follows:
8 0, 14
accessibility. It is assumed that the timetable, , 8 depending
13 on the number of departures that the
12 − 5 − 14
= has , 8 12 , = , = “Average”
, 14 18 (Figure(16)

settlement 4 during a working day, may
18 − be “Inappropriate”,
0, x ≤ 8 4 or “Relevant” 8).
, 13 18

0, of affiliation
≥812 are defined5 1, ≥ 18

1,
The functions
 x ≤ 
as follows:
x −8
 0, x ≤ 14
≤ x ≤ 13
  
 0,
 , ≥818 
µ FTI = 124− x , 8 ≤ x ≤ 12 , µ FTA = 0, 185− x 8 , µ FTR = x−414 , 14 ≤ x ≤ 18 (16)
 1, 8 −
8 5
 , 13 ≤ x ≤ 18 0,
 14
, 8 13
 
 0,12 − x ≥ 12 

5 − 14
 1, x ≥ 18
= , 8 12 , = 0, x ≥ ,
18 = , 14 18


18 − (16)
4 4
0, ≥ 12 , 13 18 1, ≥ 18
5
0, ≥ 18
Figure 8. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set F.
Input variables in fuzzy systems represent linguistic variables that take different values,
(network of PT lines, network of accessible roads, walking time, driving time and timetable). The
adequate level of qualification Figure is The
8. determined for all possible
functions of values of the output variable.
Figure 8. The functions of affiliation
affiliationof of
fuzzy set F.
fuzzy set F.
Defuzzification is carried out on reviewing the level of qualification of certain values of the output
variable.
InputIt variables
implies the in choice
fuzzy of one value
systems of thelinguistic
represent output variable.
variablesThe center
that take of gravity values,
different (COG)
Input variables
method
(network PTin
isofthe fuzzy
principal
lines, systems
method
network represent
of of linguistic
defuzzification,
accessible roads, which
walking variables that
calculates
time, thetake
driving different
center
time values,
oftimetable).
and gravity (network
of The
the
qualification
adequate
of PT lines, network function
level of with the
of accessible MATLAB
qualificationroads, software.
is determined
walkingfor all driving
time, possible time
valuesandof the output variable.
timetable). The adequate
level ofDefuzzification
qualification isiscarried out on reviewing
determined the levelvalues
for all possible of qualification of certain
of the output values ofDefuzzification
variable. the output is
variable. It implies the choice of one value of the output variable. The center of gravity (COG)
carried out on reviewing the level of qualification of certain values of the output variable. It implies
method is the principal method of defuzzification, which calculates the center of gravity of the
the choice of one value of the output variable. The center of gravity (COG) method is the principal
qualification function with the MATLAB software.

method of defuzzification, which calculates the center of gravity of the qualification function with the
MATLAB In fuzzy models that evaluate the assessment of criteria for traffic accessibility, a weight factor
software.
of 1 In
is attributed
fuzzy modelsto the
thatrules that the
evaluate are assessment
of equal likelihood,
of criteriaand
for 0.5 andaccessibility,
traffic 0, respectively, for those
a weight factorthat
of
1are less likelytoand
is attributed thevirtually
rules thatimpossible.
are of equalThe algorithm
likelihood, andof0.5
approximate reasoning,
and 0, respectively, developed
for those in less
that are this
paper,and
likely is in Appendix
virtually B.
impossible. The algorithm of approximate reasoning, developed in this paper, is in
Appendix B.
4. Results
4. Results
When defining the set of criteria and sub-criteria for the assessment of the impact of traffic
When defining
accessibility the set of criteria
on the development and sub-criteria
of suburbs, for the assessment
an expert economy team madeof upthe impact
of five of traffic
professionals
accessibility on the
from the fields of development
transport systemsof suburbs, an expert
and public economy
transport wasteam made up
consulted in of
thefive
cityprofessionals
of Niš. The
from the fields
number of transport
of experts who took systems
part inand public
this transport
research was consulted
was limited due to inthethe city of Niš. The
impossibility number
of involving
of experts
more whowho
experts tooklive
partand
in this research
work in the was limited
territory duecity
of the to the impossibility
of Nis. When forming of involving moretoexperts
the model define
who
and live andthe
assess work in thefor
criteria territory of the city of Nis.
traffic accessibility, it wasWhen forming
required thatthe
allmodel
expertsto come
definefrom
and assess the
the urban
unit territory.
criteria for traffic accessibility, it was required that all experts come from the urban unit territory.
Onthe
On theselection
selection of
ofthe
thecriteria
criteria (Appendix
(Appendix A),A), the
the rules
rules in
inorder
orderto toobtain
obtainan anassessment
assessment of ofthe
the
impactof
impact oftraffic
trafficaccessibility
accessibility(fuzzy
(fuzzyoutput)
output)were
wereformed.
formed. Model
Model testing
testing waswas carried
carried out
out on
onthe
thetest
test
areaof
area ofthe
thecity
cityof
ofNiš,
Niš,ininwhich
whichthethePTPTsystem
systemworks.
works.
4.1.
4.1. Description
Description of
ofthe
theTest
TestArea
Area
The
The city
city of
of Niš
Niš isis located
located in the basin
in the basin of
of Niš
Niš at 43◦ 190north
at 43°19′ northlatitude
latitudeand 21◦ 54east
and21°54′ 0 east longitude.
longitude. It
Itcovers
coversanan area 2 and according to the citizen registration statistics for 2011,
area ofof around
around 596.6
596.6 kmkm 2 and according to the citizen registration statistics for 2011, has
has 260,237
260,237 inhabitants
inhabitants [41].[41].
TheThecitycity of Niš
of Niš hashas a unique
a unique monocentric
monocentric structure,
structure, which
which is is
thethe outcome
outcome of
of its geographic position and structure. Niš has a recorded amount of
its geographic position and structure. Niš has a recorded amount of travel from the peripherytravel from the periphery
towards
towardsthe thecenter,
center, due dueto atogreat concentration
a great of people
concentration in thein
of people central city area
the central andarea
city the and
largethe
number
large
of
number of activities that are found there. Its urban public transport system consists of 45 lines,are
activities that are found there. Its urban public transport system consists of 45 lines, of which 14 of
city
whichand1431are
are city
localand
lines31(Figure 9). lines
are local The entire PT 9).
(Figure network is serviced
The entire by buses,
PT network and thereby
is serviced exists a tariff
buses, and
system consisting
there exists a tariffofsystem
four different
consistingzones.
of four different zones.
Figure9.9. Scheme
Figure Schemeof
ofurban
urbanand
andsuburban
suburbantraffic
trafficlines
linesin
inNiš.
Niš.
4.2. Experimental Results of the Model

The assessment of traffic accessibility in the suburban settlements was obtained as a result of the
partial operation of each of the selected criteria (network of public transport lines, network access
roads, walking time, driving time, and timetable). The determination of the walking time is a complex
process that depends on the distance of the households (spatial distribution) to the nearest stop in the
settlement, the type of terrain (flatland, hilly), the number of stops, and the type of pavement (asphalt,
earthy road). For this reason, the walking time values of 5 min, 10 min and 15 min were the most
acceptable (Table 3).
The proposed fuzzy model, developed in this paper, was tested in the territory of the municipality of
Niš, in 23 selected suburban settlements within the public transport system transport lines (Figure 10).
Table 3. Assessment of the impact of the traffic accessibility of suburban settlements.

Sustainability 2018,
2018, 1977x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 2315 of 23
10
Mark 10
Mark
Mark 910
9
89
8
78
7
67
6
56
5
45
4
34
3
23
2
12
1
01
00
5 min 10 min 15 min

55 min
min 10 min
10 min 15 min
15 min
Figure 10. Graphic
10. Graphic representation
representation of the assessment of traffic accessibility in suburban settlements.
Figure
Figure 10. Graphic representationofofthe
theassessment oftraffic
assessment of trafficaccessibility
accessibility in suburban
in suburban settlements.
settlements.
Figure 10. Graphic representation of the assessment of traffic accessibility in suburban settlements.
The graphic display of the output fuzzy variable (traffic impact assessment) in the function of
The graphic
Theinput graphic
graphic display
display of the
of the the output
output
output fuzzy
fuzzy variable
variable (traffic
(traffic impactassessment)
assessment) in
in the
the function
function of
the The variablesdisplay of
(network fuzzy
of PT lines, variable
network of accessimpact
(traffic impact assessment)
roads, walking the function
time, driving time,ofof the
input the input
variables
the variables
(network
inputisvariables (network of
of PT lines, PT lines,
network network
lines, of of
access of access
roads, roads,
walking walking
roads, time, time,
driving driving
time, time, time,
timetable)
time, is
timetable) shown in (network
Figures of PT
11–14: network access walking driving
timetable) is
timetable) is shown in
in Figures 11–14:
shown in Figuresshown
11–14: Figures 11–14:
Traffic Accessibility
Accessibility
Accessibility
TrafficAccessibility
Traffic
Traffic
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 11. The appearance of the output fuzzy variable in function of the input variables: (а)
Figure 11.
Figure 11. The
The appearance
appearance of of the
the output
output fuzzy
fuzzy variable
variable in
in function
function of
of the
the input
input variables:
variables: (а)
(а)
Network
Figure of access
11. The roads—network
appearance of PTfuzzy
of the output lines; variable
(b) Walking time—network
in function of the of PT lines.
input variables: (a) Network
Network
Network of access roads—network
of access roads—network of PT lines; (b) Walking time—network of PT lines.
of access roads—network of PT lines; of
(b)PT lines; (b)time—network
Walking Walking time—network of PT lines.
of PT lines.
Accessibility
Accessibility
Traffic
Traffic
(а) (b)
(а) (b)
(b)
(а)
Figure 12. The appearance of the output fuzzy variable in function of the input variables: (а) Walking
Figure 12.
Figure 12. The
The appearance
appearance of of the
the output
output fuzzy
fuzzy variable
variable in
in function
function of
of the
the input
input variables:
variables: (а)
(а) Walking
Walking
time—network of access roads; (b) Network of PT lines—timetable.
12. The appearance
Figuretime—network of accessofroads;
the output
(b) fuzzyofvariable
Network PT in function of the input variables: (a) Walking
lines—timetable.
Sustainability 2018,
10, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 16 of
16 of 23
23
Accessibility
Accessibility
Traffic
Traffic
(а)
(а) (b)
(b)
Figure 13. The appearance of the output fuzzy variable in function of the input variables: (а) Walking
FigureFigure 13. The
13. The appearance
appearance of the
of the outputfuzzy
output fuzzyvariable
variable in
in function
functionofofthe input
the variables:
input (а) Walking
variables: (a) Walking
time—timetable; (b)
time—timetable; (b) Driving
Driving time—timetable.
time—timetable.
time—timetable; (b) Driving time—timetable.
Accessibility
Accessibility
Traffic
Traffic
(а)
(а) (b)
(b)
Figure 14.
Figure 14. The
The appearance
appearance of
of the
the output
output fuzzy
fuzzy variable
variable in
in function
function of
of the
the input
input variables:
variables: (а)
(а) Driving
Driving
14. The appearance
Figuretime—network accessof
of access the output
roads; fuzzy
(b) Driving
Driving variable in function
time—network of PT of the input variables: (a) Driving
PT lines.
lines.
time—network of roads; (b) time—network of
time—network of access roads; (b) Driving time—network of PT lines.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
By reviewing
reviewing the
the literature,
literature, scientific
scientific papers
papers and
and research,
research, as
as well
well as
as consulting
consulting with
with experts
experts
By
from
from
By relevant fields,
relevant
reviewing fields, aa total
total of
the literature, of 13
13 criteria for
criteria
scientific for assessing
assessing
papers andthethe impact of
impact
research, of traffic
astraffic
well as accessibility
accessibility
consulting in suburban
in suburban
with experts
settlements were
settlements were identified.
identified. They They are are classified
classified into
into four
four groups:
groups: transport,
transport, space,
space, quality
quality of of service
service
from relevant fields, a total of 13 criteria for assessing the impact of traffic accessibility in suburban
and system
and system quality.
quality. Economic
Economic experts experts who who are
are directly
directly in in touch
touch with
with thethe analyzed
analyzed problematics
problematics
settlements were identified. They are classified into four groups: transport, space, quality of service
were involved
were involved in in assessing
assessing the the significance
significance of of certain
certain criteria
criteria within
within each
each group
group of of criteria.
criteria.
and system A quality.
multi-criteriaEconomic analysis experts
using who
the are directly
FAHP method inidentified
touch with from the analyzed
each group problematics
the thatwere
criteria that
A multi-criteria analysis using the FAHP method identified from each group the criteria
involved in assessing
are aa priority
priority in the
in assessing significance
assessing the the impact
impact of of certain
of traffic criteria within
traffic accessibility.
accessibility. The each
The criteria group
criteria that
that inof criteria.
in the
the normalized
normalized ranks ranks
are
Agained an advantage over the others in the group were network of PT lines, network access roads, that
multi-criteria
gained an advantage analysis
over using
the the
others inFAHP
the method
group were identified
network of from
PT each
lines, group
network the
access criteria
roads,
are a priority
travel time
travel timein (walking
assessing
(walking and
and thedriving),
impactand
driving), of traffic
and accessibility. The criteria that in the normalized ranks
timetable.
timetable.
gained anThe The selected
advantage criteria with the highest
selected criteria with the highest relativewere
over the others in the relative
group weight
weight from each
network
from each
of PTgroup
grouplines,were
were used to
network
used toaccess
develop
develop roads,
models
travelmodels to
time (walking assess
to assessand the traffic
the driving), accessibility
and timetable.
traffic accessibility in suburban settlements, with the
in suburban settlements, with the help of fuzzy logichelp of fuzzy logic
features.
features.
The selectedThe criteria
The model proposed
model proposed
with the here here
highest consists
consists of 108
of
relative 108
weightrules,from
rules, and each
and gives group
gives weightwere
weight to each
to each
used rule.
rule. The
The
to develop
quantification
quantification of the sets
of traffic of criteria
the setsaccessibility in
of criteria in in the fuzzy
thesuburban models
fuzzy models was made
was madewith using
usingthe the Mamdani
thehelp
Mamdani fuzzy
fuzzy locking
locking
models to assess the settlements, of fuzzy logic features.
system (centroid
system (centroid defasification),
defasification), the the minimization
minimization methodmethod for for the
the “AND”
“AND” operator,
operator, and and the the
The model proposed here consists of 108 rules, and gives weight to each rule. The quantification of
maximization method for the
maximization method for the “OR” operator. “OR” operator.
the sets ofFor criteria in the fuzzy
23 suburban
suburban modelsinwas
settlements themade using
observed the Mamdani
territory, fuzzyestimates
traffic access
access locking system (centroid
for different
different
For 23 settlements in the observed territory, traffic estimates for
defasification),
walking time
walking
the values
time minimization
values are shown
are shown methodin Figure
in
for the
Figure 10.“AND”
10.
operator,walking,
For five-minute
For five-minute and the the
walking, maximization
the traffic method for
traffic accessibility
accessibility
the “OR” operator.
estimates ranged from 8.64 to 3.46. The highest score for 10-minute
estimates ranged from 8.64 to 3.46. The highest score for 10-minute walking was 8.58, while the walking was 8.58, while the
For 23
lowest suburban
was 2.67. settlements
For 15-minute in the
walking,observed
the territory,
traffic traffic
accessibility access
estimates
lowest was 2.67. For 15-minute walking, the traffic accessibility estimates of the settlements ranged estimates
of the for different
settlements walking
ranged
from 5.75
time values
from 5.75
are toto 2.61. In
shown
2.61. In all three
in all
Figurethree10. cases, the suburbs
For the
cases, suburbs Hum
five-minute Hum
walking,(8.64;
(8.64; 8.58;
the 5.75)accessibility
traffic
8.58; 5.75) and Kamenica
and Kamenica (8.61; 8.1;
estimates
(8.61; 8.1; 5.75)from
ranged
5.75)
had
8.64 tohad the
3.46. highest
theThe highest
highest traffic accessibility.
score
traffic for 10-minute
accessibility. The worst
The worst assessment
walking was 8.58,
assessment of traffic accessibility
whileaccessibility
of traffic included
the lowest included
was 2.67.the the
Forsuburbs
15-minute
suburbs
of
of Gornja
Gornja Studena
Studena (4.38;
(4.38; 2.68;
2.68; 2.67)
2.67) and
and Donja
Donja Toponica
Toponica (3.46;
(3.46; 2.88;
2.88; 2.64).
2.64).
walking, the traffic accessibility estimates of the settlements ranged from 5.75 to 2.61. In all three cases,
A graphic
A graphic interpretation
interpretation of of the
the output fuzzy fuzzy variable
variable is is shown
shown by by a tri-dimensional
tri-dimensional surface surface
the suburbs Hum (8.64; 8.58; 5.75) and output
Kamenica (8.61; 8.1; 5.75) had thea highest traffic accessibility.
using a constant value of pairs of criteria (Figures 11–14). This surface
using a constant value of pairs of criteria (Figures 11–14). This surface shows a gradual change in shows a gradual change in
The worst assessment of traffic accessibility included the suburbs of Gornja Studena (4.38; 2.68; 2.67) and
Donja Toponica (3.46; 2.88; 2.64).
A graphic interpretation of the output fuzzy variable is shown by a tri-dimensional surface using
a constant value of pairs of criteria (Figures 11–14). This surface shows a gradual change in color,
with no sudden drops or sharp recesses. This determines that the adopted values of the criteria were
good and that the rules of the model are correctly set. The yellow on the surface represents the highest
assessment of the impact of traffic accessibility, whereas dark blue stands for the lowest. Classified
according to the pairs of criteria, a change in the output variable can be represented easily, by altering
the constant of one and/or the other criterion. Moreover, the diagrams show which pairs of criteria
have, in general, better or less good assessments of the impact of the output variable. The ratio of the
following input pairs—walking time–network of roads and driving time–network of roads—show
a favorable distribution of the assessment of the impact of traffic accessibility, while the values of the
input criteria ‘driving time–timetable’ offer the best results for the assessment of the impact of traffic
accessibility in the proposed model.
The research conducted in this paper is the first of its kind. This pilot research or case study
on the city of Niš serves as a methodological experiment and offers a good insight into the criteria
that are of special importance for the understanding of the impact of traffic accessibility on suburban
areas. The assessment of traffic accessibility, obtained as a result of the partial influence of each of the
selected criteria, shows that the model defined in this paper puts forth arguments for local authorities
to introduce necessary measures.
At the beginning of the paper, two main hypotheses were established, which were confirmed
throughout the research. By defining a greater number of different impact factors on traffic accessibility
and by applying the method for multi-criteria decision-making, it was possible to select dominant
criteria that represent the generators of development and sustainability of suburban areas, in a similar
way as the accessibility criteria were defined by Litman [14,24]. The identification of such criteria
confirmed the assumption of the first hypothesis, while the results confirmed that the studied factors
have significance in defining relevant criteria.
Selecting the relevant criteria, setting the rules and conditions, and the quantification of the
ranked criteria were performed according to their significance, which enabled the sorting of suburban
areas into those with insufficient, good and excellent accessibility. Ranković-Plazinić [16] defined
the types of rural settlement in relation to accessibility, which is a good basis for the implementation
of this model. This created an opportunity for the assessment of the criteria for traffic accessibility.
Based on this, through the selection and assessment of suburban areas for the case study of the city of
Niš, the second research hypothesis was confirmed.
6. Conclusions
This kind of model may improve the present situation, because it will, on the one hand, reduce
the interest of suburban dwellers in moving to cities, and, on the other hand, increase the interest
of certain categories of citizens to move to suburban areas where they can have healthier and more
favorable living conditions; this is already a trend in a large number of European cities. This means
that a passenger car should offer an appropriate alternative, but also that the principle of sustainability
should be respected, according to Teigen [9].
In order that rural areas be competitive in terms of living conditions and attractive for economic
investment, it is necessary to ensure adequate infrastructure and a higher quality of public transport,
that is, traffic accessibility, which was one of Ambarwati’s findings [11]. Since rural communities
have many specific characteristics, their transport needs are also very specific; this is why a deeper
understanding of the transport needs is required in order to suggest concrete measures for the social,
economic and ecological development of rural areas. In the system of urban public transport there are
three interest groups, namely the local community, carriers and users (passengers). Representatives
of the local authorities make strategic decisions regarding the development of certain settlements or
urban units, and they should therefore be interested in their improvement, which is completely in line
with the methodology that was defined in this paper.
The context in which decisions regarding the implementation of measures is made should have
strong ties with the impacts that will be assessed, the aims that should be reached and the target groups
(users of public transport) that should be taken into consideration. Therefore, the impact assessment
must be based on the results of direct observations or other experiments. It can be concluded that the
political and strategic framework for this concept, provided in this paper, is the most important aspect
for the implementation of the set measures, which is an issue for which regional and local authorities
should be responsible.
The scientific contribution of this paper is primarily the development of a model for the assessment
of traffic accessibility in suburban areas where the urban public transport system is operational.
This transcends the existing models by keeping the settlements competitive in terms of living standards,
as well as making them attractive for economic investment. Through the definition and quantification
of significant criteria for traffic accessibility, first steps were made towards the development of a new
model. The developed model for the assessment of traffic accessibility showed good results.
In order to strengthen the bond between the parameters in this model, it is necessary to have broad
knowledge of the natural, social, economic and other characteristics of a settlement. Also, for similar
research in the future, the research area would need to be broader, that is, with less limitations than
in this case. This means that the number of experts would need to be greater and their professional
interests would need to encompass wider social and natural areas.
The application of these results in real life is multifaceted and may effect an improvement of the
quality of life, the accessibility of different services, the systematic development of settlements and
a possible decrease in the migration of residents from suburban areas.
Author Contributions: M.S. and P.G. conceived and designed the experiments; V.P. and V.L. performed the
experiments and analyzed the data; M.S. and P. G. wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1 shows a fuzzy matrix for the comparison of a group of transport criteria. (A1 —Network
of PT lines; A2 —Remoteness of the railway; A3 —Characteristics of the settlement; A4 —Possession of
a car in the household).
Table A1. Compatibility matrix for a group of transport criteria.
A1 A2 A3 A4
E1 (1, 1, 1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
E2 (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
A1 E3 (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2)
E4 (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
E5 (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1)
E1 (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1, 1, 1) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
E2 (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
A2 E3 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2)
E4 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1)
E5 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/9, 1/4, 2/7)
E1 (1, 1, 1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
E2 (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
A3 E3 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2)
E4 (2/3, 1, 2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2)
E5 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
E1 (1, 1, 1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
E2 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1)
A4 E3 (2/3, 1, 2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 1, 1)
E4 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1)
E5 (1, 1, 1) (7/2, 4, 9/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1)
Table A2. Average and normalized weight criteria for a group of transport criteria.
Criteria W0 W Rank
Network of PT lines—A1 1 0.435 1
Remoteness of the railway—A2 0.070 0.031 4
Characteristics of the settlement—A3 0.610 0.265 3
Possession of a car in the household—A4 0.619 0.269 2
Table A3. Relative rank of significance of particular criteria on the basis of comparisons within the
criteria group.
Criteria Sub-Criteria W0 W
Network of PT lines 1 0.435
Remoteness of the railway 0.070 0.031
Transport
Characteristics of the settlement 0.610 0.265
Possession of a car in the household 0.619 0.269
Built infrastructure 0.961 0.333
Space Network of access roads 1 0.437
Remoteness from the most significant contents 0.920 0.319
Comfort in a vehicle 0.502 0.206
Quality of service Travel time 1 0.411
Transfer points 0.931 0.383
Timetable 1 0.378
System quality Transport costs 0.934 0.354
Tariff system 0.708 0.268
Appendix B
Table A4. Network of “simple” PT lines.
Network of “Less Good” Access Roads

Walking Time Driving Time Timetable Traffic Accessibility Weight
Acceptable Acceptable Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Acceptable Average GOOD 1
Acceptable Acceptable Relevant GOOD 1
Acceptable Satisfactory Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Acceptable Satisfactory Average GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Satisfactory Relevant GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Unacceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Acceptable Unacceptable Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Acceptable Unacceptable Relevant GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Acceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Satisfactory Acceptable Average GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Acceptable Relevant GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Satisfactory Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 1
Satisfactory Satisfactory Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Satisfactory Satisfactory Relevant INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Satisfactory Unacceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 1
Satisfactory Unacceptable Average INSUFFICIENT 1
Satisfactory Unacceptable Relevant INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 1
Unacceptable Acceptable Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Relevant INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Satisfactory Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 1
Unacceptable Satisfactory Average INSUFFICIENT 1
Unacceptable Satisfactory Relevant INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Table A4. Cont.

Unacceptable Unacceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 1
Unacceptable Unacceptable Average INSUFFICIENT 1
Unacceptable Unacceptable Relevant INSUFFICIENT 1
Network of “Good” Access Roads
Acceptable Acceptable Inappropriate GOOD 1
Acceptable Acceptable Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Acceptable Acceptable Relevant INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Acceptable Satisfactory Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Satisfactory Average GOOD 1
Acceptable Satisfactory Relevant GOOD 1
Acceptable Unacceptable Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Unacceptable Average GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Unacceptable Relevant GOOD 1
Satisfactory Acceptable Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Acceptable Average GOOD 1
Satisfactory Acceptable Relevant GOOD 1
Satisfactory Satisfactory Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Satisfactory Satisfactory Average GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Satisfactory Relevant GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Unacceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Satisfactory Unacceptable Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Satisfactory Unacceptable Relevant GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Average GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Relevant GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Satisfactory Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Unacceptable Relevant INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Table A5. Network of “complex” PT lines.

Acceptable Acceptable Inappropriate GOOD 1
Acceptable Acceptable Average EXCELLENT 0.5
Acceptable Acceptable Relevant EXCELLENT 0.5
Acceptable Satisfactory Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Satisfactory Average GOOD 1
Acceptable Satisfactory Relevant GOOD 1
Acceptable Unacceptable Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Unacceptable Average GOOD 0.5
Acceptable Unacceptable Relevant GOOD 1
Satisfactory Acceptable Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Acceptable Average GOOD 1
Satisfactory Acceptable Relevant GOOD 1
Satisfactory Satisfactory Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Satisfactory Satisfactory Average GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Satisfactory Relevant GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Unacceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Table A5. Cont.

Satisfactory Unacceptable Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Satisfactory Unacceptable Relevant GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Average GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Relevant GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Satisfactory Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Unacceptable Relevant INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Network of “Good” Access Roads
Acceptable Acceptable Inappropriate EXCELLENT 0.5
Acceptable Acceptable Average EXCELLENT 1
Acceptable Acceptable Relevant EXCELLENT 1
Acceptable Satisfactory Inappropriate GOOD 1
Acceptable Satisfactory Average EXCELLENT 0.5
Acceptable Satisfactory Relevant EXCELLENT 0.5
Acceptable Unacceptable Inappropriate GOOD 1
Acceptable Unacceptable Average GOOD 1
Acceptable Unacceptable Relevant EXCELLENT 0.5
Satisfactory Acceptable Inappropriate GOOD 1
Satisfactory Acceptable Average EXCELLENT 0.5
Satisfactory Acceptable Relevant EXCELLENT 0.5
Satisfactory Satisfactory Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Satisfactory Average GOOD 1
Satisfactory Satisfactory Relevant GOOD 1
Satisfactory Unacceptable Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Unacceptable Average GOOD 0.5
Satisfactory Unacceptable Relevant GOOD 1
Unacceptable Acceptable Inappropriate GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Acceptable Average GOOD 1
Unacceptable Acceptable Relevant GOOD 1
Unacceptable Satisfactory Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Satisfactory Average GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Satisfactory Relevant GOOD 0.5
Unacceptable Unacceptable Inappropriate INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Unacceptable Average INSUFFICIENT 0.5
Unacceptable Unacceptable Relevant GOOD 0.5
References
1. Pezzini, M. Rural policy lessons from OECD countries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
European Rural Transport Policy at the Crossroads, Aberdeen, UK, 29 June–1 July 2000.
2. Social Exclusion Unit. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion; Social Exclusion
Unit: London, UK, 2003.
3. Brown, D.M.; Stommes, E.S. Public Transportation Challenges and Opportunities; Economic Research Service,
USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
4. Canadian Urban Transit Association. The Public Cares about Public Transit: VIP Makes an Impact; Canadian
Transit Forum: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002.
5. Donnges, C. Rural Access and Employment: The Laos Experience; International Labour Office: Geneva,
Switzerland, 1999.
6. Allen, J.; O’Donnell, F.; Kavanagh, T.; Barron, S.; Daly, L.; O’Callaghan, E.; O’Briain, D. Report of the
Interdepartmental Working Group on Rural Transport; Department of the Environment and Local Government
of Republic of Ireland: Dublin, Ireland, 2001.
7. Farrington, J.H. The new narrative of accessibility: its potential contribution to discourses in (transport)
geography. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 319–330. [CrossRef]
8. Grieco, M.S. Transport and social exclusion: New policy grounds, new policy options. In Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 10–15 August 2003.
9. Teigen, H. Car Dependence in Rural Norway—A Significant Problem for Sustainable Growth? Working Paper;
University of Lillehammer: Lillehammer, Norway, 1996.
10. Gray, D.; Farrington, J.; Shaw, J.; Martin, S.; Roberts, D. Car dependence in rural Scotland: Transport policy,
devolution and the impact of the fuel duty escalator. J. Rural Stud. 2001, 17, 113–125. [CrossRef]
11. Ambarwati, L.; Verhaeghe, R.; Pel, A.J.; Van Arem, B. Development of Public Transport System Strategies to
Control Urban Sprawl. IACSIT Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2014, 6, 261–266. [CrossRef]
12. Gulič, A. Mobilnost i Troškovi Stanovanja: Saznanja i Usmerenja Projekta MORECO. Naučno Stručni Skup
Palić, 2015. Available online: http://moreco.uirs.si/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RJGvamBIV-c%3D&tabid=556
(accessed on 15 February 2018).
13. Moore, T.; Pulidindi, J. Understanding Urban Transportation Systems; Center for Research and Innovation,
National League of Cities: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
14. Litman, T. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning—Measuring People’s Ability to Reach Desired Goods
and Activities; Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2017.
15. Simeunović, M. Modeliranje integracije transportne ponude u cilju povećanja saobraćajne pristupačnosti.
Ph.D. Thesis, Fakultet tehničkih nauka Novi Sad, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Novi Sad, Serbia, 2012.
16. Ranković-Plazinić, B. Održivo Planiranje Saobradaja za Ruralna Područja. Ph.D. Thesis, Saobraćajni Fakultet
u Beogradu, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Belgrade, Serbia, 2015.
17. Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting Sustainable Rural Communities. Partnership for Sustainable
Communities—In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, United States, 2011. Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/2011_11_supporting-sustainable-rural-
communities.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2018).
18. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Rural Population and Migration Briefing Room.
2015. Available online: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Population/ (accessed on 30 January 2018).
19. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Urbanization Prospects; United Nations: New York,
NY, USA, 2014.
20. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Sustainable Urban Mobility and Public Transport in Unece
Capitals; United Nations: New York, NY, USA; Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
21. Creightney, C.D. Transport and Economic Performance: A Survey of Developing Countries; No. WORLD BANK
TP-232; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
22. Wegener, M.; Eskelinen, H.; Fürst, F.; Schürmann, C.; Spiekermann, K. Criteria for the Spatial Differentiation of
the EU Territory: Geographical Position; Forschungen 102.2; Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning:
Bonn, Germany, 2001.
23. Department for Transport of United Kingdom. Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting Economic
Growth in a Low Carbon World; The Stationery Office: London, UK, 2007; Volume 7226.
24. Litman, T. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning: Measuring People’s Ability to Reach Desired Goods
and Activities; Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2008.
25. Rostami, S. Application of the Transport Needs Concept to Rural New South Wales: A GIS-Based Analysis.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, Sidney, Australia, 2005.
26. Serwadda-Luwaga, J.; Shabalala, N. Measuring Rural Poverty: Baseline Statistics for the Integrated Sustainable
Rural Development Strategy; Statistics South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2002.
27. Sarkar, A.K.; Ghosh, D. Meeting the accessibility needs of rural poor. IASSI Q. 2000, 18, 1–5.
28. Major of London. Assessing Transport Connectivity in London; Transport for London: London, UK, 2015.
29. Litman, T. Measuring Transportation—Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility; Victoria Transport Policy Institute:
Victoria, BC, Canada, 2011.
30. Jeuring, R.; Lightfoot, G.; Sanfeliu, R.; Majano, A.; Prastacos, P.; Vanseveren, J.; Anderson, P.G. VIRGIL
(Verifying and Strengthening Rural Access to Transport Services): Deliverable 1 Final Report for WP1—Overview of
Best Practices in Rural Transport; ETT SA: Madrid, Spain, 2000.
31. Joint Commitee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs; Report on Rural Transport
Provision; Joint Commitee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltach Affairs: Dublin, Ireland,
2010; Available online: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/13060/ (accessed on 1 February 2018).
32. Logan, P. Best practice demand-responsive transport (DRT) policy. Road Transp. Res. 2007, 16, 50–59.
33. White, P. Equitable Access: Remote and Rural Communities’ Transport Needs’; Discussion Paper No. 2011-19;
International Transport Forum on Transport for Society: Leipzig, Germany, 2011.
34. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Report of the Inter-Departmental Urban-Rural Definition
Group: Statistical Classification and Delineation of Settlements; National Statistics Publication: Belfast, UK, 2005.
35. Roy, J.; Pamučar, D.; Adhikary, K.; Kar, S. A rough strength relational DEMATEL model for analysing the
key success factors of hospital service quality. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2018, 1, 121–142. [CrossRef]
36. Badi, I.A.; Abdulshahed, A.M.; Shetwan, A.G. A case study of supplier selection for a steelmaking company in
Libya by using the Combinative Distance-based ASsessment (CODAS) model. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2018,
1, 1–12. [CrossRef]
37. Lukovac, V.; Popović, M. Fuzzy Delphi approach to defining a cycle for assessing the performance of military
drivers. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2018, 1, 67–81. [CrossRef]
38. Saaty, T.L.; Kearns, P.K. Analytical Planning, The Organization of Systems; The Analytic Hierarchy Process
Series; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PN, USA, 1991; Volume IV.
39. Chang, D.Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996, 95, 649–655.
[CrossRef]
40. Srichetta, P.; Thurachon, W. Applying Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to Evaluate and Select Product of
Notebook Computers. Int. J. Model. Optim. 2012, 2, 168–173. [CrossRef]
41. Secretariat of Economy, Department of Statistics, City of NIŠ. Available online: http://privredanis.freeiz.
com/Statistika.htm (accessed on 15 April 2018).
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Selection Criteria and Assessment of The Impact of Traffic Accessibility On The Development of Suburbs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selection Criteria and Assessment of The Impact of Traffic Accessibility On The Development of Suburbs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selection Criteria and Assessment of The Impact of Traffic Accessibility On The Development of Suburbs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: traffic accessibility; sustainability of suburbs; public transport; multi-criteria decision;

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1977; doi:10.3390/su10061977 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. Demography in Suburban Settlements

- Existence of transport services connecting people and content;

Accessibility can be:

The spatial measurement of accessibility in Australia is represented by the ARIA index

2.3. Set of Criteria of Traffic Accessibility

Table 1. Impact criteria of traffic accessibility on suburb development.

- Demand-responsive transport (DRT)

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

Inverse vector: " # −1

Step 2: Level of probability S2 > S1 is defined as:

For comparison of S1 and S2 , both values are required V (S1 ≥ S2 ) и V(S2 ≥ S1 ).

V (Si ≥ S1 , S2 , . . . , Sk ) = minV (Si ≥ Sk ), i = 1, 2, . . . k (7)

The weight vector is shown by the following expression:

and Ai (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) n of the element.

Step 4: Through normalization, the weight vector is:

where W does not represent a fuzzy number.

Figure 3. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set A.

Figure 4. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set B.

Figure 5. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set C.

Figure 6. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set D.

Figure 6. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set D.

Figure 8. The functions of affiliation of fuzzy set F.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23

4.2. Experimental Results of the Model

Table 3. Assessment of the impact of the traffic accessibility of suburban settlements.

5 min 10 min 15 min

Table A1. Compatibility matrix for a group of transport criteria.

Table A4. Network of “simple” PT lines.

Network of “Less Good” Access Roads

Table A4. Cont.

Network of “Less Good” Access Roads

Table A5. Network of “complex” PT lines.

Network of “Less Good” Access Roads

Table A5. Cont.

Network of “Less Good” Access Roads

You might also like