Evaluation of Alternatives to Integrate Special Transportation Services for People with Movement Disorders

1. Abdullah, L., Najib, L. (2014) A new type-2 fuzzy set of linguistic variables for the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications 41 (7): 3297-3305. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.11.02810.1016/j.eswa.2013.11.028Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

2. Aktan, H.E., Tosun, O. (2013) An integrated fuzzy AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS approach for AS/RS selection. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management 11 (2): 228-245. DOI: 10.1504/IJPQM.2013.05202610.1504/IJPQM.2013.052026Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

3. Alonso, A., Monzon, A., Cascajo, R. (2015) Comparative analysis of passenger transport sustainability in European cities. Ecological Indicators 48: 578-592. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.02210.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.022Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

4. Bazaras, D., Verseckienė, A., Palšaitis, R. (2013) Analyzing the aspects of organising paratransit services in Vilnius. Transport 28 (1): 60-68. DOI: 10.3846/16484142.2013.78154110.3846/16484142.2013.781541Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Berdie, A.D., Osaci, M., Muscalagiu, I., Barz., C. (2017) A combined approach of AHP and TOPSIS methods applied in the field of integrated software systems. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 200: 1-7. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/200/1/01204110.1088/1757-899X/200/1/012041Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

6. Bhutia, P.W., Phipon, R. (2012) Application of AHP and TOPSIS method for supplier selection problem. IOSR Journal of Engineering 2 (10): 43-50.10.9790/3021-021034350Search in Google Scholar

7. Boujelbene, Y., Derbel, A. (2015) The performance analysis of public transport operators in Tunisia using AHP method. Procedia Computer Science 73: 498 - 508. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.039.10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.039Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

8. Charles, P. (2014) What is successful transport integration? Transport futures institute. Online access: http://www.transport-futures.com/what-is-successful-transport-integration/.Search in Google Scholar

9. CIVITAS. (2010) Enhancing the quality of public transport services. CIVITAS: Policy advice notes. Online access: http://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civitas_ii_policy_advice_notes_11_public_transport_quality.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

10. Duarte, F., Rojas, F. (2012) Intermodal connectivity to BRT: a comparative analysis of Bogotá and Curitiba. Journal of Public Transportation 15 (2): 1-18. DOI: 10.5038/2375-0901.15.2.110.5038/2375-0901.15.2.1Search in Google Scholar

11. European Union. (2002) EN 13816 Transportation - Logistics and services - Public passenger transport - Service quality definition, targeting and measurement, s.l.: European Standard.Search in Google Scholar

12. Hsieh, T.Y., Lu, S.T., Tzeng, G.H. (2004) Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management 22: 573-584. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.00210.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

13. Friedrich, M., Leruent, F., Jackiva, I., Fini, V., Raveau, S. (2016) From Transit Systems to Models: Purpose of Modelling. In book: Modelling Public Transport Passenger Flows in the Era of Intelligent Transport Systems. Editors: Gentile, Guido, Noekel, Klaus. (Eds.). Published by Springer International Publishing, 641 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25082-3, ISBN 978-3-319-25080-910.1007/978-3-319-25082-3978-3-319-25080-9Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

14. IPCD. (2013) Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, DC.Search in Google Scholar

15. Jain, D., Tiwari, G. (2017) Sustainable mobility indicators for Indian cities: Selection methodology and application. Ecological Indicators 79: 310-322. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.05910.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.059Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

16. Kabir, G., Hasin, M.A.A. (2012) Comparative analysis of TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS for the evaluation of travel website service quality. International Journal for Quality Research 6 (3): 169 -185.Search in Google Scholar

17. Kubler, S., Robert, J., Derigent, W., Voisin, A., Traon, Y.L. (2016) A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Systems With Applications: 1-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.064.10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.064Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

18. Macharis, C., Witte, A., Ampe, J. (2009) The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice. Journal of Advanced Transportation 43 (2): 183 - 202. DOI: 10.1002/atr.567043020610.1002/atr.5670430206Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

19. Nicolas, J.P., Pochet, P., Poimboeuf, H. (2003) Towards Sustainable Mobility Indicators: Application to the Lyons Conurbation. Transport Policy 10 (3): 197-208. DOI: 10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00021-010.1016/S0967-070X(03)00021-0Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

20. OECD. (2015) Intermodal connectivity for destinations. OECD: Tourism Committee.Search in Google Scholar

21. Palšaitis, R; Verseckienė, A. (2014) Sustainable development of urban public transport: the case of integrating paratransit service. Pre-conference proceedings of the 11th International conference on Logistics & Sustainable Transport 2014, University of Maribor, Faculty of Logistics, Celje, Slovenia, 19-21 June 2014, 1-9. Search in Google Scholar

22. Pticina I., Yatskiv I. (2105) Weighting the urban public transport system quality index (UPTQI) using the analytical hierarchy process, International Journal of Society Systems Science (7): 107-126.10.1504/IJSSS.2015.069739Search in Google Scholar

23. Qu, M., Yu, S., Yu, M. (2017) An improved approach to evaluate car sharing options, Ecological Indicators 72: 686-702. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.01810.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.018Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

24. Saliara, K. (2014) Public transport integration: the case study of Thessaloniki, Greece. Transportation Research Procedia 4: 535-552. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.11.04110.1016/j.trpro.2014.11.041Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

25. Shang, J.S., Tjader, Y., Ding, Y. (2004) A Unified Framework for Multicriteria Evaluation of Transportation Projects. IEEE transactions on engineering management 51 (3): 300 - 313. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2004.83084810.1109/TEM.2004.830848Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

26. SM. (2017) What is an indicator of sustainability? Sustainable measures. Open access: http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/node/89Search in Google Scholar

27. Sodhi, B., Prabhakar, T.V. (2012) A Simplified Description of Fuzzy TOPSIS. Open access: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2939/30c4913d8d33362984e4fbbb3c25e2eced3e.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

28. SPUTNIC. (2009) Guidelines in market organization: public transport integration. UITP, International Association for Public Transport.Search in Google Scholar

29. Sun, C.C. (2010) A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications 37 (12): 7745-7754. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.06610.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.066Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

30. Tafidis, P., Sdoukopoulos, A., Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M. (2017) Sustainable urban mobility indicators: policy versus practice in the case of Greek cities. Transportation Research Procedia 24: 304-312. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.12210.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.122Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

31. VTPI. (2008) Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.Search in Google Scholar

32. VTPI. (2016) Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.Search in Google Scholar

33. WBCSD. (2015) Methodology and indicator calculation method for sustainable urban mobility. World Business Council for Sustainable Development.Search in Google Scholar

34. Zadeh, L.A. (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Information Sciences 8: 199-249. DOI: 10.1016/0020-0255(75)90046-810.1016/0020-0255(75)90046-8Search in Google Scholar