Even though road transport is an essential part of freight distribution, there is a lack of customized routing networks to convey freight over the road. The present paper addresses this deficit by proposing general principles to elaborate a regional freight route network in Flanders. However, assigning regional freight traffic to a particular road network involves complex trade-offs between multiple interests, such as corporate accessibility, communal livability, additional network links and available space. The paper recommends the multi-actor multi-criteria assessment tool (MAMCA) to incorporate stakeholder objectives in the evaluation of possible freight network scenarios. The tool is applied for the specific case of Anzegem, a road village amid regional freight attraction poles that suffers particularly from heavy freight flows. The impact of four alternative ring ways is assessed according to the interests of the involved parties and compared to the reference scenario. Results show that transport companies advocate supra-local accessibility, while governmental and citizen stakeholders value traffic safety and livability. Since the reference scenario does not comply with these critical stakeholder objectives, an alternate scenario is proposed. As such, MAMCA applications assist policy-makers in building consensus among multiple actors in the realization of transportation projects.
References
[1]
Report on Transport Scenarios with a 20 and 40 Year Horizon. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/doc/2009_future_of_transport/20090324_transvisions_final_report.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2013).
[2]
Middleton, D.; Venglar, S.; Quiroga, C.; Lord, D.; Jasek, D. Strategies for Separating Trucks from Passenger Vehicles: Final Report; Texas Department of Transportation: Austin, TX, USA, 2006.
[3]
Kuhn, B.; Goodin, G.; Ballard, A.; Brewer, M.; Brydia, R.; Carson, J.; Chrysler, S.; Collier, T.; Fitzpatrick, K.; Jasek, D.; et al. Managed Lanes Handbook; Texas Department of Transportation: Austin, TX, USA, 2005. Available online: http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/Managed%20Lanes%20handbook%20TTI.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2013).
[4]
Forkenbrock, D.J.; March, J. Issues in the financing of truck-only lanes. Public Roads. 2005, 69. Available online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/05sep/02.cfm (accessed on 3 July 2013).
[5]
De Palma, A.; Kilani, M.; Lindsey, R. The merits of separating cars and trucks. J. Urban Econ. 2008, 64, 340–361, doi:10.1016/j.jue.2008.02.005.
[6]
Holguin-Veras, J. The truth, the myths and the possible in freight road pricing in congested urban areas. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 6366–6377, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.045.
[7]
Golob, T.F.; Regan, A.C. Freight industry attitudes towards policies to reduce congestion. Transport. Res. E—Log. 2000, 36, 55–77, doi:10.1016/S1366-5545(99)00017-4.
[8]
Cherry, C.R.; Adelakun, A.A. Truck driver perceptions and preferences: Congestion and conflict, managed lanes and tolls. Transport Policy 2012, 24, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.07.012.
[9]
Huang, Y.-H.; Roetting, M.; McDevitt, J.R.; Melton, D.; Smith, G.S. Feedback by technology: Attitudes and opinions of truck drivers. Transport. Res. F—Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2005, 8, 277–297, doi:10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.005.
[10]
Mulungye, R.M.; Owende, P.M.O.; Mellon, K. Finite element modelling of flexible pavements on soft soil subgrades. Mater. Design. 2007, 28, 739–756, doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2005.12.006.
[11]
Holguin-Veras, J.; Sackey, D.; Hussain, S.; Ochieng, V. Economic and financial feasibility of truck toll lanes. Transport. Res. Rec. 2003, 1833, 66–72, doi:10.3141/1833-09.
[12]
Moreno-Quintero, E.; Fowkes, T.; Watling, D. Modelling planner-carrier interaction in road freight transport: Optimisation of road maintenance costs via overloading control. Transport. Res. E—Log. 2013, 50, 68–83, doi:10.1016/j.tre.2012.11.001.
Arentze, T.; Feng, T.; Robroeks, J.; van Brakel, M.; Huibers, R. Compliance with and influence of a new in-car navigation system for trucks: Results of a field test. Transport Policy 2012, 23, 42–49, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.06.011.
[15]
Gunasekaran, A.; Spalanzani, A. Sustainability of manufacturing and services: Investigations for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 35–47, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.011.
[16]
Culaba, A.B.; Purvis, M.R.I. A methodology for the life cycle and sustainability analysis of manufacturing processes. J. Clean. Prod. 1999, 7, 435–445, doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(99)00231-0.
[17]
Chaabane, A.; Ramudhin, A.; Paquet, M. Design of sustainable supply chains under the emission trading scheme. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 37–49, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.10.025.
[18]
Houe, R.; Grabot, B. Assessing the compliance of a product with an eco-label: From standards to constraints. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2009, 121, 21–38, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.03.014.
[19]
Michelsen, O.; de Boer, L. Green procurement in Norway: A survey of practices at the municipal and country level. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 91, 160–167, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.001.
[20]
Masiero, L.; Maggi, R. Estimation of indirect cost and evaluation of protective measures for infrastructure vulnerability: A case study on the transalpine transport corridor. Tranport. Policy 2012, 20, 13–21, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.10.002.
[21]
Koornstra, M.J.; Mathijssen, M.P.M.; Mulder, J.A.G.; Roszbach, R.; Wegman, F.C.M. Naar een Duurzaam Veilig Wegverkeer: Nationale Verkeersveiligheids-Verkenning voor de jaren 1990–2010. (in Dutch); Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid (SWOV): Leidschendam, The Netherlands, 1992.
[22]
Wegman, F.; Aarts, L.; Bax, C. Advancing sustainable safety National Road Safety Outlook for 2005–2020. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1–21, doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.006.
[23]
SWOV. Fact Sheet on Functionality and Homogeneity; SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research: Leidschendam, The Netherlands, 2010. Available online: http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Recognizable_road_design.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2013).
[24]
Mackie, H.W.; Charlton, S.G.; Baas, P.H.; Villasenor, P.C. Road user behaviour changes following a self-explaining roads intervention. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 50, 742–750, doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.06.026.
[25]
Charlton, S.G.; Mackie, H.W.; Baas, P.H.; Hay, K.; Menezes, M.; Dixon, C. Using endemic road features to create self-explaining roads and reduce vehicle speeds. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1989–1998, doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.006.
[26]
Glaeser, K.P.; Ritzinger, A. Comparison of the performance of heavy vehicles. Results of the OECD study: ‘Moving Freight with Better Trucks’. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 48, 106–120, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.992.
[27]
Department ROW. Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen. (in Dutch); Department of Spatial Planning, Flemish Government: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
[28]
Elias, W.; Shiftan, Y. The safety impact of land use changes resulting from bypass road constructions. J. Transport. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1120–1129, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.05.012.
[29]
Elvik, R.; Vaa, T. The Handbook of Road Safety Measures; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 282–283.
[30]
O’Donoghue, R.T.; Broderick, B.M.; Delaney, K. Assessing the impacts of infrastructural road changes on air quality: A case study. Transport. Res. D—Tr. E. 2007, 12, 529–536, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2007.07.009.
[31]
Li, B.; Tao, S. Influence of expanding ring roads on traffic noise in Beijing City. Appl. Acoust. 2004, 65, 234–294.
[32]
Tritel. Uitwerken van een Methodiek voor een Netwerk voor het Algemeen Vrachtverkeer op Mesoschaal en Toepassing op 2 Pilootregio’s. (in Dutch); Department of Mobility, Flemish Government: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
[33]
O’Faircheallaigh, C. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications and lessons for public policy making. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2010, 30, 19–27, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.001.
[34]
Primmer, E.; Kyll？nen, S. Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme. Forest Policy Econ. 2006, 8, 838–853, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.01.002.
[35]
Macharis, C.; Verbeke, A.; de Brucker, K. The strategic evaluation of new technologies through multi-criteria analysis: The advisors case. In Economic Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Innovations and Case Studies; Bekiaris, E., Nakanishi, Y., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 439–460.
[36]
De Graaf, H.; Musters, C.; ter Keurs, W. Sustainable development: Looking for new strategies. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 16, 205–216, doi:10.1016/0921-8009(95)00088-7.
[37]
WCED. Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
[38]
Macharis, C.; Turcksin, L.; Lebeau, K. Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: State of use. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 54, 610–620, doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.008.
[39]
Grimble, R.; Wellard, K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agr. Syst. 1997, 55, 173–193, doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00006-1.
[40]
Rosenstr？m, U.; Kyll？nen, S. Impacts of a participatory approach to developing national level sustainable development indicators in Finland. J. Environ. Manage. 2007, 84, 282–298, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.008.
[41]
Harteley, N.; Wood, C. Public participation in environmental impact assessment—implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2005, 25, 319–340, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.12.002.
[42]
Webler, T.; Kastenholz, H.; Renn, O. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1995, 15, 443–463, doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00043-E.
[43]
De Lloyed. Seine-Schelde-West nog geen stap dichterbij. Available online: http://www.delloyd.be/Article/tabid/231/ArticleID/24246/ArticleName/SeineScheldeWestnoggeenstapdichterbij/Default.aspx (accessed on 3 July 2013). (in Dutch).
[44]
Macharis, C.; Januarius, B. The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) for the Evaluation of Difficult Transport Projects: The Case of the Oosterweel Connection. In Proceedings of the WCTR Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 11–15 July 2010.
[45]
Turcksin, L.; Macharis, C.; Lebau, K. A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 200–214, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.033.
[46]
Hickman, R.; Saxena, S.; Banister, D.; Ashiru, O. Examining transport futures with transport scenario analysis and MCA. Transport. Res. A—Pol. 2012, 46, 560–575.
[47]
Munda, G. Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 158, 662–677, doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00369-2.
[48]
Kowalski, K.; Stagl, S.; Madlener, R.; Omann, I. Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 197, 1063–1074, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.049.
[49]
Strager, M.P.; Rosenberger, R.S. Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 627–639, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.015.
[50]
Macharis, C. Strategische modellering voor intermodale terminals. Socio-economische evaluatie van de locatie van binnenvaart/weg terminals in Vlaanderen. Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Bruxelles, Belgium, 2000. (in Dutch).
[51]
Macharis, C.; de Witte, A.; Ampe, J. The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice. J. Adv. Transport. 2009, 43, 183–202, doi:10.1002/atr.5670430206.
[52]
Macharis, C.; de Witte, A.; Turcksin, L. The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA): Application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics. Transport Policy 2010, 17, 303–311, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.02.004.
[53]
Yeh, C.-H.; Willis, R.J.; Deng, H.; Pan, H. Task oriented weighting in multi-criteria analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1999, 119, 130–146, doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)90353-8.
[54]
Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26, doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
[55]
Lebeau, K.; Turcksin, L.; Mairesse, O.; Macharis, C. How can European governments stimulate the purchase of environmentally friendly vehicles? A Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis. In Proceedings of the WCTR Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 11–15 July 2010.
[56]
Ramanthan, R.; Ganesh, L.S. Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1994, 79, 249–265, doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)90356-5.
[57]
Figueira, J.; Greco, S.; Ehrgott, M. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys; Springer Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
[58]
Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
[59]
Vidal, L.A.; Marle, F.; Bocquet, J.-C. Using a Delphi process and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 5388–5405, doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.016.
[60]
Dolan, J.G. Shared decision-making—transferring research into practice: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ. Couns. 2008, 73, 418–425, doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.032.
[61]
Macharis, C.; Springael, J.; de Brucker, K.; Verbeke, A. PROMETHEE and AHP: The design or operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Strengthening PROMOTHEE with ideas of AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 153, 307–317, doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X.
[62]
Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. IJS Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98.
[63]
Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C.; Debauche, W.; Heemeryck, A.; van Hoeck, E.; Witlox, F. Night-Time Delivery as a Potential Option in Belgian Urban Distribution: A Stakeholder Approach. In Proceedings of the WCTR Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 11–15 July 2010.
[64]
Geudens, T.; Macharis, C.; Plastria, F.; Crompvoets, J. Assessing spatial data infrastructure strategies using the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis. IJSDIR 2009, 4, 265–297.
[65]
Anteagroup. Plan-MER PRUP Omleidingsweg Anzegem: Eindrapport. (in Dutch). 129403/par; West Flemish Government: Bruges, Belgium, 2011.
[66]
European Commission (EC). European Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines.
[67]
Gallopin, G.C. Indicators and their use: Information and decision-making. In Sustainability Indicators: A Report on the Project on Indicators for Sustainable Development; Moldan, B., Billharz, S., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1997; pp. 13–27.
[68]
hrstr？m, E.; Skanberg, A. A field study on effects of exposure to noise and vibration from railway traffic, Part 1: Annoyance and activity disturbance effects. J. Sound Vib. 1996, 193, 39–47, doi:10.1006/jsvi.1996.0244.
[69]
hrstr？m, E.; Skanberg, A.; Svensson, H.; Gidl？f-Gunnarsson, A. Effects of road traffic noise and the benefit of access to quietness. J. Sound Vib. 2006, 295, 40–59, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2005.11.034.
[70]
Hao, H.; Ang, T.; Shen, J. Building vibration to traffic-induced ground motion. Build Environ. 2001, 36, 321–336, doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00010-X.
[71]
Dhondt, S.; Beckx, C.; Degraeuwe, B.; Lefebvere, W.; Kochan, B.; Bellemans, T.; Panis, L.I.; Macharis, C.; Putman, K. Health impact assessment of air pollution using a dynamic exposure profile: Implications for exposure and health impact estimates. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 36, 42–51, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.03.004.
[72]
PIARC. Social and Environmental Approaches to Sustainable Transport Infrastructure; PIARC: Paris, France, 2007.
[73]
Coffin, A.W. From roadkill to road ecology: A review of the ecological effects of roads. J. Transport Geogr. 2007, 15, 396–406, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.006.
[74]
Demirel, H.; Sertel, E.; Kaya, S.; Seker, D.Z. Exploring impacts of road transportation on environment: A spatial approach. Desalination 2008, 226, 279–288, doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007.02.111.
[75]
Curtis, C.; Scheurer, J. Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Prog. Plann. 2010, 74, 53–106, doi:10.1016/j.progress.2010.05.001.
[76]
Bertolini, R.; le Clerq, F.; Kapoen, L. Sustainable accessibility: A conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use planning. Two test-applications in the Netherland and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy 2005, 12, 207–220, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.006.
[77]
Santos, G.; Behrendt, H.; Maconi, L.; Shirvani, T.; Alexander, T. Part I: Externalities and economic policies in road transport. Res. Transport. Econ. 2010, 28, 2–45, doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2009.11.002.
[78]
Rouse, P.; Putterill, M. Incorporating environmental factors into a highway maintenance cost model. Manage. Account. Res. 2000, 11, 363–384, doi:10.1006/mare.2000.0133.
[79]
Expert Choice. Available online: http://expertchoice.com/ (accessed on 3 July 2013).
[80]
Szyliowicz, J.S. Decision-making, intermodal transportation, and sustainable mobility: Towards a new paradigm. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2003, 55, 185–197.
[81]
Mitton, C.; Smith, N.; Peacock, S.; Evoy, B.; Abelson, J. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy 2009, 91, 219–228, doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005.
[82]
Arnstein, S. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1969, 35, 216–224, doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.
[83]
Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2417–2431, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
[84]
Rawson, R.; Hooper, P.D. The importance of stakeholder participation to sustainable airport master planning in the UK. Environ. Dev. 2012, 2, 36–47, doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.013.
[85]
Wahl, C. Swedish municipalities and public participation in the traffic planning process—Where do we stand? Transport. Res. A—Pol. 2013, 50, 105–112.
[86]
Tress, G.; Tress, B.; Fry, G. Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landsc. Ecol. 2005, 20, 479–493, doi:10.1007/s10980-004-3290-4.
[87]
Steiner, G.; Posch, A. Higher education for sustainability by means of transdiciplinary case studies: An innovative approach for solving complex real-world problems. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 877–890, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.054.
[88]
Schoner, B.; Wedley, W.C.; Choo, E.U. A unified approach to AHP with linking pins. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1991, 64, 384–392, doi:10.1016/0377-2217(93)90128-A.
[89]
Van Laarhoven, P.J.M.; Pedrycz, W. A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 1983, 11, 229–241, doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80083-9.
[90]
Rezaei, J.; Ortt, R.; Scholten, V. An improved fuzzy preference programming to evaluate entrepreneurship orientation. Appl. Soft Comput. 2013, 13, 2749–2758, doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2012.11.012.
[91]
Mikhailov, L. Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 2003, 134, 365–385, doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00383-4.
