Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

Constructing urban dynamic transportation planning strategies for T

improving quality of life and urban sustainability under emerging growth
management principles
Wey Wann-Ming
Department of Real Estate and Built Environment, National Taipei University, 151 University Road, San Shia District, New Taipei City, 23741, Taiwan, ROC

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Since the beginning of twenty-first century, urban development worldwide has successively deviated from our
Growth management ideal design and original plans. There have subsequently accompanied numerous urban problems, such as
Smart growth, sustainable growth, inclusive congestion, serious air pollution, urban endlessly sprawl and inappropriate land development with low urban
growth density. All of these features we often called urban illnesses significantly created negative influence to our urban
Sustainable urban transportation
life. The growth management concepts were thus emerged firstly to confront such negative influence. Not un-
Quality of life (QoL)
Fuzzy delphi method
iquely, numerous developed countries also failed to achieve its initial development strategy goals and soon
Dynamic network process (DNP) afterwards implemented a more specific and essential strategies in which it introduced three innovative growth
Gray forecasting model (GFM) constructions: smart growth, sustainable growth, and inclusive growth. They confidently claimed that urban
development would certainly improve quality of life (QoL) if the concept of development may be replaced by the
concept of growth. Following various innovative growth constructions or management principles, contemporary
urban agents including practical planners or official decision units, thus could pursue urban sustainable de-
velopment and QoL simultaneously.
Based on the current status and development processes, this study aimed at the urban transportation planning
strategy and its dynamics according to the advanced international experiences. Firstly, this study surveyed in-
ternational experiences or researches related to quality of life concepts, growth management principles as well as
sustainable transport issues. Secondly, we then make an effort to identify critical sustainable transportation
indicators under various growth constructions or management principles through the Fuzzy Delphi Method
(FDM) modeling results. The FDM requires repetitive surveys to confirm the final convergent values of all expert
opinions and exclude less feasible sustainable transportation indicators at the same time. Thirdly, the Dynamic
Network Process (DNP) was also applied to the expert survey to obtain four different weights during the period
from 2014 to 2040 in response to actual changes or future trends of each indicator we selected. And then this
research combined Gray Forecasting Model (GFM) to reflect changes or trends of each indicator over time by
above several DNP surveys for making more realistic and suitable priorities or weights to achieve the efficiency
of resource allocation. Finally, this study tried to conduct an empirical analysis with New Taipei City in Taiwan
to indicate our planning philosophy and consequently validate planning strategies emphasized by this study. We
believes that research frameworks and findings here not only provide new insights into the functioning of
current growth constructions or management principles, but also could be used as a well reference basis for
practical planners or official decision units to facilitate QoL and urban sustainability in further.

1. Introduction
Since the beginning of twenty-first century, urban development
worldwide has successively deviated from our ideal design and original
plans. There have subsequently accompanied numerous urban pro-
blems, such as congestion, serious air pollution, urban endlessly sprawl
and inappropriate land development with low urban density. All of
these features we often called urban illnesses significantly created ne-
gative influence to our urban life (Bettencourt, Lobo, Helbing, Kühnert,
& West, 2007; Din, Shalaby, Farouh, & Elariane, 2013). The growth
management concepts were thus firstly emerged to confront such ne-
gative influence. Past relevant studies have argued that growth man-
agement is achieved by imposing rigorous guidance and control on
regional development to ensure QoL. Chapin (2012) asserted that

E-mail address: wmwey@mail.ntpu.edu.tw.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.015
Received 13 March 2018; Received in revised form 7 October 2018; Accepted 8 October 2018
Available online 15 October 2018
2210-6707/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W.-M. Wey
growth management policy has focused on control in the past, but
should focus on more smart and sustainable growth in the future.
Similarly, numerous developed countries also failed to achieve its
initial development strategy goals and soon afterwards implemented a
more specific and essential strategies in which it introduced three in-
novative growth constructions: smart growth, sustainable growth, and
inclusive growth. They confidently claimed that urban development
certainly could improve quality of life (QoL) if the concept of devel-
opment may be replaced by the concept of growth. Following various
innovative growth constructions or management principles, con-
temporary urban agents including practical planners or official decision
units, thus could pursue urban sustainable development and QoL si-
multaneously.
Emphasis on urban QoL has gradually increased in the context of
rapid social and economic development. Related problems have been
studied internationally in health care, nursing, medicine, political sci-
ence, architecture and urban planning, education, and sociology (e.g.,
Biagi, Ladu, & Meleddu, 2018; Felce & Perry, 1995; Macke, Casagrande,
Sarate, & Silva, 2018; Morag, 1995;Ribeiro et al., 2018). Nevertheless, a
consensus has not yet been established on the definition of QoL. Doi,
Kii, and Nakanishi, (2008); Senlier, Yildiz, and Aktas¸, (2009), and Din
et al. (2013) have stated that QoL is a crucial element in urban sus-
tainable development; in a similar way, it is critical to urban compe-
titiveness (Rogerson, 1999). Therefore, measuring the quality of life
(QoL), including its elements and indicators, serve as a dominate tool
for evaluation, planning and management for the policy making or
development strategies of cities (Li & Weng, 2007; Turkoglu, 2015).
Numerous studies and institutions have developed both objective and
subjective indicators of QoL from the perspective of sustainability.
These indicators are often used to evaluate the habitability and sus-
tainability of an urban environment or examine past land use as well as
development strategies.
On the other hand, current trends and projections also suggest that
urbanization would continue in both developed and developing world.
Overall, it is expected that 7 out of 10 people will be living in cities by
2050 (UN-Habitat, 2010: p.5). These social and natural phenomena
both demonstrated that the urban environment and its planning policy
should be regarded as a crucial research topic more than ever before.
Based on the current status and development processes, this study
especially aimed at the urban transportation planning strategy and its
dynamics according to the advanced international experiences. Nu-
merous scholars, both nationally and internationally, believe that ef-
fective transportation planning accessing and means greatly contribute
to improve urban QoL or habitability. However, comprehensively in-
creasing QoL or solving all relevant urban illnesses from the perspective
of sustainable transportation alone is certainly impossible. Conversely,
what we mainly intend to deal with is identified sustainable transpor-
tation indicators that met advanced growth concepts or management
principles and then constructed and proposed sustainable transporta-
tion strategies with our additional considerations of dynamic urban
physical environment, rather than confront and promote urban QoL or
habitability comprehensively.
In general, the following content of this study is arranged as follows.
Firstly, this study surveyed advanced international experiences or re-
searches related to quality of life concepts, growth management prin-
ciples as well as sustainable transport issues. Secondly, we then make
an effort to identify critical sustainable transportation indicators under
various growth constructions or management principles through the
Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) modeling results. The FDM requires re-
petitive surveys to confirm the final convergent values of all expert
opinions and exclude less feasible sustainable transportation indicators
at the same time. Thirdly, the Dynamic Network Process (DNP) was also
applied to the expert survey to obtain four different weights during the
period from 2014 to 2040 in response to actual changes or future trends
of each indicator we identified before. And then this research combined
Gray Forecasting Model (GFM) to reflect changes or trends of each
276
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
indicator over time by above several DNP surveys for making more
realistic and suitable priorities or weights to achieve the function of
planning and the efficiency of resource allocation. Finally, we tried to
conduct an empirical analysis with New Taipei City in Taiwan to in-
dicate our planning philosophy and consequently validate the planning
strategies emphasized by this study.
2. Literature review and research background
2.1. Scope of the literature review
For the important literature reviewed in our research, the following
subsections been categorized as: scope of the literature review, quality
of life concepts, growth management concepts, sustainable transport
issues, sustainable transport indicators, and finally, the key themes of
the literature review. By means of the reviewed references and be no-
ticed literature which contain contributed important indicators for our
study then be put in right place in order to connect more naturally to
the following section 4 on indicators statement.
2.2. Quality of life concepts
QoL is a complex concept without an accepted definition. Cheung
(1997) and Diener, Suh, Lucas, and Smith, (1999) have argued that QoL
reflects the current degree of happiness, satisfaction, and desire felt
toward life, including material well-being and the degree of benefit and
pleasure experienced. QoL mainly reflects how people perceive worth.
Academically, it belongs to the domain of sociology. In other words,
urban QoL mainly concerns the evaluation of urban living spaces with
respect to physical (material) and nonphysical (psychological and
“spiritual”) necessities on the basis of the consciousness, experiences,
and psychological feelings generated by the interaction between people
and the urban environment. The relative importance of each QoL in-
dicator may change over time.
Bonaiuto, Fornara, and Bonnes, (2006) divide urban QoL indicators
into four factors: 1) space (i.e., architectural planning space, space or-
ganization and accessibility, and green space); 2) humanity (i.e., the
relationship between people and society), 3) functionality (i.e., bene-
fits, leisure, commerce, and transportation services), and 4) social
connectivity (i.e., pace of life, environmental health, and maintenance).
Bonaiuto et al. (2006) already explored the positive and negative im-
pacts of transportation services on QoL.
Din et al. (2013) state that urban QoL can be divided into seven
main constructs that are useful for achieving the enhancement of urban
QoL: first, the urban environment, which refers to the natural resources
nearby cities; second, the urban constructed environment, namely
urban framework facilities, land use, services, amusement facilities, and
infrastructure; third, urban mobility, which includes concerns such as
barrier-free movement and transportation; fourth, urban sociology,
referring to interactions among people such as individual decision
making and citizen participation problems; fifth, urban psychology,
which concerns neighborhood, local identity, and the feeling of being a
citizen; sixth, the urban economy, which refers to the peripheral area of
economic activity; and seventh, urban politics, which denotes urban
QoL and the degree of urban political acceptance of the implementation
of related policies.
This study reviewed past studies related to urban QoL and identified
that QoL incorporates a broad range of fields. Therefore, this study
explored QoL specifically from the perspective of sustainable trans-
portation. Numerous scholars, both nationally and internationally, be-
lieve that effective transportation planning can be a basis for assessing
urban QoL and habitability. However, comprehensively increasing QoL
from the perspective of sustainable transportation alone is impossible.
This study only explored sustainable transportation indicators that met
growth management principles and proposed sustainable transporta-
tion strategies under different time constraints. The purpose of this
W.-M. Wey
research was to increase QoL using transportation-related strategies in
dynamic urban physical environments.
2.3. Growth management concepts
The concept of growth management was first emerged in the United
States in the 1950s. Its goal was to solve problems stemming from urban
sprawl through applying integrated planning, management, and reg-
ulation, and to adjust to different development trends in different
spaces and times. As described by Timothy Chapin, there are four
emerging wave of growth management policy in the United States has
been evolving since the 1950s (Chapin, 2012). He identified its first
phase as the growth control phase (from 1950 to 1975), which aimed to
protect environmental resources and adopted rigorous control and en-
forcement strategies. The second phase was the comprehensive plan-
ning phase (from 1975 to 2000) which aimed for balanced growth and
adopted a multiple-objectives method for simultaneously developing
urban infrastructure and QoL. The third phase is the smart growth
phase (from 1999 to the present), which develops a closer relationship
between the public and private sectors to facilitate economic develop-
ment and city center revitalization, as well as provide basic urban
services. In addition, the New Urbanism design movement has brought
new vitality, perspectives, and government subsidies.
New Urbanism concepts and urban re-planning strategies can be
combined to enhance growth management and meet the continuous
changes in market demand. New Urbanism incorporates urban design
into growth management plans and strengthens urban functions to
formulate a public transportation-oriented development pattern that
increases land-use efficiency and QoL. And, the fourth phase discussed
above, existing concurrently with the third, is the sustainable growth
phase (from 2012 to the present), which aims to solve the challenges of
high unemployment rates induced by continued economic recession,
the negative impact of climate change on communities and national
ecology, the urgent need for energy, and changes in the food supply.
Contemporary governments have started to apply the concept of
growth management to urban planning. In the Hamilton Urban Growth
Strategy (2010) report, the New Zealand government proposed growth
strategies for the city of Hamilton. It established seven growth chal-
lenges to be met within the next 10 years, including creating integrated
development in the city center, pedestrian and bicycle access to offices
in the city center, and high-technology and innovation capacity. Behan,
Maoh, and Kanaroglou, (2008) studied changing patterns in the appli-
cation of smart growth strategies to transportation and land-use plan-
ning in Ontario, Canada from 2005 to 2031. The study demonstrated
the changes in travel time and mileage after adopting smart growth
strategies, and explained that appropriate smart growth strategies can
mitigate dense urban housing and create a more vibrant, habitable, and
economically attractive city; their transportation solutions to internal
urban problems can improve QoL through lifestyle and behavior
changes. Maoh and Tang (2012) used multiple regression analysis to
explore the key factors affecting urban commuting in Windsor, Canada.
The authors demonstrated that mixed land use involving smart growth
discourages automobile dependency. They asserted that the use of
smart growth to facilitate sustainable urban transportation should be
emphasized in contemporary urban planning.
It should be noted here that a dense or compact urban housing is
usually considered a desirable outcome of planning strategies for a
traditional inhabitable city (Frey, 1999). However, this argument is not
strictly true or remains questionable (Bramley & Power, 2009; Chen,
Jia, & Lau, 2008). For example, in developing countries, acquisition of a
private car is a seemingly unstoppable ambition or even is considered as
a symbol of status. Hereafter, they make a more significant distribution
to the heat island effect as cities in a dense or compact urban form
(Cheshmehzangi & Butters, 2016). In other words, high urban density
only makes sense if there is low car using, and it is widely recognized as
one of the greatest challenge in modern cities. Furthermore, the typical
277
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
Fig. 1. Europe 2020 growth strategy mechanism.
Source: Çolak and Ege (2013)
high-rise blocks everywhere standing in dense or compact cities create
gated communities which are not friendly to children, teens or seniors,
and are unsuitable for urban citizen participation and management at
the same time (Cheshmehzangi & Butters, 2016). In general, a dense or
compact city also means a higher concentration or proportion of urban
illness, such as pollution, crime, heat island, noise and traffic conges-
tion, that is, the positives and the negatives necessarily come as an
integrated or concomitant package (Bettencourt & West, 2010).
The EU has adopted the Europe 2020 strategy and expects to es-
tablish a competitive and vibrant knowledge-led economy. Its targets
include economic, environmental, and governmental problems. The
plan focuses on three development fields, namely: (1) prioritize smart
growth focused on achieving economic growth through knowledge
accumulation and innovation; (2) prioritize sustainable growth that
builds an economy that conserves resources, environmentally friendly,
and is more competitive than before; (3) prioritize inclusive growth that
facilitates high employment, low poverty, and greater social cohesion
(Çolak & Ege, 2013).
As shown in Fig. 1, each priority development field comprises five
implementation goals. Because Europe 2020 aims to achieve economic
growth to solve the current economic problems in Europe, these im-
plementation goals focus on the employment rate, education, poverty,
energy use, and innovation capacity. In addition, Pasimeni (2011)
noted that the EU proposed eight indicators to monitor the progress of
implementing Europe 2020 and allocated resources for each im-
plementation phase according to the prioritization of each growth field.
The EU expects to use resources and capital more efficiently through
progressively staged funding. Although American growth management
and the three growth management fields (i.e., smart, sustainable, and
inclusive growth) of the EU have somewhat different developmental
principles, American growth management and the Europe 2020
strategy are essentially quite similar.
Regarding smart growth, American planners have turned from the
strategy of controlling urban sprawl to the current strategy of com-
bining transit-oriented development (TOD), compact cities, urban de-
sign, and New Urbanism. American planning strategies closely resemble
the EU smart growth strategies of improving R&D, innovation, and
education. The sustainable strategy of the EU emphasizes low carbon
use and energy conservation and is similar to the new American cli-
mate- and environment-related management strategies proposed by
Chapin (2012). Regarding inclusive growth, although no similar term
has been developed in the United Sates, Chapin (2012) argued that
economic and sustainable development should be balanced during
economic recession. In other words, the growth principles of the EU
raise employment rates and lower poverty rates, thus increasing urban
prosperity, enhancing social cohesion, and realizing local identity
W.-M. Wey
through smart growth. In this research, we use the DNP technique to
prioritize the weight of each sustainable transportation indicator, then
applies GFM to estimate the weight of each form of sustainable urban
transportation according to time factors. In other words, we propose
inputting resources to sustainable transportation indicators with rela-
tively higher weights to improve the efficiency of resource allocation.
To conclude the aforementioned development trend of American
growth management, the adopting of growth management worldwide
and EU’s three growth management fields: smart growth, sustainable
growth and inclusive growth, although their developmental principles
are all not the same, both American growth management and EU’s 2020
Strategy are quite the same spiritually. Furthermore, EUROPE 2020
adopts (1) smart growth field, (2) sustainable growth field, and (3)
inclusive growth field those are similar to our proposed research
methodology which uses the DNP technique to prioritize the weight of
each sustainable transportation indicators, then applies GFM to esti-
mate the weight of each sustainable urban transportation due to time
factor, that is, to input resources to those sustainable transportation
indicators with relatively higher weights, in order to improve resources
allocation efficiency.
2.4. Sustainable transport issues
Research into sustainable urban transportation has indicated that
the transportation problems generated by urban sprawl produce en-
vironmental pollution, consume energy, reduce economic production,
and lower QoL. All of these consequences discussed abovementioned
generate huge social costs (Johnson, 2001). Moreover, sprawl increases
automobile use, travel distances, and air pollution, indicating the close
relationship between urban sprawl and QoL. From the perspective of
urban development, transportation is a major, urgent problem for
megacities worldwide; rapid urbanization and adoption of automobiles
will directly and substantially affect the development of sustainability.
Governments worldwide have already proposed various strategies for
achieving more sustainable transportation systems. Steg and Gifford
(2005) suggested that behavioral changes can reduce automobile use
and facilitate the use of lower-carbon public transportation. Such
strategies can improve the environment, urban QoL, and destination
accessibility. Transportation technology change entails reducing the
negative impact of traveling by automobile per kilometer; for example,
using vehicles fueled by new, cleaner energy sources increases energy
efficiency and reduces airborne noise. Indicators have become a
common element in transportation planning and policy formation.
Numerous studies have focused on the function of transportation in-
dicators in accurately measuring various planning and monitoring tasks
(Gudmundsson & Sørensen, 2013; May, Page, & Hull, 2008). Santos and
Ribeiro (2013) divided sustainable transportation indicators into three
constructs: the environment, economy, and society. Their study de-
monstrated that more complete and inclusive indicators can help public
sector managers to reach more meaningful decisions. They used Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil as an example for exploring the feasibility of using
sustainable urban transportation indicators and the selection and use of
indicators. They argued that the development and use of indicators
facilitate the monitoring of the development of sustainability. Explored
the adoption of sustainability, security, and smart approaches in the
urban transportation system of Singapore.
2.5. Sustainable transport indicators
Gudmundsson and Sørensen (2013) stated that indicators have be-
come a common element for transportation planning and policy for-
mation. Numerous studies have focused on the effectiveness of trans-
portation indicators for proper measurement of various planning and
monitoring tasks. Furthermore, the use of nonmotorized vehicles must
be considered in sustainable transportation planning. Wey and Chiu
(2012) found that urban development has abandoned auto-oriented
278
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
development patterns in recent years. In response to the smart growth
principle, the TOD concept has been introduced and has led to plans for
improving pedestrian environments and increasing the use of non-
motorized vehicles to reduce pollution emissions and enhance public
health.
2.6. Key themes of the literature review
The preceding research analysis indicated that the recent sustain-
able transportation trend entails a gradual shift toward slower move-
ment and effective public transportation that combines walking with
bicycling, thereby building sustainable transportation that is rooted in
human beings and a habitable, healthy urban environment. The main
purpose of this research was to develop sustainable urban transporta-
tion indicators for forming sustainable transportation strategies. The
preceding literature review has provided discussion of transportation
topics such as motorized vehicles (automobiles, scooters), non-
motorized transportation (walking, bicycling), and public transporta-
tion (metros, trains, high speed rail, and buses). Hence, this study ad-
dressed these transportation modes when forming indicators and
strategies. In addition, this study explored sustainable transportation
that can increase QoL, and therefore included an in-depth discussion of
transportation in the empirical study area to provide an evaluation
factor for dynamic changes and future trends.
3. Research design and methodology
The purpose of this study was to develop sustainable urban trans-
portation indicators for growth management and use these indicators as
a basis for forming planning strategies. A brief literature review was
conducted to explore sustainable transportation development in growth
management and propose relevant indicators that increase QoL.
However, each sustainable transpiration indicator has a different
weight related to its degree of importance. This research uses the Fuzzy
Delphi Method (FDM), a type of multiple criteria decision-making
method. Expert opinions were used to evaluate the relative weight of
each sustainable transportation indicator. The perceived importance of
each indicator was then used to select feasible evaluation indicators.
Such selection is a relatively objective method for forming sustainable
transportation strategies. After using FDM to eliminate improper in-
dicators, the DNP and GFM methods were used to assess the changes in
the weight of each indicator over time. Based on the trend of each in-
dicator, appropriate transportation strategies were developed.
The Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) applies the concept of 3-piont
estimation to converge expert judgments and make forecast. On the
basis of the values obtained by FDM, triangular membership functions
can be constructed. Then, all of the forecast values and those provided
by each forecaster are computed. If a distance that satisfies a given
convergence criterion is found, the FDM process is completed and the
corresponding expected value becomes a forecast value. The FDM cre-
ates a better effect of criteria selection. It features the advantage of
simplicity, and all the expert opinions can be encompassed in one in-
vestigation (Kuo & Chen, 2008). The FDM steps are as follows (Chan,
Wey, & Chang, 2012):
Step 1: Design Fuzzy Delphi expert questionnaire of values to be
evaluated, and then create a team of experts to give a possible interval
value for each project to be evaluated. A minimum value represents the
experts’ most “conservative cognitive value” of the project. On the other
hand, a maximum value represents the “optimistic cognitive value” of
the project.
Step 2: Make statistical analysis of the most “conservative cognitive
value” of the project and the “optimistic cognitive value” of the project
respectively to each evaluated value i, exclude the extreme values that
falls out of two standard deviation. Then calculate the remaining
minimum values of the most “conservative cognitive value” CLi , geo-
metric mean CM i
, maximum score CUi , and the minimum value of the
W.-M. Wey Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290

calculated from the fuzzy relation of the two trigonometric values,

Fig. 2. Bio fuzzy trigonometric value.
Source: Chan et al. (2012).
most “optimistic cognitive value” OLi , geometric mean OM i
, and max-
imum score OUi .
Step 3: For each evaluated value i, set up the fuzzy trigonometric
value of the most “conservative cognitive value” C i = (CLi, CM i
, CUi )
and the fuzzy trigonometric value of the most “conservative cognitive
value” Oi = (OLi, OM
i
, OUi ) . (See Fig. 2)
Step 4: Examine whether expert judgments are identical using the
following measures:
(1) If the fuzzy trigonometric value don’t overlap, which means
(CUi OLi ) , the interval value of respective experts have consensus
section and the opinion of each expert tends to fall in the consensus
interval. Therefore, “consensus importance degree value” Gi of the
evaluated value i equals the arithmetic mean of CM i
and OM i
pressed as G = (CM + OM )/2.
i i i
(2) Itwo of the fuzzy trigonometric values overlap, which means
(CUi > OLi ) , and the grey zone of the fuzzy relation Z i = CUi
smaller than the interval range of “optimistically cognitive geo-
metric mean” and “conservatively cognitive geometric mean” of the
experts’ evaluated project M i = OM i
CMi
, which indicates although
there is no consensus interval-valued section of each experts, but
the two experts that gave extreme views (the most conservative of
the optimistic cognitive, and the most optimistic of the conservative
cognitive) did not differ with the opinions of other experts and lead
to differences of opinion divergence. Hence, we make “cognitive
importance degree of value Gi” equal to the fuzzy collection min
and then obtain the quantified value of the fuzzy collection with the
maximum degree of membership.
(3) If two of the fuzzy trigonometric values overlap, which means
(CUi > OLi ), and the grey zone of the fuzzy relation Z i = CUi OLi is
larger than the interval range of “optimistically cognitive geometric
mean” and “conservatively cognitive geometric mean” of the ex-
perts’ evaluated project M i = OM i
CMi
, which indicates although
there is no consensus interval-valued section of each experts, and
the two experts that gave extreme views (the most conservative of
the optimistic cognitive and the most optimistic of the conservative
cognitive) differ with the opinions of other experts and lead to an
opinion divergence. Hence, collect evaluated values which opinions
do not converge and provide to experts as the reference, repeat
steps 1 through 4, continue to make a next questionnaire until the
entire evaluated project receives convergence in order to acquire
consensus importance value Gi.
The DNP proposed by Saaty (2007) can be applied in sturctural or
functional form. The structural form incorporates different time points
as alternative programs and compares the criteria with the programs in
pairs. The functional DNP involves using the standard dynamic judg-
ment matrix A(t), which explicitly includes the functions of time. The
typical form of a judgment matrix in dynamic form is:
a11 (t ) a12 (t ) a1n (t )
…
a21 (t ) a22 (t ) … a2n (t )
, ex- A (t ) = … where aij > 0, aji (t ) = aij 1 (t ).
…
an1 (t ) an2 (t ) ann (t )
OLi . is
As in the discrete case, when A(t) is consistent, we have
aij (t ) = wi (t )/ wj (t ) . The functional DNP, which explicitly incorporates
time variables, clarifies the dynamic weight curve of each factor ac-
cording to the relative rate of change in each factor over time, the
findings of which are then assessed by experts.
Fig. 3 illustrates the difference in structures and the corresponding
super-matrix between a linear hierarchy and a nonlinear network
(Saaty & Takizawa, 1986). As shown in Fig. 3, a node represents a
component with elements inside it; a straight line or an arc denotes the
interactions between two components; and a loop indicates the inner

Fig. 3. Linear hierarchy & Nonlinear network (from left to right).

279
W.-M. Wey
dependence of elements within a component. When the elements of a
component Node1 depend on another component Node2, this relation
is represented with an arrow from component Node1 to Node2. In ad-
dition, w21 is a vector that represents the impact of the Node1 on the
Node2; W32 (W22, W13, W23) is a matrix that represents the impact of
the Node2 (Node2, Node3, Node3) on each element of the Node3
(Node2, Node1, Node2); and the mathematic symbol “I” is the identity
matrix. Note that there are some relationships between three levels in
AHP matrix, but the constituent elements (in the component or cluster
of AHP) are independent. Conversely, in addition to the relationships
between three levels, the ANP matrix also contains interactions within
same levels, and there may be external dependencies among constituent
elements (in the component or cluster of ANP).
When encounter complex problems and do not know the exact re-
lationship in the nonlinear network structure or the degree of inter-
dependence among considering criteria, we should try to seek and
collect assessment opinion by adequate decision makers and group
expert discussion. In consideration of such needs, the most important
function or duty of ANP is thus to assist and cooperate with decision
maker and group expert to objectively determine the relationship of a
network structure or the degree of interdependence (e.g., Chang, Wey,
& Tseng, 2009; Wey & Wu, 2007). This study assisted the weighting
designation of sustainable transportation strategies through ANP.
Moreover, the future trend and prediction of various obtained in-
dicators that predicted by grey forecasting model would serves as
predictive scenarios or dynamic frames (e.g., Börjeson, Höjer, Dreborg,
Ekvall, & Finnveden, 2006; Lai, Huang, & Han, 2017; Saaty, 2007) to
conduct follow-up judgments and decision-making.
The FDM, DNP, and GFM methods were used to evaluate the re-
lative weights of sustainable urban transportation indicators and form
strategies. The steps of the proposed research design model were as
follows.
3.1. Step 1. Survey the literature to identify initial sustainable urban
transportation indicators
This study surveyed past studies related to QoL, growth manage-
ment, and sustainable urban transportation and discussed and identi-
fied transportation indicators that would increase QoL through growth
management.
3.2. Step 2. Select indicators according to the FDM modeling results
The first phase of this research entailed a survey of experts based on
the FDM method. The method requires repetitive surveys of the experts
(ordinarily more than twice) to allow the forecast values to converge
(Ishikawa et al., 1993); therefore, it is considered to be suffering from
low convergence expert opinions, high execution cost, and the possi-
bility that opinion organizers may filter out particular expert opinions.
The double triangle FDM method proposed by Zheng (2001) was
adopted to perform the FDM survey and exclude less feasible sustain-
able urban transportation indicators.
3.3. Step 3. Build initial dynamic weights using the Dynamic Network
process method
The Dynamic Network Process (DNP) method was applied to the
second expert survey of this study to establish techniques for four
weights from 2014 to 2040. Because of the likelihood of dependence or
feedback relationships when using DNP, the ANP method was in-
corporated with a time element and addressed dependence between
indicators. This research used DNP to more accurately reflect changes
in each indicator over time.
The numerical approach involves obtaining the time-dependent
principal eigenvector through simulation. The judgments are expressed
functionally, but the eigenvectors are then derived from the judgments
280
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
for a fixed moment in time; the numerical values of the eigenvectors
obtained for that instant are substituted in a supermatrix; the super-
matrix problem is solved and the priorities for the alternatives are de-
rived. Repeating the process for different values of time generates a
curve for the priorities of the alternatives and then approximates these
values by curves with a functional form for each component of the ei-
genvector.
3.4. Step 4. Estimate the dynamic change trend of each indicator according
to the GFM result
The DNP was used to obtain the original value of the dynamic
change of each sustainable urban transportation indicator and then
estimate the future dynamic change trend for each indicator. GFM can
efficiently deal with uncertainty, multiple inputs, discrete data, and
incomplete data. This study used the accumulated generating operation
GM (1, 1) model (with first order differential equations and one vari-
able input) to perform the forecast value estimation. Calculation and
simulation analysis using GFM were performed, and the dynamic
change of each indicator with time and its future changes were then
revealed on the basis of the computation result of the mathematical
dynamic equations of DNP proposed by Saaty (2007). Mean absolute
percent error (MAPE) was used to test the accuracy of predictions, and
was calculated as follows:
n
1 xˆ (0) (t ) x (0) (t )
MAPE =
n 1 k=2 x (0) (t )
where
X (0) = (x (0) (1), x (0) (2), …, x (0) (n))
and
k
X (1) = (x (1) (1), x (1) (2), …, x (1) (n)), x (1) (k ) x (0) (i ).
i=0
3.5. Step 5. Conduct indicator strategy planning for the empirical study area
The weight of each indicator was computed according to compre-
hensive considerations and obtained from the DNP expert survey of the
second phase as an original value. Using GFM as a forecast mean, the
future dynamic trend of each sustainable urban indicator under growth
management was estimated. The current conditions of the empirical
study area were included when providing feasible sustainable trans-
portation strategies and recommendations.
4. Empirical research analysis
4.1. Empirical research scope
This study selected Banqiao Station on the Taipei Metro Circular
Line as the empirical study area because metropolitan areas are typi-
cally used as study subjects when measuring indicators. However, when
evaluating a megacity, research results are biased because of the un-
even development between urban and suburban areas. The Banqiao
district of New Taipei City belongs to the metropolitan center of New
Taipei City (as shown in Fig. 4), and Banqiao Station integrates three
transportation modes (railway, high speed railway, and metro). A bus
station is located nearby, providing a fourth transportation mode.
Furthermore, another metro circular line will pass by this station in the
future. This station can thus be considered a forerunner of a sustainable
transportation system.
This study entailed empirical research within 500 m of Banqiao
Station (as shown in Fig. 5). The purpose was to use a real urban en-
vironment to form a sustainable transportation planning strategy
that applies growth management principles. In addition, Cervero,
W.-M. Wey
Fig. 4. Location of Banqiao Station, New Taipei City.
Fig. 5. Research area.
Sarmiento, Jacoby, Gomez, and Neiman, (2009) and other studies re-
lated to TOD have indicated that a metro station must be built within a
10-minute walking distance (i.e., a radial distance of 500 m) of the
station center. Features such as parking, transfer routes, shopping areas,
cultural exhibitions, and public facilities must be provided within a
well-planned and well-designed peripheral area of the public trans-
portation station. Full public facilities can maintain the environmental
quality of the peripheral area of the station. Moreover, smart growth
combines the concept of TOD and, through more efficient land-use
development, can effectively reduce the chance of private transporta-
tion being used. This is an essential concept in sustainable
281
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
transportation. Accordingly, the empirical study area adopted for this
research was a radial distance of 500 m from the center of Banqiao
Station center.
4.2. Using of FDM in the selection of sustainable urban transportation
indicators according to growth management principles
We adopted FDM to select sustainable transportation indicators
through the analysis of our research results and relevant studies. This
study used the three growth constructs of growth management princi-
ples as the subgoals of sustainable transportation strategies aimed at
increasing QoL. The analysis of research result of this research, is to
adopt FDM to select sustainable transportation indicators, through the
analysis of literature review, this research uses the three growth con-
structs (A. Smart growth, B. Sustainable growth and C. Inclusive
growth) of growth management principles as the sub-goals of sustain-
able transportation strategies that are aimed to increase quality of life,
under these sub-goals, we propose sustainable transportation in-
dicators, indicators and their descriptions are provided in Table 1.
For the purpose of identifying key planning principles as the im-
portant indicators, the first step was choosing the experts group which
consists of urban design, urban planning and engineering, neighbor-
hood organization, community and property management, as well as
combines the characteristics of local development units and dwelling
users to determine the indicators. The profiles of 6 experts are shown in
Table 2. All of the experts had at least ten years of working and studying
experiences in the urban design & planning and held high-level man-
agement positions at urban studies. According to previous research, a
sample of size ten to fifteen participants would provide a homogeneous
group (Hwang & Lin, 1987). Thus, in this study ten questionnaires were
sent out to the experts in Taiwan, and ten questionnaires were returned
with sufficient responses. Furthermore, the questions for the ques-
tionnaire also focused on the possible growth management planning
principles as mentioned in this research.
W.-M. Wey Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290

Table 1
Sustainable Urban Transportation Planning Indicators under Growth Management Principles.
Growth Management Indicators References
Category

Smart Growth A-1 Create friendly spaces for pedestrians and
cyclists
A-2 Increase investment in transportation
infrastructure
A-3 Integrate land use and transportation
planning
A-4 Realize innovative transportation services
Sustainable Growth B-1 Reduce the environmental impact of the
transportation system
B-2 Use renewable energy or alternative fuel
B-3 Develop a green transportation system to
maintain an urban ecosystem
B-4 Provide a diversified transportation system
Inclusive Growth C-1 Reduce the economic cost of transportation
C-2 Increase the accessibility of public
transportation
C-3 Enhance “barrier-free” transportation
system design
C-4 Increase the usage rate of nonmotorized
vehicles
Haque, Chin, and Debnath, (2013); Henning, Muruvan, Feng, and Dunn, (2011); Hidalgo and
Huizenga (2013); May et al. (2008); Miller and Hoel (2000); Miranda and Silva (2012)
Abdallah, Belloumi, and DeWolf, (2013); European Union (2011a); Figueroa and Ribeiro
(2013); Haghshenas and Vaziri (2011); Miranda and Silva (2012); Pasimeni (2011); Santos and
Ribeiro (2013)
Haque et al. (2013); European Union (2011a); Miller and Hoel (2000); Santos and Ribeiro
(2013)
Haque et al. (2013); Hidalgo and Huizenga (2013); European Union (2011a); Miranda and Silva
(2012); Pasimeni (2011); Santos and Ribeiro (2013)
Abdallah et al. (2013); Castillo and Pitfield (2010); European Union (2011b); Figueroa and
Ribeiro (2013); Gudmundsson and Sørensen (2013); Haghshenas and Vaziri (2011); Henning
et al. (2011); Hidalgo and Huizenga (2013); Hiremath, Balachandra, Kumar, Bansode, and
Murali, (2013); Miranda and Silva (2012); Pasimeni (2011); Santos and Ribeiro (2013)
Abdallah et al. (2013); Castillo and Pitfield (2010); European Union (2011b); Figueroa and
Ribeiro (2013); Hidalgo and Huizenga (2013); Hiremath et al. (2013); May et al. (2008);
Miranda and Silva (2012); Pasimeni (2011)
European Union (2011b); Miranda and Silva (2012)
Haque et al. (2013); Miller and Hoel (2000); Miranda and Silva (2012); Santos and Ribeiro
(2013)
Castillo and Pitfield (2010); Gudmundsson and Sørensen (2013); Haque et al. (2013);
Haghshenas and Vaziri (2011); Henning et al. (2011); May et al. (2008); Miranda and Silva
(2012); Santos and Ribeiro (2013)
European Union (2010); Haghshenas and Vaziri (2011); Haque et al. (2013); Hidalgo and
Huizenga (2013);May et al. (2008)
Gudmundsson and Sørensen (2013); Haghshenas and Vaziri (2011); Haque et al. (2013);
Hiremath et al. (2013); May et al. (2008); Miranda and Silva (2012)
Castillo and Pitfield (2010); Figueroa and Ribeiro (2013); Hiremath et al. (2013); Santos and
Ribeiro (2013)

Table 2 eight indicators that reached the threshold of the minimum standard.
The Profiles of 6 Experts. These were selected as importance indicators for further criteria eva-
Items Division Title Seniority
luation. Ranked by weighting order, they were: C1) land use and
transportation plan integration; C2) friendly spaces for sidewalks and
1 New Taipei City Director 42 bikeways; C3) increased accessibility of public transportation; C4)
2 New Taipei City Senior Specialist 32 green transportation system development; C5) diversified transporta-
3 Urban Planning Consultant Company Vice President 20
tion; C6) environmental enhancement through barrier-free transporta-
4 Urban Planning Consultant Company Manager 15
5 University Department of Urban Planning and Professor 22 tion; C7) renewable energy and alternative fuels; and C8) enhancement
Design of the usage rate of non-motorized transportation.
6 University Department of Urban Land Professor 19
Administration
4.3. Determining the weights of sustainable urban transportation indicators
according to growth management principles

We then proposed sustainable transportation indicators according to
these subgoals. The indicators and their descriptions are provided as
Table 3.
This study applied the FDM and fuzzy triangle methods to integrate
expert perceptions and used the Gray Zone test to examine whether
these comments reached convergence. Convergence indicated that the
experts had reached a consensus regarding the criteria. The calculated
Gi value represents the degree of importance of an evaluated sub-
criterion; the higher the Gi value, the higher the degree of importance.
This study selected design factors on the basis of expert consensus va-
lues that were larger than a threshold Gi value of 6.90 in that the steep
is most significant among those threshold numbers. The threshold was
set according to the ranking of expert consensus values (in ascending
order); the difference in steepness between two expert consensus values
determined the threshold, such as the threshold value of the expert
consensus for the indicator C4. The increase in the usage rate of non-
motorized vehicles was 6.90, slightly smaller (0.49) than the threshold
value of the expert consensus for the indicator A4. To realize an in-
novative transportation service technology, the two steepest indicators
from all expert consensus values were applied. Thus, we used 6.90 as
the threshold in the second expert survey and we performed the DNP
technique using the first FDM expert survey result. Fig. 6 shows the
This study selected initial sustainable urban transportation in-
dicators based on the input of six experts from industry, the govern-
ment, and academia in the first FDM survey. DNP modeling was per-
formed to determine the weight of each sustainable urban
transportation indicator according to growth management principles
based on the input of three experts from industry, the public, and
academia in the second phase, using the mean method to determine the
weight of the indicators. Because ANP is a general theory of relative
measurement used to derive composite-priority-ratio scales from in-
dividual-ratio scales that represent relative influence of factors that
interact with respect to control criteria. Through the “supermatrix”,
which is composed of matrices of column priorities, the ANP framework
catches the consequence of dependence/feedback within and among
components. To generate global priorities in a system with inter-
dependent influences, the obtained local priority vectors and matrices
are entered in a matrix to form a “supermatrix” as follows:
Goal Criteria Alternatives
Goal 0 0 0
W= Criteria W21 W22 0
Alternatives
0 W32 I
where “I” is the identity matrix, and entries of zeros correspond to those

282
W.-M. Wey Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290

Table 3
Sustainable transportation indicators under Growth Management Principles.
Indicators Descriptions

A1 Create friendly spaces for pedestrians and cyclists This entails providing comfortable walking and biking spaces, which enhance the urban environment with
nonmotorized vehicles, provide links to the public transportation system, and further increase public preference for
using nonmotorized and public transportation.
A2 Increase investment in transportation infrastructure Investing in transportation infrastructure such as bikeways, sidewalks, metros, bus networks, and light rail networks
can increase transportation efficiency and further decrease regional development disparities, as well as overcome the
shortage of long-distance transportation.
A3 Integrate land use and transportation planning This encourages a mixed, high-density land-use pattern and can not only increase the diversity in the region but also
provide transportation hub services within a short walking distance, thereby reducing the likelihood of using private
transportation.
A4 Realize innovative transportation services Transportation systems necessitate smart and effective control, information management, monitoring and law
enforcement, and a revenue management system. Investment in resources is necessary to develop new transportation
systems such as an intelligent transportation system that can increase transportation efficiency, reduce environmental
impact, and increase energy efficiency.
B1 Reduce the environmental impact of the Effective control and monitoring of noise, greenhouse gases, hazardous substances, and wastes can reduce damage to
transportation system the environment and human health.
B2 Use renewable energy or alternative fuel Developing renewable energy or alternative fuel, generating energy for effective reuse, and recycling and reducing
the consumption rate of resources and fossil fuels can not only ensure safe energy use but also reduce fossil fuel
pollution.
B3 Develop a green transportation system to maintain The transportation system should be designed in response to the creation of public spaces such as parks and green
an urban ecosystem areas to avoid inconsistent developments that damage the environment and to maintain sustainable development.
B4 Provide a diversified transportation system Diversified transportation modes such as bicycles and public transportation should be provided to meet public
requirements. A convenient transfer service can reduce the use of private transportation, thereby reducing carbon
dioxide emissions and realizing the goal of sustainability.
C1 Reduce the economic cost of transportation The safety of public areas, parking, transportation systems, and street design in urban environments is crucial to lives
and property. Moreover, safe roads can reduce the risk of traffic accidents and the rates of injuries, thereby reducing
the economic damage caused by casualties.
C2 Increase the accessibility of public transportation Increasing the accessibility and convenience of public transportation systems such as transfer services provided by
metro, bus, and railway stations can reduce the transportation cost of intercity travel and further increase the
employment rate.
C3 Enhance “barrier-free” transportation system design Transportation design should consider elderly, underprivileged, and handicapped people to meet the basic
transportation requirements of the public. Specific services should be provided to special groups to achieve social
diversity and equality.
C4 Increase the usage rate of nonmotorized vehicles Nonmotorized transportation such as the U-bike system in Taipei City facilitates short-distance travel for people
lacking means of private transportation, thereby creating a beneficial environment and further maintaining health
and QoL.

elements that have no influence. After forming the supermatrix, a
weighted supermatrix is derived by transforming all columns sum to
unity, i.e. like the concept of Markov chain for ensuring column sto-
chastic. The detail of mathematical processes of the ANP approach can
refer to Saaty (1996). And then, if the supermatrix formed covers the
whole network, the priority weights of alternatives can be found in the
column of alternatives-to-goal in the limit supermatrix (Sarkis 2003).
The process for solving interdependent sustainable transportation
evaluation criteria prioritization is summarized as follows: In order to
consider interdependence, the first step is to identify the multiple cri-
teria that merit consideration and then draw a relationship which
shows the degree of interdependence among the criteria. Next is to
determine the degree of impact or influence between the criteria. When
comparing the criteria for each criterion, the decision maker will re-
spond to questions such as: “In comparing criteria A and B, on the basis
of A, which criterion is preferred?” The responses are presented nu-
merically, scaled on the basis of Saaty's 1–9 scale (Saaty, 1996) with
reciprocals, in a project comparison matrix. The final step is to de-
termine the overall prioritization of these sustainable transportation
evaluation criteria.
The AHP technique introduced by Saaty is applied to a problem
without considering the interdependence properties among criteria.
However, there exist interdependence relationships among the identi-
fied criteria in sustainable transportation evaluation criteria prior-
itization problem. Generally, if we promote a C1 Land use and trans-
portation plan integration in the development region, the performance
of C2 Friendly spaces for sidewalks and bikeways will be increased in
hereafter operations. Similarly, in order to increase the C3 Increase the
accessibility of public transportation, we will have to increase C6
Environmental enhancement through barrier-free transportation.
Accordingly, there exist interdependence relationships among these
criteria, that is, the C1 criterion influences C2, C3, and C4; the C2
criterion influences C1, C3 and C8 criteria (see Fig. 7). Where all the CI
and CR values considered in this computation process, show the con-
sistence for the pairwise comparison results.
In order to check network structure or relationship in considered
criteria, we need to have group discussion because the type of network
or relationship depends on the decision makers' judgment. Changes in
the weights of the analyzed sustainable transportation indicators from
2014 to 2040 are shown in Fig. 8. By observing each sustainable urban
transportation indicator and the ranking changes, we determined that
C1 is the most important indicator from 2014 to 2030. C2 is the second
most important indicator for 2014 to 2030, although its weight is
slightly reduced in 2040. The high ranking of this indicator demon-
strates the perceived importance among the three experts of a human-
centered transportation system. Although the ranking of C3 is not
stable, it nevertheless is considered a key indicator. The ranking of C4 is
also relatively unstable; however, it has the highest ranking in 2040.
The perceived degree of importance of C5 decreases with time. The
ranking of C6 decrease firstly and then increases, indicating that re-
sponses to the increased elderly population in the future must involve
enhancing the design of a barrier-free transportation system. The
ranking of C7 is relatively low before 2040, but increases after 2040.
This may be caused by the anticipation of a surge in energy demand.
The ranking of C8 increases firstly, then decreases. Over time, the dif-
ferences in the weights of the indicators decrease, especially nearer to
2040 when the difference between the highest and lowest ranking is
reduced from 0.18 to 0.134, demonstrating convergence of the in-
dicators.

283
W.-M. Wey
Fig. 6. Eight indicators reaching the minimum standard threshold.
4.4. Mathematical formula for the weights of all analyzed dynamic criteria
After determining the DNP expert survey results, we obtained the
weights for the sustainable urban transportation system in 2014, 2020,
2030, and 2040. We used the mean method to compute the compre-
hensive average weights of the planning indicators based on the input
of the aforementioned three experts. According to the average weight of
the indicators, this research used GFM (which only requires four sets of
data) to forecast and estimate the trends of each indicator.
It must be noted that the investigation of expert questionnaires with
ANP in this study is cooperated with the consideration of future trends
and predictive scenarios which both objectively predicted by grey
prediction modeling to approach a more realistic and dynamic situa-
tions. Certainly, the more intuitive approach is that we can also conduct
dozens of expert surveys to obtain the forecasting information needed
for our study. However, repeated expert surveys are not only practical
284
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
and costly, but more importantly, it is easy for experts to make mistakes
in the process of answering and is likely to cause considerable in-
vestigation errors. The role and positioning of the grey prediction
model is thus to provide us with scientific and correct prediction in-
formation under the constraints of a small number of samples or a small
number of surveys. After using FDM to eliminate improper indicators,
the DNP and GFM methods were used to assess the changes in the
weight of each indicator over time. Based on the trend of each in-
dicator, appropriate transportation strategies were developed. In other
words, each indicator was individually estimated through the grey
prediction modeling to obtain the concise future trends of the indicator
to year 2110. In short, this study adopted the dynamic concept in-
troduced by Saaty (2007) to analyze and explain dynamic change in the
weight of each indicator. The estimation result using gray prediction is
provided in the figures in following sections.
4.4.1. C1. Land use and transportation plan integration
The estimated weights of C1 are 0.22, 0.22, 0.21, and 0.19 in
2014, 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively (Fig. 9). The MAPE of the C1
indicator is 2.38%, exhibiting a high predictive accuracy of 97.61%.
The indicator tends to decrease gradually with time, suggesting that C1
may be a linear indicator (i.e., a1 t + a2 , where a1 is the coefficient, a2 is
the constant, but a1 is negative). The weight of this indicator decreases
progressively with time. However, although the weight of the C1 in-
dicator decreases, it retains the highest ranking for the four assessment
periods, demonstrating the high importance of the C1 indicator. This
confirms that the first priority is to combine land use with transporta-
tion, followed by implementing transportation-related infrastructure,
until the efficient combination of land use with transportation systems
is achieved after 2040.
4.4.2. C2. Friendly spaces for sidewalks and bikeways
The estimated weights of C2 are 0.22, 0.18, 0.19, and 0.16 for
2014, 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively. Estimating the trend from
2014 to 2040 on the basis of GFM (Fig. 10) using the MAPE of the C2
indicator yields a value of 5.36%, showing a high predictive accuracy
of 94.64%. The magnitude of decline for the indicator is initially
quite substantial; however, the magnitude tends to decrease
gradually with time, suggesting that C2 is a logarithmic indicator (i.e.,
b1 log (t + 1) + b2 , where b1 is the coefficient, b2 is the constant, but b1
is negative). This demonstrates that the importance of this indicator
decreases progressively with time. However, the C2 indicator remained
highly ranked for all four assessment periods, demonstrating that the
indicator is highly important from 2014 to 2040. Therefore, resources
should first be allocated to the C2 indicator during this period; after
2040, when the construction work on sidewalks and bikeways will be
nearly complete, resources can be allocated to other indicators.
4.4.3. C3. Increase the accessibility of public transportation
The estimated weights of C3 are 0.18, 0.16, 0.18, and 0.15 for
2014, 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively. Estimating the trend from
2014 to 2040 on the basis of GFM (Fig. 11) using the MAPE of the C3
indicator yields a value of 5.58%, showing a high predictive accuracy
of 94.41%. Although the estimated weight peaks in 2030, some dis-
crepancies may occur. According to the GFM result, the weight of the
C3 indicator does not exhibit a significant change after 2020. Therefore,
we take a constant and it shows a stable weight over time as the ex-
plainer of the equation. The C3 indicator mainly concerns how a
completed transportation system can improve accessibility and con-
venience, as well as reduce the cost of intercity travel and increase
employment rates. The weight of the C3 indicator falls roughly in the
middle of the ranking for the four assessment periods, demonstrating
that experts perceive the indicator to be relatively major. However, this
indicator is not perceived to be the most critical. Resources should
therefore be allocated carefully to the C3 indicator to avoid creating a
situation where an area with potential for urban development does not
W.-M. Wey Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290

Fig. 7. Interdependences among eight criteria.

have an adequate transportation system to meet intercity travel de- time, demonstrating that developing open spaces or green areas near
mand. the selected site for a transportation system should be considered.

4.4.4. C4. Development of a green transportation system
The estimated weights of C4 are 0.12, 0.16, 0.08, and 0.19 for
2014, 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively. Estimating the trend from
2014 to 2040 on the basis of GFM (Fig. 12) using the MAPE of the C4
indicator yields a value of 37.15%, showing a high predictive accuracy
of 62.84%. The C4 indicator initially exhibits a gradual increase, but
then decreases progressively with time, suggesting its status as an index
indicator (i.e., c1 e c 2 t + c3, where c1 is the coefficient, c2 is the constant,
but c1 is positive). The weight of this indicator increases gradually with
4.4.5. C5. A diversified transportation system
The estimated weights of C5 are 0.09, 0.08, 0.08, and 0.06 for
2014, 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively. Estimating the trend from
2014 to 2040 on the basis of GFM (Fig. 13) using the MAPE of the C5
indicator yields a value of 6.43%, showing a high predictive accuracy
of 93.56%. The C5 indicator tends to decrease gradually with time,
suggesting that C5 is a linear indicator (i.e., a1 t + a2 , where a1 is the
coefficient, a2 is the constant, but a1 is negative). The weight of this
indicator decreases gradually with time. The C5 indicator mainly

Fig. 8. Broken line graph for all analyzed indicators and time-dependent weights.

285
W.-M. Wey
Fig. 9. C1. Trend graph for dynamic changes in the integration of land use and transportation plans.
concerns the possibility of providing travelers with diversified trans-
portation modes such as bicycles, electric vehicles, metros, and buses.
However, transport mode selection tends to be based on relative con-
venience, implying that the provision of overdiversified transportation
options will not necessarily improve sustainability. Therefore, the
weight of the C5 indicator decreases gradually.
4.4.6. C6. Environmental enhancement through barrier-free transportation
The estimated weights of C6 are 0.06, 0.05, 0.13, and 0.12 for
2014, 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively. Estimating the trend from
2014 to 2040 on the basis of GFM (Fig. 14) using the MAPE of the C6
indicator yields a value of 24.67%, showing a high predictive accuracy
of 75.32%. The C6 indicator initially increases gradually then decreases
progressively with time, suggesting that C6 is an index indicator (i.e.,
c1 e c 2 t + c3, where c1 is the coefficient and c2 is the constant, but c1 is
positive). This indicator exhibits an upward trend over time, possibly
because socio-demographic structures will change in the future. For
example, the proportion of elderly citizens will increase and a barrier-
free design that is related to elderly or underprivileged people will
therefore receive a gradual increase in emphasis.
4.4.7. C7. Use of renewable energy or alternative fuel
The estimated weights of C7 are 0.04, 0.07, 0.05, and 0.08 for
2014, 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively. Estimating the trend from
2014 to 2040 on the basis of GFM (Fig. 15) using the MAPE of the C7
indicator yields a value of 24.43%, showing a high predictive accuracy
of 75.56%. The indicator decreases gradually with time, suggesting
that the C7 indicator is linear (i.e., a1 t + a2 , where a1 is the coefficient,
a2 is the constant, but a1 is positive). The weight of this indicator in-
creases gradually over time. Although the weight of the C7 indicator
Fig. 10. C2. Trend graph for dynamic changes in the creation of friendly spaces for sidewalks and bikeways.
286
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
will increase in the future, it has the lowest ranking for the four as-
sessment periods, demonstrating that current experts do not perceive
the C7 indicator to be crucial. However, emphasis on environmental
sustainability concerns such as alternative fuel and zero-pollution fuel
will gradually increase.
4.4.8. C8. Enhancement of the usage rate of non-motorized transportation
The estimated weights of C8 are 0.06, 0.08, 0.08, and 0.05 for
2014, 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively. Estimating the trend from
2014 to 2040 on the basis of GFM (Fig. 16) using the MAPE of the C8
indicator yields a value of 8.29%, showing a high predictive accuracy
of 91.71%. C8 is a parabolic indicator (i.e., d1 t 2 + d2 t + d3 , where d1
and d2 are coefficients, d3 is the constant, but d1 is negative). The
weight of the C8 indicator peaks in 2020, indicating that the necessity
of servicing travelers who lack private transportation will be prioritized
in 2020; after 2020, the importance of this indicator will gradually
decline. The main reason for this is that the C8 indicator targets special
groups, including the elderly, children, and people without cars. Con-
sequently, if these groups prefer not to use public transportation, other
alternative transportation modes should be promoted in the future.
5. Conclusions and policy implications
5.1. Proposed urban dynamic transportation planning strategies based on
emerging growth management principles
This study combined the DNP expert survey results with the GFM to
estimate the future trends for the weight of each sustainable urban
transportation mode. Using the prediction results of GFM, we then es-
timated the trend of each sustainable urban transportation indicator
W.-M. Wey Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290

Fig. 11. C3. Trend graph of dynamic changes in the accessibility of public transportation.

Fig. 12. C4. Trend graph of dynamic changes in the development of a green transportation system.

Fig. 13. C5. Trend graph of dynamic changes in providing a diversified transportation system.

Fig. 14. C6. Trend graph of dynamic changes in the development of a barrier-free transportation environment.

287
W.-M. Wey Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290

Fig. 15. C7. Trend graph of dynamic changes in the use of renewable energy and alternative fuel.

Fig. 16. C8. Trend graph of dynamic changes in the usage rate of non-motorized transportation.

Fig. 17. Trend graph of changes in all indicators, expressed using a Gray forecasting model.

after 2040. The DNP shows that the C1 (Land use and transportation
plan integration), C2 (Friendly spaces for sidewalks and bikeways), C3
(Increase the accessibility of public transportation), and C4
(Development of a green transportation system) indicators are per-
ceived to be the most critical for the period from 2014 to 2040.
However, if the selection of a feasible strategy was based on only the
DNP results, then the selection would encounter a dis-continuous future
trend and unknown dynamic situation. For example, the dynamic trend
of the C3 indicator is S-shaped, rendering it more difficult to identify
feasible strategies for any decision makers or decision units. Therefore,
one of the greatest contributions or highlights of this research for
constructing urban transportation development strategies, perhaps, is
the planning and design that change over time (Fig. 17). In other words,
our contributions may also provide a well reference for future decision-

288
W.-M. Wey
makers especially when allocating resources of a sustainable urban
transportation system in response to dynamic urban physical environ-
ment.
5.2. Concluding remarks
This paper proposes an integrated approach to identify the most
important criteria that can signify alternative sustainable urban trans-
portation planning strategies for the quality of life under growth
management principles. The proposed approach, which systematically
integrates both FDM and ANP techniques into a time dependent plan-
ning process, is used to judge the sustainable urban transportation
planning and evaluate the overall impact on quality of life. In addition,
due to the future development blueprint of the New Taipei City
Government intend to treat Banqiao District (Banqiao Station) as a
green transportation hub and expect to improve the quality of urban life
through the mass transportation network, thus our study sets New
Taipei City as the main empirical area and selects Banqiao Station as a
forerunner of a sustainable transportation system to respond the ulti-
mate pursuing of sustainable urban transportation under various
Growth Management Principles from the concerns and contributions of
numerous perspectives in the past.
At present, Banqiao Station is a highly complex infrastructure that
consists of (1) Taiwan Railway, (2) Taipei MRT and (3) High-Speed
Railway. In the future, it will be further added a new ring route of MRT,
which will turn into a more important hub for mass transportation of
four railways network. With the increasingly complete public facilities
and strategic planning in Banqiao district, the future development po-
sitioning of Banqiao Station thereby inevitably become a composite or
multiple functional services node of urban governance, transportation
and administration. Again, from a view of larger geographical scale, the
sustainable urban transportation planning in New Taipei city has come
to a turning point, as the traffic and population growing has become a
serious concern and put a tremendous pressure on both environment
and urban dwellers. It is therefore important to find ways or new life-
styles such as sustainable urban transportation planning formulations
that are more flexible, inclusive, and sustainable. Thus, at the end of
this study we tried to conduct an empirical analysis with New Taipei
City in Taiwan to indicate our planning philosophy and consequently
validate planning strategies discussed before. We believes that research
frameworks, technical requirements and findings here not only provide
new insights into the functioning of current growth constructions or
management principles, but also could be used as feasible and im-
portant criteria for practical planners or official decision units to fa-
cilitate QoL and urban sustainability in further.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank anonymous referees and the Editor
of the journal for constructive comments and suggestions. The author
also wishes to acknowledge Mei-Hui Wang for her participation in data
collection and analysis activities. Finally, the author would like to ex-
press his appreciations to Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)
of Taiwan as well as National Taipei University for the supports of the
projects 104-2410-H-305-077-MY3 and 107-NTPU_A-H&E-143-001.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the
official policy or positions of the MOST and NTPU.
References
Abdallah, K. B., Belloumi, M., & DeWolf, D. (2013). Indicators for sustainable energy
development: A multivariate cointegration and causality analysis from Tunisian road
transport sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 34–43.
Behan, K., Maoh, H., & Kanaroglou, P. (2008). Smart growth strategies, transportation
and urban sprawl: simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario. Canadian Geographer-
Geographe Canadien. 52(3), 291–308.
Bettencourt, L. M., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C., & West, G. B. (2007). Growth,
289
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 104(17), 7301–7306.
Bettencourt, L., & West, G. (2010). A unified theory of urban living. [Comment]. Nature,
467, 912.
Biagi, B., Ladu, M. G., & Meleddu, M. (2018). Urban quality of life and capabilities: An
experimental study. Ecological Economics, 150, 137–152.
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2006). Perceived residential environment quality
in middle- and low-extension Italian cities. Revue Européenne de Psychologie
Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 23–34.
Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types
and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38(7), 723–739.
Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density
and housing type. Environment and Planning B, Planning & Design, 36(1), 30–48.
Castillo, H., & Pitfield, D. E. (2010). ELASTIC–A methodological framework for identi-
fying and selecting sustainable transport indicators. Transportation Research Part D,
Transport and Environment, 15(4), 179–188.
Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O. L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L. F., & Neiman, A. (2009). Influences of
built environments on walking and cycling: Lessons from Bogotá. International Journal
of Sustainable Transportation, 3(4), 203–226.
Chan, S. L., Wey, W. M., & Chang, P. H. (2012). Establishing disaster resilience indicators
for Tan-sui river basin in Taiwan. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-012-0225-3.
Chang, Y.-H., Wey, W.-M., & Tseng, H.-Y. (2009). Using ANP priorities with goal pro-
gramming for revitalization strategies in historic transport: A case study of the
Alishan Forest Railway. Expert Systems With Applications, 36(4), 8682–8690.
Chapin, T. S. (2012). From growth controls, to comprehensive planning, to smart growth:
Planning’s emerging fourth wave. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(1),
5–15.
Chen, H., Jia, B., & Lau, S. S. Y. (2008). Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact
cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat International, 32(1), 28–40.
Cheshmehzangi, A., & Butters, C. (2016). Sustainable living and urban density: The
choices are wide open. Energy Procedia, 88, 63–70.
Çolak, M. S., & Ege, A. (2013). An Assessment of EU 2020 Strategy: Too Far to Reach?
Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 659–680.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: Three
decades of process. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
Din, H. S. E., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H. E., & Elariane, S. A. (2013). Principles of urban
quality of life for a neighborhood. HBRC Journal, 9(1), 86–92.
Doi, K., Kii, M., & Nakanishi, H. (2008). An integrated evaluation method of accessibility,
quality of life, and social interaction. Environment and Planning B, Planning & Design,
35(6), 1098–1116.
European Union (2010). A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 2013/10/25
http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%
20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf.
European Union (2011a). Regional policy for smart growth in Europe 2020. 2013/10/31)
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/pdf/brochures/rfec/2011_smart_
growth_en.pdf.
European Union (2011b). Contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020. 2013/10/31)
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/pdf/brochures/rfec/2011_
sustainable_growth_en.pdf.
Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 16(1), 51–74.
Figueroa, M. J., & Ribeiro, S. K. (2013). Energy for road passenger transport and sus-
tainable development: Assessing policies and goals interactions. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 5(2), 152–162.
Frey, H. (1999). Designing the city: Towards a more sustainable urban form. London and New
York: Taylor & Francis Group/ Spon Press.
Gudmundsson, H., & Sørensen, C. H. (2013). Some use—Little influence? On the roles of
indicators in European sustainable transport policy. Ecological Indicators, 35, 43–51.
Haghshenas, H., & Vaziri, M. (2011). Urban sustainable transportation indicators for
global comparison. Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global compar-
ison. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 115–121.
Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (2010). A compact and sustainable city. 2013/11/15
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/our-city/city-strategies/hamiltonurbangrowth/Pages/
default.aspx.
Haque, M. M., Chin, H. C., & Debnath, A. K. (2013). Sustainable, safe, smart—Three key
elements of Singapore’s evolving transport policies. Transport Policy, 27, 20–31.
Henning, T. F. P., Muruvan, S., Feng, W. A., & Dunn, R. C. (2011). The development of a
benchmarking tool for monitoring progress towards sustainable transportation in
New Zealand. Transport Policy, 18(2), 480–488.
Hidalgo, D., & Huizenga, C. (2013). Implementation of sustainable urban transport in
Latin America. Research in Transportation Economics, 40(1), 66–77.
Hiremath, R. B., Balachandra, P., Kumar, B., Bansode, S. S., & Murali, J. (2013). Indicator-
based urban sustainability—A review. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(6),
555–563.
Hwang, C. L., & Lin, M. J. (1987). Group decision making under multiple criteria: Methods
and applications. Springer-Verlag.
Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M., Shiga, T., Tomizawa, G., Tatsuta, R., & Mieno, H. (1993). The
Max-Min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets
and Systems, 55(3), 241–253.
Johnson, M. P. (2001). Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: A survey of the literature
and proposed research agenda. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,
33(4), 717–735.
Kuo, Y. F., & Chen, P. C. (2008). Constructing performance appraisal indicators for mo-
bility of the service industries using Fuzzy Delphi Method. Expert Systems With
Applications, 35(4), 1930–1939.
W.-M. Wey
Lai, S.-K., Huang, J.-Y., & Han, H. (2017). Land development decisions and lottery de-
pendent utility. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 34(2), 39–45.
Li, G., & Weng, Q. (2007). Measuring the quality of life in city of Indianapolis by in-
tegration of remote sensing and census data. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
28(2), 249–267.
Macke, J., Casagrande, R. M., Sarate, J. A. R., & Silva, K. A. (2018). Smart city and quality
of life: Citizens’ perception in a Brazilian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production,
182, 717–726.
Maoh, H., & Tang, Z. (2012). Determinants of normal and extreme commute distance in a
sprawled midsize Canadian city: Evidence from Windsor. Canada. Journal of Transport
Geography. 25, 50–57.
May, A. D., Page, M., & Hull, A. (2008). Developing a set of decision-support tools for
sustainable urban transport in the UK. Transport Policy, 15(6), 328–340.
Miller, J. S., & Hoel, L. S. (2000). Approaching the “Smart growth” issue: A look at best
practices used by transportation planning organizationsVirginia Transportation Research
Council. 2013/11/01) http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/
00-tar3.pdf.
Miranda, H. F., & Silva, A. N. R. (2012). Benchmarking sustainable urban mobility: The
case of Curitiba, Brazil. Transport Policy. 21, 141–151.
Morag, F. (1995). Definitions of quality of life: A taxonomy. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
22(3), 502–508.
Pasimeni, P. (2011). The Europe 2020 index. Social Indicators Research, 110, 613–635.
Ribeiro, Í. J. S., Pereira, R., Freire, I. V., de Oliveira, B. G., Casotti, C. A., & Boery, E. N.
(2018). Stress and quality of life among university students: A systematic literature
review. Health Professions Education, 4(2), 70–77.
Rogerson, R. J. (1999). Quality of life and city competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36(5-6),
290
Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (2019) 275–290
969–985.
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network
process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T. L. (2007). Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/
ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7–8), 860–891.
Saaty, T. L., & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hier-
archies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2),
229–237.
Santos, A. S., & Ribeiro, S. K. (2013). The use of sustainability indicators in urban pas-
senger transport during the decision-making process: The case of Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 5(2), 251–260.
Senlier, N., Yildiz, R., & Aktas¸, E. D. (2009). A perception survey for the evaluation of
urban quality of life in Kocaeli and a comparison of the life satisfaction with the
european cities. Social Indicators Research, 94, 213–226.
Steg, L., & Gifford, R. (2005). Sustainable transportation and quality of life. Journal of
Transport Geography, 13(1), 23–99.
Turkoglu, H. (2015). Sustainable development and quality of urban life. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 202, 10–14.
UN-Habitat (2010). State of the world’s cities 2010/2011— Cities for all. London: Earthscan:
Bridging the Urban Divide.
Wey, W.-M., & Chiu, Y.-H. (2012). Assessing the walkability of pedestrian environment
under the transit-oriented development. Habitat International, 38, 106–118.
Wey, W.-M., & Wu, K.-Y. (2007). Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource
allocation in transportation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), 985–1000.