Подходы к оценке транспортной доступности в мегаполисах: опыт применения технологии геомаркетинга

Муртузалиева Т.В., Лукина А.В., Ивашкова Н.И., Тимохина Г.С., Широченская И.П.

Научная статья

УДК 338.47

https://doi.org/10.33983/0130-9757-2021-5-42-61

ПОДХОДЫ К ОЦЕНКЕ ТРАНСПОРТНОЙ ДОСТУПНОСТИ В МЕГАПОЛИСАХ: ОПЫТ ПРИМЕНЕНИЯ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ ГЕОМАРКЕТИНГА

Таира Велимагомедовна Муртузалиева — кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры маркетинга Российского экономического университет им. Г.В. Плеханова, г. Москва, Россия, Murtuzalieva.TV@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7762-010X

Анастасия Владимировна Лукина — доктор экономических наук, профессор кафедры маркетинга Российского экономического университет им. Г.В. Плеханова, г. Москва, Россия, Lukina.AV@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2455-3622

Наталья Ивановна Ивашкова — кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры маркетинга Российского экономического университет им. Г.В. Плеханова, г. Москва, Россия, Ivashkova.NI@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5648-3617

Галина Сергеевна Тимохина — кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры маркетинга Российского экономического университет им. Г.В. Плеханова, г. Москва, Россия, Timohina.GS@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7322-806

Ирина Петровна Широченская — кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры маркетинга Российского экономического университет им. Г.В. Плеханова, г. Москва, Россия, Shirotchenskaya.IP@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5919-2313

Автор, ответственный за переписку: Таира Велимагомедовна Муртузалиева, Murtuzalieva.TV@rea.ru

Аннотация. Статья посвящена вопросам комплексного моделирования доступности общественного транспорта с использованием геоинформационных систем (ГИС). В работе представлен анализ проблем взаимосвязи транспортного развития и застройки крупных городов; анализируется мировой и отечественный опыт методов расчета и применения индексов транспортной обеспеченности в градостроительной политике; индексов доступности общественного транспорта; модель транзитно-ориентированного развития, примеры ее практического применения в различных городах мира. На основе изучения целого ряда методик, основанных на объективных и субъективных оценках уровня транспортной доступности, сделан вывод об отсутствии в настоящее время универсальной методики комплексной оценки транспортной доступности мегаполисов (объективной и воспринимаемой), определены современные возможности решения поставленных задач путем технологии геомаркетинга на основе использования больших данных.

Практическая значимость полученных авторами результатов обусловлена возможностью формирования на основе изученных методик системы анализа транспортной доступности капитальных объектов в г. Москве, дифференцируя уровень транспортной доступности для разных групп населения.

Ключевые слова: системы скоростного пассажирского транспорта, транспортная доступность, транспортная инфраструктура, макроэкономические индикаторы, геоинформационные системы, анализ больших данных, технологии геомаркетинга, цифровизация процессов

Для цитирования: Муртузалиева Т.В., Лукина А.В., Ивашкова Н.И., Тимохина Г.С., Широченская И.П. Подходы к оценке транспортной доступности в мегаполисах: опыт применения технологии геомаркетинга // Российский экономический журнал. 2021. № 5. С. 42–61. https://doi.org/10.33983/0130-9757-2021-5-42-61.

Благодарности

Статья является частью государственного научного исследования «Разработка методологии управления конкурентоспособностью предприятий в сфере товарооборота в цифровой экономике». Проект № FSSW-2020-0009 (этап 2021) по заказу Министерства науки и высшего образования РФ.

EVOLUTION OF THE POST-SOVIET ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Reform and region

Original article

APPROACHES TO ASSESSING TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY IN MEGACITIES: APPLYING GEOMARKETING TECHNIQUES

Taira V. Murtuzalieva — Ph.D. (Economics), Associate Professor, Marketing Department, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (PRUE), Moscow, Russia, Murtuzalieva.TV@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7762-010X

Anastasia V. Lykina — Doctor of Science (Economy), Professor, Marketing Department, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (PRUE), Moscow, Russia, Lukina.AV@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2455-3622

Natalia I. Ivashkova — Ph.D. (Economics), Associate Professor, Marketing Department, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (PRUE), Moscow, Russia, Ivashkova.NI@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5648-3617

Galina S. Timokhina — Ph.D. (Economics), Associate Professor, Marketing Department, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (PRUE), Moscow, Russia, Timohina.GS@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7322-806

Irina P. Shirochenskaya — Ph.D. (Economics), Associate Professor, Marketing Department, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (PRUE), Moscow, Russia, Shirotchenskaya.IP@rea.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5919-2313

Corresponding author: Taira V. Murtuzalieva, Murtuzalieva.TV@rea.ru

Abstract. The article is devoted to the issues of modeling the accessibility of public transport and the formation of its criteria by using geographic information systems (GIS). The paper presents an analysis of the relationship between transport development and the development of large cities. The article analyzes the world and domestic experience of using transport availability indices in urban planning policy: public transport accessibility indices; a model of transit-oriented development, examples of its practical application in various cities worldwide.

Based on the study of a number of methods based on objective and subjective assessments of the level of transport accessibility, it was concluded that there is currently no universal methodology for a comprehensive assessment of the transport accessibility in megalopolises (objective and perceived). The modern possibilities of solving the tasks set by geomarketing technology based on the use of big data are identified.

The practical significance of the results obtained by the authors is due to the possibility of forming, on the basis of the studied methods, a system for analyzing the transport accessibility of capital objects in Moscow, differentiating the level of transport accessibility for different groups of the population.

Keywords: high-speed passenger transport systems, transport accessibility, transport infrastructure, macroeconomic indicators, geographic information systems (GIS), big data analysis, geomarketing technologies, digitalization of processes.

For citation: Murtuzalieva T.V., Lykina A.V., Ivashkova N.I., Timokhina G.S., Shirochenskaya I.P. Approaches to assessing transport accessibility in megacities: Applying geomarketing techniques. Russian Economic Journal. 2021;(5):42–61. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33983/0130-9757-2021-5-42-61.

Acknowledgements

The article is part of the state scientific research «Development of a methodology for managing the competitiveness of enterprises in the field of trade in the digital economy». Project No. FSSW-2020-0009 (stage 2021) commissioned by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

Список источников

  1. DeVos J., Schwanen T., VanAcker V., & Witlox F. Travel and subjective well-being: A focus on findings, methods and future research needs. Transport Reviews. 2013;33(4):421–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.815665.
  2. Kamruzzaman Md., Yigitcanlar T., Yang J., Mohamed M.A. Measures of Transport-Related Social Exclusion: A Critical Review of the Literature. Sustainability. 2016;8(7):696. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070696.
  3. Thériault M., Des Rosiers F., Florent Joerin. Modelling accessibility to urban services using fuzzy logic: A comparative analysis of two methods. Journal of Property Investment and Finance. 2005;23(1):22–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635780510575085.
  4. Parkhurst G., Meek S. The effectiveness of park-and-ride as a policy measure for more sustainable mobility. Transport and Sustainability. 2014;5:185–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120140000005020.
  5. Аношкина Е.Л. Задачи устойчивого развития крупнейших российских городов // Вопросы новой экономики. 2012. № 3. С.74–79.
  6. N.J.A. Van Exel, P. Rietveld. Could you also have made this trip by another mode? An investigation of perceived travel possibilities of car and train travellers on the main travel corridors to the city of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A. 2009;43(4):374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.11.004.
  7. Becker U., Gerike R. Background — Needs as the focus of transport planning. In How to Define and Measure Access and Need Satisfaction in Transport; Becker, U., Böhmer, J., Gerike R., Eds.; Dresdner Institut für Verkehr und Umwelt e.V. (DIVU): Dresden, Germany, 2008:5–24.
  8. Green J., Jones A., Roberts H. More than a to b: The role of free bus travel for the mobility and wellbeing of older citizens in London. Ageing and Society. 2014;34(3):472–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12001110.
  9. Pyrialakou V.D., Gkritza K., Fricker J.D. Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior: Assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective. Journal of Transport Geography. 2016;51:252–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.001.
  10. Church A., Frost M., Sullivan K. Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport Policy. 2000;7(3):95–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00024-X.
  11. Curtis C., Scheurer J. Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision making. Progress in Planning. 2010;74(2):53–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2010.05.001.
  12. Vella-Brodrick D.A., Stanley J. The significance of transport mobility in predicting well-being. Transport Policy. 2013;29:236–242.
  13. Walker J. Human Transit: How clearer thinking about public transit can enrich our communities and our lives. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2012. 246 р. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-174-0.
  14. Lättman К., Olsson L.E., Friman M. A new approach to accessibility — Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel. Research in Transportation Economics. 2018;69:501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.002.
  15. Morozova L., Stepanenkova L., Malashkin A. Integration of a Commuter Rail in the Transport System of the City. Transport Systems of Russian Cities. Springer, Cham, 2016:101–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47800-5_4.
  16. Щербина С.В. ГИС: географический подход к решению транспортной проблемы // Технологии и средства связи. 2013. № 1. С. 14–15. URL: http://lib.tssonline.ru/articles2/focus/gis-geograficheskiy-podhod-k-resheniyu-transportnoy-problemy (дата обращения: 20.12.2019).
  17. Grieco M., Turner J. Gender and time poverty: the neglected social policy implications of gendered time, transport and travel. Time & Society. 2000;9(1):129–136. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0961463X00009001007.
  18. Kegerris S. Independent Mobility and Children’s Mental and Emotional Development in Hillman, M. (ed.), Children, Transport and the Quality of Life. Policy Studies Institute, London, 1993. Р. 28–34.
  19. Carver A., Salmon J., Campbell K., Garnett S., Baur L., Crawford D. Perceptions of the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among adolescents. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2005;20(2):139–147. https://doi.org/ 10.4278/0890-1171-20.2.139.
  20. Walker А. Understanding quality of life in old age. Open University Press, 2005. 224 p.
  21. Banister David, Bowling Ann. Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension. Transport Policy. 2004;11(2):105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00052-0.
  22. Van Wee B. Accessible accessibility research challenges. Journal of Transport Geography. 2016;51:9–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.018.
  23. Casas I. Social exclusion and the disabled: An accessibility approach. The Professional Geographer. 2007;59(4):463–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00635.x.
  24. Smith N., Hirsch D., Davis A. Accessibility and capability: The minimum transport needs and costs of rural households. Journal of Transport Geography. 2012;21:93–101. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.004.
  25. Yigitcanlar T., Sipe N., Evans R., Pitot M. A GIS-based land use and public transport accessibility indexing model. Australian Planner. 2007;44(3):30–37. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07293682.2007.9982586.
  26. Blair N., Hine J., Bukhari S.M.A. Analysing the impact of network change on transport disadvantage: A GIS-based case study of Belfast. Journal of Transport Geography. 2013;31:192–200. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.015.
  27. Bocarejo S.J.P., Oviedo H.D.R. Transport accessibility and social inequities: A tool for identification of mobility needs and evaluation of transport investments. Journal of Transport Geography. 2012;24:142–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.12.004.
  28. Higgs G., White S. Alternatives to census-based indicators of social disadvantage in rural communities. Progress in Planning. 2000;53(1):1–81. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0305-9006(99)00021-5.
  29. Dodson J., Gleeson B., Evans R., Sipe N. Investigating the social dimensions of transport disadvantage ii: From concepts to methods through an empirical case study. Urban Policy and Research. 2007;25(1):63–89. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08111140701225511.
  30. Currie G., Richardson T., Smyth P., Vella-Brodrick D., Hine J., Lucas K., Stanley J., Morris J., Kinnear R., Stanley J. Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne. Preliminary results. Transport Policy. 2009;16(3):97–105. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.002.
  31. Velho R., Holloway C., Symonds A., Balmer B. The effect of transport accessibility on the social inclusion of wheelchair users: a mixed method analysis. Social Inclusion. 2016;4(3):24–35. https://doi.org/ 10.17645/si.v4i3.484.
  32. Lucas K., Wee B., Maat K. A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: Combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation. 2015;43(3):473–490. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2.
  33. Geurs K.T., Ritsema van Eck J.R. Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact (RIVM report no. 408505006). Utrecht University, Urban Research Center, 2001. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46637359_Accessibility_Measures_Review_and_Applications (дата обращения: 28.06.21).
  34. Buliung R.N., Roorda M.J., Remmel T.K. Exploring spatial variety in patterns of activity-travel behaviour: Initial results from the Toronto travel-activity panel survey (TTAPS). Transportation. 2008;35:697–722. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11116-008-9178-4.
  35. Newsome T.H., Walcott W.A., Smith P.D. Urban activity spaces: Illustrations and application of a conceptual model for integrating the time and space dimensions. Transportation. 1998;25:357–377. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1005082827030.
  36. Rai R.K., Balmer M., Rieser M., Vaze V.S., Schönfelder S., Axhausen K.W. Capturing human activity spaces: New geometries. Transportation Research Records. 2007;2021(1):70–80. https://doi.org/10.3141/2021-09.
  37. Ford A.C., Barr S.L., Dawson R.J., James Ph. Transport Accessibility Analysis Using GIS: Assessing Sustainable Transport in London. Journal of Geo-Information. 2015;4:24–149. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijgi4010124.
  38. Liu S., Zhu X. An integrated GIS approach to accessibility analysis. Transactions in GIS. 2004;8(1):45–62. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2004.00167.x.

References

  1. DeVos J., Schwanen T., VanAcker V., & Witlox F. Travel and subjective well-being: A focus on findings, methods and future research needs. Transport Reviews. 2013;33(4):421–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.815665.
  2. Kamruzzaman Md., Yigitcanlar T., Yang J., Mohamed M.A. Measures of Transport-Related Social Exclusion: A Critical Review of the Literature. Sustainability. 2016;8(7):696. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070696.
  3. Thériault M., Des Rosiers F., Florent Joerin. Modelling accessibility to urban services using fuzzy logic: A comparative analysis of two methods. Journal of Property Investment and Finance. 2005;23(1):22–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635780510575085.
  4. Parkhurst G., Meek S. The effectiveness of park-and-ride as a policy measure for more sustainable mobility. Transport and Sustainability. 2014;5:185–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120140000005020.
  5. Anoshkina E.L. Tasks of sustainable development of the largest Russian cities. Issues of the new economy. 2012;(3):74–79. (In Russ.).
  6. N.J.A. Van Exel, P. Rietveld. Could you also have made this trip by another mode? An investigation of perceived travel possibilities of car and train travellers on the main travel corridors to the city of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A. 2009;43(4):374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.11.004.
  7. Becker U., Gerike R. Background — Needs as the focus of transport planning. In How to Define and Measure Access and Need Satisfaction in Transport; Becker, U., Böhmer, J., Gerike R., Eds.; Dresdner Institut für Verkehr und Umwelt e.V. (DIVU): Dresden, Germany, 2008:5–24.
  8. Green J., Jones A., Roberts H. More than a to b: The role of free bus travel for the mobility and wellbeing of older citizens in London. Ageing and Society. 2014;34(3):472–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12001110.
  9. Pyrialakou V.D., Gkritza K., Fricker J.D. Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior: Assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective. Journal of Transport Geography. 2016;51:252–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.001.
  10. Church A., Frost M., Sullivan K. Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport Policy. 2000;7(3):95–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00024-X.
  11. Curtis C., Scheurer J. Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision making. Progress in Planning. 2010;74(2):53–106. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.progress.2010.05.001.
  12. Vella-Brodrick D.A., Stanley J. The significance of transport mobility in predicting well-being. Transport Policy. 2013;29:236–242.
  13. Walker J. Human Transit: How clearer thinking about public transit can enrich our communities and our lives. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2012. 246 р. https://doi.org/ 10.5822/978-1-61091-174-0.
  14. Lättman К., Olsson L.E., Friman M. A new approach to accessibility — Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel. Research in Transportation Economics. 2018;69:501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.002.
  15. Morozova L., Stepanenkova L., Malashkin A. Integration of a Commuter Rail in the Transport System of the City. Transport Systems of Russian Cities. Springer, Cham, 2016:101–129. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-47800-5_4.
  16. Shcherbina S.V. GIS: geographical approach to solving the transport problem. Technologies and means of communication. 2013;(1):14–15. URL: http://lib.tssonline.ru/articles2/focus/gis-geograficheskiy-podhod-k-resheniyu-transportnoy-problemy (date of access: 20.12.2019). (In Russ.).
  17. Grieco M., Turner J. Gender and time poverty: the neglected social policy implications of gendered time, transport and travel. Time & Society. 2000;9(1):129–136. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0961463X00009001007.
  18. Kegerris S. Independent Mobility and Children’s Mental and Emotional Development in Hillman, M. (ed.), Children, Transport and the Quality of Life, Policy Studies Institute, London, 1993. Р. 28–34.
  19. Carver A., Salmon J., Campbell K., Garnett S., Baur L., Crawford D. Perceptions of the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among adolescents. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2005;20(2):139–147. https://doi.org/ 10.4278/0890-1171-20.2.139.
  20. Walker А. Understanding quality of life in old age. Open University Press. 2005. 224 p.
  21. Banister David, Bowling Ann. Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension. Transport Policy. 2004;11(2):105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00052-0.
  22. Van Wee B. Accessible accessibility research challenges. Journal of Transport Geography. 2016;51:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.018.
  23. Casas I. Social exclusion and the disabled: An accessibility approach. The Professional Geographer. 2007;59(4):463–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00635.x.
  24. Smith N., Hirsch D., Davis A. Accessibility and capability: The minimum transport needs and costs of rural households. Journal of Transport Geography. 2012;21:93–101. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.004.
  25. Yigitcanlar T., Sipe N., Evans R., Pitot M. A GIS-based land use and public transport accessibility indexing model. Australian Planner. 2007;44(3):30–37. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07293682.2007.9982586.
  26. Blair N., Hine J., Bukhari S.M.A. Analysing the impact of network change on transport disadvantage: A GIS-based case study of Belfast. Journal of Transport Geography. 2013;31:192–200. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.015.
  27. Bocarejo S.J.P., Oviedo H.D.R. Transport accessibility and social inequities: A tool for identification of mobility needs and evaluation of transport investments. Journal of Transport Geography. 2012;24:142–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.12.004.
  28. Higgs G., White S. Alternatives to census-based indicators of social disadvantage in rural communities. Progress in Planning. 2000;53(1):1–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-9006(99)00021-5.
  29. Dodson J., Gleeson B., Evans R., Sipe N. Investigating the social dimensions of transport disadvantage ii: From concepts to methods through an empirical case study. Urban Policy and Research. 2007;25(1):63–89. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08111140701225511.
  30. Currie G., Richardson T., Smyth P., Vella-Brodrick D., Hine J., Lucas K., Stanley J., Morris J., Kinnear R., Stanley J. Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne. Preliminary results. Transport Policy. 2009;16(3):97–105. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.002.
  31. Velho R., Holloway C., Symonds A., Balmer B. The effect of transport accessibility on the social inclusion of wheelchair users: a mixed method analysis. Social Inclusion. 2016;4 (3):24–35. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v4i3.484.
  32. Lucas K., Wee B., Maat K. A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: Combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation. 2015;43(3):473–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2.
  33. Geurs K.T., Ritsema van Eck J.R. Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact (RIVM report no. 408505006). Utrecht University, Urban Research Center, 2001. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46637359_Accessibility_Measures_Review_and_Applications (date of access: 28.06.21)
  34. Buliung R.N., Roorda M.J., Remmel T.K. Exploring spatial variety in patterns of activity-travel behaviour: Initial results from the Toronto travel-activity panel survey (TTAPS). Transportation. 2008;35:697–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-008-9178-4.
  35. Newsome T.H., Walcott W.A., Smith P.D. Urban activity spaces: Illustrations and application of a conceptual model for integrating the time and space dimensions. Transportation. 1998;25:357–377. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1005082827030.
  36. Rai R.K., Balmer M., Rieser M., Vaze V.S., Schönfelder, S., Axhausen, K.W. Capturing human activity spaces: New geometries. Transportation Research Records. 2007;2021(1):70–80. https://doi.org/10.3141/2021-09.
  37. Ford A.C., Barr S.L., Dawson R.J., James Ph. Transport Accessibility Analysis Using GIS: Assessing Sustainable Transport in London. Journal of Geo-Information. 2015;4:24–149. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4010124.
  38. Liu S., Zhu X. An integrated GIS approach to accessibility analysis. Transactions in GIS. 2004;8(1):45–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2004.00167.x.

Статья поступила в редакцию 13.08.2021; одобрена после рецензирования 08.10.2021; принята к публикации 26.10.2021.

The article was submitted 13.08.2021; approved after reviewing 08.10.2021; accepted for publication 26.10.2021.