SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 41 Sayı: 1

A Hybrid Framework for Improving Sustainable Urban Mobility: Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Maximal Covering Location Problem for Bike-Sharing System Site Selection

Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Hareketliliğin İyileştirilmesi için Hibrit Bir Çerçeve: Paylaşımlı Bisiklet Sistemi İstasyon Yer Seçiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme ve Maksimum Kapsama Probleminin Entegrasyonu

Nimet Elmacıoğlu(KAYSERI UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0008-5182
Neslihan Demirel(Kayseri University)0000-0002-9737-6666
Oğuz Öcal(Kayseri University)0000-0002-5729-7218
Pages
346–369
Publication Date
2025-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings highlight that integrating MCDM techniques with spatial modeling enhances the efficiency and sustainability of BSS implementations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Sustainable urban mobility is crucial for reducing environmental impacts and enhancing transportation efficiency.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights (IDOCRIW) method was employed to determine criterion weights, while the Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method was used for evaluating alternatives.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings highlight that integrating MCDM techniques with spatial modeling enhances the efficiency and sustainability of BSS implementations.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilirlik · Kentsel Hareketlilik · Paylaşımlı Bisiklet

Abstract

Sustainable urban mobility is crucial for reducing environmental impacts and enhancing transportation efficiency. The effectiveness of Bike-Sharing Systems (BSS) largely depends on the optimal placement of stations. In this study, a data-driven framework integrating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and spatial optimization techniques was developed for BSS station site selection. The Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights (IDOCRIW) method was employed to determine criterion weights, while the Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method was used for evaluating alternatives. The analysis considered factors such as proximity to bicycle lanes and tram stations, population density, and traffic accident rates. To enhance result robustness, TOPSIS, ARAS, and COPRAS methods were applied, and the results were aggregated using the Borda Count method. Additionally, the Maximum Coverage Problem was utilized to optimize population coverage, with the selected three optimal station locations covering 18% of the urban population, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Scenario analyses assessed the impact of service distance thresholds on system performance, providing insights into planning flexibility. The findings highlight that integrating MCDM techniques with spatial modeling enhances the efficiency and sustainability of BSS implementations.

Özet

Sürdürülebilir kentsel hareketlilik çevresel etkilerin azaltılması ve ulaşım verimliliğinin artırılması açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Paylaşımlı Bisiklet Sistemleri (BSS), istasyonların optimal konumlandırılmasına bağlı olarak etkinlik göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada, BSS istasyonlarının yer seçimi için Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) ve mekânsal optimizasyon teknikleri entegre edilerek veri odaklı bir çerçeve geliştirilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesinde IDOCRIW yöntemi ile alternatiflerin değerlendirilmesinde CoCoSo yöntemini bir arada kullanılmıştır. Bisiklet yollarına, tramvay duraklarına yakınlık, nüfus yoğunluğu ve trafik kaza oranları gibi faktörler dikkate alınarak analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuçların sağlamlığını artırmak amacıyla TOPSIS, ARAS ve COPRAS yöntemleri uygulanmış ve Borda Sayım yöntemiyle sonuçlar birleştirilmiştir. Ek olarak Maksimum Kapsama Problemi kullanılarak nüfus kapsama oranı optimize edilmiştir. Seçilen üç optimal istasyon konumu, kent nüfusunun %18’ini kapsayarak yöntemin etkinliğini ortaya koymuştur. Senaryo analizleri, hizmet mesafesi eşik değerlerinin sistem performansı üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirerek planlama esnekliği konusunda içgörüler sunmaktadır. Bulgular, ÇKKV teknikleri ile mekânsal modellemenin entegrasyonunun BSS'nin verimliliğini ve sürdürülebilirliğini artırdığını göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Elmacıoğlu, N., Demirel, N., Öcal, O. (2025). A Hybrid Framework for Improving Sustainable Urban Mobility: Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Maximal Covering Location Problem for Bike-Sharing System Site Selection. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 1, 346–369. https://ajindex.com/articles/1266698

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (84)

  1. Knudsen C, Moreno E, Arimah B, Otieno R, Ogunsanya O, Arku G and Leck H 2020. World cities report 2020: The value of sustainable Urbanization. United Nations, United Nation Human Settlements Programme.
  2. Bank W. Cities and Climate Change: An Urgent Agenda. 2010. Available Online: Openknowledge. Worldbank. Org. Bai X, Shi P and Liu Y 2014. Society: Realizing China's Urban Dream. Nature, 509(7499), 158-160. https://doi.org/10.1038/509423a
  3. Abubakar I R and Dano U L 2020. Sustainable Urban Planning Strategies for Mitigating Climate Change in Saudi Arabia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(6), 5129-5152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00417-1
  4. Bauman A, Crane M, Drayton B A and Titze S 2017. The Unrealised Potential of Bike Share Schemes to Influence Population Physical Activity Levels–A Narrative Review. Preventive Medicine, 103, S7-S14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.02.015
  5. Tiwari A and Sharma P 2024. Preference-based grey theory model and its application in waste disposal selection: a case study. Sādhanā, 49(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02413-8
  6. Fontaine P, Minner S and Schiffer M 2023. Smart And Sustainable City Logistics: Design, Consolidation and Regulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 307(3), 1071-1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.09.022
  7. Demaio P 2009. Bike-Sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision and Future. Journal Of Public Transportation, 12(4), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.12.4.3
  8. CSB. 2024. Environmental indicators. Retrieved https://www.csb.gov.tr/ (Access date, 07.02.2024).
  9. Caulfield B, O'Mahony M, Brazil W and Weldon P 2017. Examining Usage Patterns of a Bike-Sharing Scheme in A Medium Sized City. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 100, 152-161 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.023
  10. Zhao P, Yuan D and Zhang Y 2022. The Public Bicycle as A Feeder Mode for Metro Commuters in The Megacity Beijing: Travel Behavior, Route Environment, and Socioeconomic Factors. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 148(1), 04021064. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2222911
  11. Rowangould G M and Tayarani M 2016. Effect of Bicycle Facilities on Travel Mode Choice Decisions. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 142(4), 04016019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.00003414
  12. Wang Y, Liu Y, Ji S, Hou L, Han S S and Yang L 2018. Bicycle Lane Condition and Distance: Case Study of Public Bicycle System in Xi’an, China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(2), 05018001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000436
  13. Glass C, Appiah-Opoku S, Weber J, Jones Jr S L, Chan A and Oppong J 2020. Role of bikeshare programs in transit-oriented development: case of Birmingham, Alabama. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 146(2), 05020002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000567
  14. Chevalier A, Charlemagne M and Xu L 2019. Bicycle Acceptance on Campus: Influence of The Built Environment and Shared Bikes. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 76, 211-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.09.011
  15. Zhao P, Yuan D and Zhang Y 2022. The Public Bicycle as A Feeder Mode for Metro Commuters in The Megacity Beijing: Travel Behavior, Route Environment, and Socioeconomic Factors. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 148(1), 04021064. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000785
  16. Yılmaz Ş F and Demirel N 2023. Evaluation Of Out-Of-Home Last-Mile Delivery Methods in Terms of Sustainability. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice, 30(5). 10.23055/ijietap.2023.30.5.9015
  17. Eren E and Katanalp B Y 2022. Fuzzy-Based GIS Approach with New MCDM Method For Bike-Sharing Station Site Selection According to Land-Use Types. Sustainable Cities and Society, 76, 103434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103434
  18. Xu M, Di Y, Yang H, Chen X and Zhu Z 2023. Multi-Task Supply-Demand Prediction and Reliability Analysis for Docked Bike-Sharing Systems Via Transformer-Encoder-Based Neural Processes. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 147, 104015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2023.104015
  19. Ebrahimi Z D, Momenitabar M, Nasri A A and Mattson J 2022. Using A GIS-Based Spatial Approach to Determine the Optimal Locations of Bikeshare Stations: The Case of Washington DC. Transport Policy, 127, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.08.008
  20. Li H, Xing Y, Zhang W and Zhang X 2021. Investigating the Impact of Weather Conditions and Land Use on Dockless Bike-Share Trips in Shanghai, China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(4), 05021031 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000728
  21. Zhang Y and Mi Z 2018. Environmental Benefits of Bike Sharing: A Big Data-Based Analysis. Applied Energy, 220, 296-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.101
  22. Ayan B. Abacıoğlu S and Basilio M P 2023. A Comprehensive Review of the Novel Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Information, 14(5), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285
  23. Özakin B 2023. A comparative study of the selection of cutting fluids used in machining processes by multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. Sādhanā, 48(4), 204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02265-2
  24. Boumaza H, Belhadi S, Yallese M A, Safi K and Haddad A 2022. Optimization of surface roughness, tool wear and material removal rate in turning of Inconel 718 with ceramic composite tools using MCDM methods based on Taguchi methodology. Sādhanā, 48(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-022-02060-5
  25. Goswami S S, Behera D K, Afzal A, Razak Kaladgi A, Khan S A, Rajendran P and Asif M 2021. Analysis of a robot selection problem using two newly developed hybrid MCDM models of TOPSIS-ARAS and COPRAS-ARAS. Symmetry, 13(8), 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13081331
  26. Punetha N and Jain G 2023. Unsupervised sentiment analysis of Hindi reviews using MCDM and game model optimization techniques. Sādhanā, 48(4), 195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02255-4
  27. Meddin R, DeMaio P, O’Brien O, Rabello R, Yu C, Seamon J and Mason J.2020. The meddin bike-sharing world map.4
  28. Luo-Ke. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation in Site Selection of Public Bicycle Stations Based on AHP Method.
  29. Lin J R and Yang T H 2011. Strategic Design of Public Bicycle Sharing Systems with Service Level Constraints. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(2), 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.09.004
  30. García-Palomares J C, Gutiérrez J and Latorre M 2012. Optimizing the location of stations in bike-sharing programs: A GIS approach. Applied Geography, 35(1-2), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.07.002
  31. Martinez L M, Caetano L, Eiró T and Cruz F 2012. An Optimisation Algorithm to Establish the Location of Stations of a Mixed Fleet Biking System: An Application to The City of Lisbon. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.769
  32. Romero J P, Ibeas A, Moura J L, Benavente J and Alonso B 2012. A Simulation-Optimization Approach to Design Efficient Systems of Bike-Sharing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 646-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.782
  33. Ghandehari M, Pouyandeh V H and Javadi M H M 2013. Locating Of Bicycle Stations in The City of Isfahan Using Mathematical Programming and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 3(4), 18-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v3-i4/271
  34. Lin J R, Yang T H and Chang Y C 2013. A Hub Location Inventory Model for Bicycle Sharing System Design: Formulation and Solution. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 65(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2011.12.006
  35. Deng C, Wang J Y and Zheng W G 2015. Layout Optimizing of Public Bicycle Stations Based on AHP In Wuhan. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 737, 896-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2011.12.006
  36. Frade I and Ribeiro A 2015. Bike-Sharing Stations: A Maximal Covering Location Approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 82, 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.09.014
  37. Lopez Gonzalez L 2016. Optimal Location for Bike Sharing Stations in Downtown Kalamazoo
  38. Pan Y and Dou W 2016. Study on The Site Selection of Stations in Bike-Sharing System. International Core Journal of Engineering Vol.2 No.9
  39. Ciancio C, Ambrogio G and Laganá D 2017. A Stochastic Maximal Covering Formulation for A Bike Sharing System. In Optimization and Decision Science: Methodologies and Applications: ODS, Sorrento, Italy, September 4-7, 2017 47 (Pp. 257-265). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67308-0_26
  40. Çetinkaya C 2017. Bike Sharing Station Site Selection for Gaziantep. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 35(3), 535-543.
  41. Park C and Sohn S Y 2017. An Optimization Approach for The Placement of Bicycle-Sharing Stations to Reduce Short Car Trips: An Application to The City of Seoul. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105, 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.08.019
  42. Kabak M, Erbaş M, Cetinkaya C and Özceylan E 2018. A GIS-Based MCDM Approach for The Evaluation of Bike-Share Stations. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 201, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.033
  43. Mete S, Cil Z A and Özceylan E 2018. Location And Coverage Analysis of Bike-Sharing Stations in University Campus. Business Systems Research: International Journal of The Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, 9(2), 80-95. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2018-0021
  44. Chen H, Cheng T and Zhang Y 2019. Locating Stations in Bike-Sharing Service: A Special Maximal Covering Location Problem. http://newcastle.gisruk.org/proceedings/
  45. Gehrke S R and Welch T F 2019. A Bikeshare Station Area Typology to Forecast the Station-Level Ridership of System Expansion. Journal Of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), 221-235 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26911265
  46. Hu Y, Zhang Y, Lamb D, Zhang M and Jia P 2019. Examining And Optimizing the Bicycle Bike-Sharing System–A Pilot Study in Colorado, US. Applied Energy, 247, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.007
  47. Jahanshahi D, Minaei M, Kharazmi O A and Minaei F 2019. Evaluation And Relocating Bicycle Sharing Stations in Mashhad City Using Multi-Criteria Analysis. International Journal of Transportation Engineering, 6(3), 265-283.
  48. Shu S, Bian Y, Rong J and Xu D 2019. Determining the exact location of a public bicycle station—The optimal distance between the building entrance/exit and the station. PloS one, 14(2), e0212478. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212478
  49. Eren E 2020. (Master Of Science Master Thesis). Adana Alparslan Turkes Science and Technology University.
  50. Lee T Y, Jeong M H, Jeon S B and Cho J M 2020. Location Optimization of Bicycle-Sharing Stations Using Multiple-Criteria Decision Making. Sensors And Materials, 32(12), 4463-4470. https://doi.org/10.18494/SAM.2020.3125
  51. Salih-Elamin R and Al-Deek H 2021. A New Method for Determining Optimal Locations of Bike Stations to Maximize Coverage in A Bike Share System Network. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 48(5), 540-553. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2020-014
  52. Alkılınç E, Cenani Ş and Çağdaş G 2021. Bisiklet Paylaşım Istasyonlarının Belirlenmesi: CBS Tabanlı Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımı. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(2), 471-489 https://doi.org/10.25092/baunfbed.893434
  53. Guler D and Yomralioglu T 2021. Location Evaluation of Bicycle Sharing System Stations and Cycling Infrastructures with Best Worst Method Using GIS. The Professional Geographer, 73(3), 535-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2021.1883446
  54. Öztaşçi D D, Ünalan G and Ersoy U 2021. Cost-Benefits Analysis of Establishing a Bike-Sharing System Between Başkent University and Koru Metro. Journal of Public Finance Studies, (66), 107-137. https://doi.org/10.26650/mcd2021-989630
  55. Bahadori M S, Gonçalves A B and Moura F 2022. A GIS-MCDM Method For Ranking Potential Station Locations in The Expansion of Bike-Sharing Systems. Axioms, 11(6), 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11060263
  56. Mix R, Hurtubia R and Raveau S 2022. Optimal location of bike-sharing stations: A built environment and accessibility approach. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 160, 126-142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.03.022
  57. Qian X, Jaller M and Circella G 2022. Equitable Distribution of Bikeshare Stations: An Optimization Approach. Journal of Transport Geography, 98, 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103174
  58. Chai L, Zeng C, Zhao L and Hu J 2023. Location Selection of Shared Bicycle Distribution Points Based on User Demand. IEEE Access, 11, 22629-22636. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3248304.
  59. Zhou J, Guo Y, Sun J, Yu E and Wang R 2022. Review Of Bike-Sharing System Studies Using Bibliometrics Method. Journal Of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 9(4), 608-630 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2021.08.003
  60. Eslami V, Ashofteh P S, Golfam P and Loáiciga H A 2021. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Environmental Impact Assessment to Reduce the Adverse Effects of Dams. Water Resources Management, 35(12), 4085-4110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02932-1
  61. Zavadskas E K and Podvezko V 2016. Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036
  62. Shannon C E A 1948. Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x/
  63. Ding Z, Zhu M, Wu Z, Fu Y and Liu X 2018. Combining AHP-Entropy Approach with GIS For Construction Waste Landfill Selection—A Case Study of Shenzhen. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(10), 2254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102254
  64. Taheriyoun M, Karamouz M and Baghvand A 2010. Development Of an Entropy-Based Fuzzy Eutrophication Index for Reservoir Water Quality Evaluation. Journal Of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 7(1), 1-14. Transport Standardization (23) (2010), P. 61
  65. Ali T, Aghaloo K, Chiu Y R and Ahmad M 2022. Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic in Planning the Future Energy Systems Of Developing Countries Using An Integrated MCDM Approach In The Off-Grid Areas Of Bangladesh. Renewable Energy, 189, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.099
  66. Aktaş N and Demirel N 2021. A Hybrid Framework for Evaluating Corporate Sustainability Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(10), 15591-15618 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01311-5
  67. Hwang C L and Yoon K 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications Springer-Verlag. New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
  68. Wu J, Sun J, Liang L and Zha Y 2011. Determination Of Weights for Ultimate Cross Efficiency Using Shannon Entropy. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5162-5165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.046 Čereška A, Podvezko V and Zavadskas E K 2016. Operating Characteristics Analysis of Rotor Systems Using MCDM Methods. Studies In Informatics and Control, 25(1), 59-68.
  69. Ustinovichius L, Zavadskas E K and Podvezko V 2007. Application Of a Quantitative Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM-1) Approach to The Analysis of Investments in Construction. Control And Cybernetics, 36(1), 251-268.
  70. Yazdani M, Zarate P, Kazimieras Zavadskas E and Turskis Z 2019. A Combined Compromise Solution (Cocoso) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501-2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
  71. Ecer F and Pamucar D 2020. Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Novel Integrated Fuzzy Best Worst Method (F-BWM) And Fuzzy Cocoso with Bonferroni (Cocoso’b) Multi-Criteria Model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121981
  72. Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Yazdani M, Ebadi Torkayesh A and Derakhti A 2020. Application Of a Gray-Based Decision Support Framework for Location Selection of a Temporary Hospital During COVID-19 Pandemic. Symmetry, 12(6), 886. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12060886
  73. Leigh C, Peterson J and Chandra S 2009. Campus Bicycle-Parking Facility Site Selection: Exemplifying Provision of An Interactive Facility Map. In Proceedings of The Surveying & Spatial Sciences Institute Biennial International Conference, Adelaide (Pp. 389-398).
  74. Wuerzer T, Mason S and Youngerman R 2012. Boise Bike Share Location Analysis. Community And Regional Planning
  75. Croci E and Rossi D 2014. Optimizing The Position of Bike Sharing Stations. The Milan Case.
  76. Ekundayo O E 2023. Optimizing Bike-Sharing in Glasgow Using a Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach.
  77. Eren E and Uz V E 2020. A Review on Bike-Sharing: The Factors Affecting Bike-Sharing Demand. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101882
  78. Hagwall R 2023. Mapping Stockholm's Bike-share Future: A GIS-based Analysis of Bicycle-sharing Stations in Stockholm.
  79. Kayseri Municipality. 2023. Kayseri Population Density In 2022. Retrieved From Https://Cbs.Kayseri.Bel.Tr/ (Access Date: 20.11.2023)
  80. Zavadskas E K and Turskis Z 2010. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making. Technological and economic development of economy, 16(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10
  81. Zavadskas E K, Kaklauskas A and Šarka V 1994. The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. https://etalpykla.vilniustech.lt/handle/123456789/111916
  82. Borda, J. D. (1781). M'emoire sur les' elections au scrutin. Histoire de l'Acad'emie Royale des Sciences.
  83. Church, R., & Velle, C. R. (1974). The maximal covering location problem. Papers in regional science, 32(1), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.1974.tb00902.x
  84. Ozdemir, S. (2024). Unveiling environmental resilience: A data-driven multi-criteria decision-making approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 108, 107607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107607