Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

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

Case comparison of typical transit-oriented-development stations in Tokyo

district in the context of sustainability: Spatial visualization analysis based
on FAHP and GIS
Lu Ke, Katsunori Furuya *, Shixian Luo
Department of Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sustainability in transportation development has been a fixture in recent discourse. TODness is a principle that
Sustainability TODness evaluates the extent to which sites meet Traffic-Oriented Development (TOD). To an extent, it reflects some
Tokyo district criteria for sustainable transportation development. Based on the TODness, this paper develops a comprehensive
Railway stations
index called “Sustainable TODness” around the four dimensions of sustainable development—environmental,
OSM data
Impedance pedestrian catchment area
economic, social, and transportation efficiency—combined with the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Using this
(IPCA) index, an evaluation of 13 TOD stations in the Tokyo metropolitan area was carried out, and the impedance
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and pedestrian catchment area of each station was spatially analyzed in conjunction with the geographic information
ArcGIS system to generate a heat map of indicators’ distribution. According to the spatial characteristics reflected by the
Pros and cons of each station heat map, the stations are divided into three categories. We found that some popular TOD stations have high
Policy attention scores on the economic level, but have more or fewer deficiencies in the other three dimensions. We believe that
the research method in this article is applicable to the sustainability evaluation of any TOD site in the world and
provides new ideas for the renewal of developed urban areas and new land use in the future.

1. Introduction 1.1.2. Transportation sustainability

1.1. Background
1.1.1. Sustainability
Sustainable development is already a commonplace topic and a
recognized development trend. The concept of sustainable development
has appeared in many documents, but its definition is still not recog­
nized and the argument surrounding it is very high. The Brundtland
Commission (1987) and Griggs et al. (2013) both define sustainable
development as a process that revolves around a balanced relationship
between economic development and the protection of the Earth’s
ecosystem. Both emphasized the sustainable intergenerational dimen­
sion and paid more attention to the environmental aspect. However,
these Earth systems have irreversible value to life and laid the founda­
tion for people’s economic and social development (“Comparing
Transit-Oriented Development Sites by Walkability Indicators - Marc
Schlossberg, Nathaniel Brown, 2004,” n.d.). Overall, the concept of
sustainable development provides positive effects, including environ­
mental, social, economic, and transportation efficiency.
In terms of the development of transportation sustainability, people
usually pay attention to economic benefits while neglecting social and
environmental problems. Some studies believe that improvement of
transportation networks will promote the development of the urban
economy. However, it will have a negative environmental impact, which
involves the complement between transportation and economic, social,
and environmental development (Loo & Banister, 2016). Similar to
changing laws on the relationship between social inequality and eco­
nomic development, the Kuznets curve (Kopits & Cropper, 2005) is also
applicable to changes in the relationship between transportation and
sustainable development. It has been concluded that the decoupling of
transportation and economic growth must be realized. Two social and
environmental factors should be considered in the development of
transportation (Loo & Banister, 2016). At the same time, attention
should be paid to social inequality and exclusion in transportation
development (Currie, 2011). During the literature review, we found that
some studies measure the sustainability of urban transportation systems
through the calculation and integration of various indicators (Barfod &
Salling, 2015; Castillo & Pitfield, 2010; Haghshenas & Vaziri, 2012;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: keluclaire007@gmail.com (L. Ke), k.furuya@faculty.chiba-u.jp (K. Furuya), shixianluo@yahoo.com (S. Luo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102788
Received 23 September 2020; Received in revised form 3 February 2021; Accepted 5 February 2021
Available online 19 February 2021
2210-6707/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Ke et al.
Jeon, Amekudzi, & Guensler, 2010), and that they are almost all based
on the three basic principles of sustainable development. Regarding the
establishment of indicators for traffic sustainability metrics, (Dobran­
skyte-Niskota, Perujo, Pregl, European Commission, & Joint Research
Centre, 2007) developed 55 indicators based on the economy, society,
environment, technology, and system. They conducted traffic sustain­
ability evaluations for various European Union countries and ascer­
tained that Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands have the highest
indicators. Conversely, Greece, Bulgaria, and Lithuania have the lowest.
These studies emphasized the value of sustainable transportation and
the necessity of research, but they all discussed transport sustainability
based on the city’s macro-level. Neither did an in-depth exploration of
certain transportation types, such as the bus system and railway system,
nor comprehensively evaluated the station’s area.
1.1.3. Sustainable TODness
Traffic-Oriented Development (TOD) is considered to be the product
of the combination of urban land use and transportation systems
(Banister, 2008; “Comparing Transit-Oriented Development Sites by
Walkability Indicators - Marc Schlossberg, Nathaniel Brown, 2004,” n.
d.; “Transit-Oriented Development at the Urban Periphery: Insights from
a Case Study in Shanghai, China - Haixiao Pan, Qing Shen, Chang Liu,
2011,” n.d.; National Academies of Sciences, 2004). Under the frame­
work of sustainable urban development, TOD plays a pivotal role in
urban environmental, economic, and social development. Among the
urban development models guided by sustainability, TOD has become a
useful urban planning model that has been successfully implemented
because of its pedestrian friendliness, mixed land use, and trans­
portation network accessibility (Calthorpe, 1993; Dill, 2008; Parsons,
Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, 1996). Since the beginning of the last
century, the TOD concept has evolved in the United States and Europe
(Papa and Bertolini, 2015). In 1997, the 3-D framework (density, di­
versity, and design) of TOD was adopted by Cervero et al. (Cervero and
Kockelman, 1997a) and proposed and added the 2-D principle (desti­
nation accessibility, distance to transit) to the design dimension in 2008
(Cervero and Murakami, 2009). In the TOD planning policy of Western
cities, the number of private car mileage is reduced by increasing the
number of passengers on public transportation (Guo et al., 2018).
Although TOD was first proposed and implemented in the United States
and European countries as early as 1910, Japan began to advocate the
development of a combination of public transportation systems and land
use. Due to limited land resources, Japan has formed a rail transit city
circle structure that is worth study by other Asian countries and even
European countries.
We recognize that TOD has many benefits. More and more cities are
vigorously advocating such urban planning methods. Many studies have
shown that it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of TOD before
and after the formulation of TOD policies. Therefore, many types of
research have started with development. Traffic-Oriented Development
typology is used to discuss the effectiveness of TOD, namely TODness.
Among them, the Node-Place model (Bertolini, 1999) is commonly used.
The index of node and place and the position distribution in
two-dimensional coordinates are used to divide the TOD into five types.
It is proposed that the formulation of transportation development pol­
icies should take into account the type of TOD and formulate different
development policies according to different types, rather than treating
them equally, which will save resources and obtain efficient
development.
1.2. Literature review
In the literature review part, we will specifically focus on TOD ty­
pology, selection and integration of TOD indicators, and spatial analysis
scope.
2
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
1.2.1. TOD typology
In terms of TOD indicator selection, researchers have developed an
index to measure TODness to measure the efficiency of TOD around
traffic nodes. The research objects include the United States (Boarnet
and Crane, 1997; Cervero and Kockelman, 1997b; Griffiths and Curtis,
2017; Kahn, 2007; Renne, 2018), Europe (Singh et al., 2017), Tehran,
Iran (Monajem & Ekram Nosratian, 2015; Motieyan and Mesgari, 2019;
Pezeshknejad et al., 2020), Brisbane, Australia (Griffiths and Curtis,
2017; Kamruzzaman et al., 2014), Tokyo, Japan (Chorus and Bertolini,
n.d.; Guo et al., 2018), Shanghai, China (Dou et al., 2016) and Beijing
(Lyu et al., 2016), and Seoul, South Korea (Eom et al., 2019; Rodríguez
and Kang, 2020; Sung and Choi, 2017). Based on a literature review, the
node-place model (Bertolini, 1999) or model-based modification to
make it a node-place-design model (Vale, 2015; Pezeshknejad et al.,
2020) or transit-oriented development model (Lyu et al., 2016) reflect
different individuals in a two-dimensional or three-dimensional distri­
bution coordinate map, according to the value of the TOD index—which
is called TOD typology. In the same TOD type, each research object has
similar index values and similar interrelations among indexes.
TOD typology aims to classify TOD projects in different areas of the
city and then point out the future positioning of urban development.
However, based on the conclusions of typological research, it may lead
to a certain degree of deviation in the construction effect guided by the
same policy due to the differences between individuals. In response to
this problem, we need to evaluate the completed projects.
Unlike traditional typology, there are also some studies aimed to
evaluate several figures of TOD sites. For example, Schlossberg and
Brown (2004) used a network analysis tool in the geographic informa­
tion system to measure the walkability of 11 stations in Portland; (Papa
and Bertolini, 2015) quantified rail accessibility indicators, and
explored the relationship between TODness and railway accessibility
(Luan et al., 2020) to explore the reasons that affect the travel mode and
mode choice of residents from the perspective of the catchment area of
the TOD site. These studies focus more on the study of the site itself
rather than on the macro city or region, so it is helpful to understand the
site’s specific characteristics and the relationship between resource
allocation and traffic routes. Motieyan and Mesgari (2019) proposed a
combination of green urbanism and TOD (GTOD) as a new compre­
hensive index to assess the GTOD level of urban communities and verify
the effectiveness of the indicator through the current policy develop­
ment direction. Their research focuses on the environmental assessment
of TOD and provides a new idea for the sustainable research of TOD at
the level of the urban area. In TOD’s traffic sustainability evaluation, we
refer to their research methods. However, in the selection of evaluation
indicators, we will focus on the sustainable multi-dimensional evalua­
tion instead of the merely environmental aspect.
1.2.2. Indicators of transit sustainability
Although many articles have proposed TOD as a development model
for sustainable transportation, few studies have focused on the sus­
tainability assessment of TOD. De Gruyter et al. (2017) developed 15
useful indicators for each city in the world to quantify and compare
regional-level traffic sustainability. Haghshenas and Vaziri (2012) used
the environmental, social, and economic indicators to evaluate the
sustainable transportation index of 90 cities. However, they are all based
on the city and regional level, and there is no research focusing on the
micro-level TOD sustainability index evaluation in cities. In addition,
while evaluating the environmental, economic, and social factors of the
sustainability of a traffic station, it is necessary to consider the traffic
characteristics of the TOD itself so that traffic efficiency indicators will
be added to the evaluation. Therefore, this study will put emphasis on
the four different dimensions of environment, economy, society, and
transportation efficiency to evaluate transportation sustainability
around the station.
L. Ke et al.
1.2.3. Integration of indicators
In the TODness quantification process, except for formulating in­
dicators by dividing a reasonable interval through experience, it is
necessary to take into account all indicators’ values to measure the value
of TOD. Some studies determine the validity index by studying the
correlation of various TOD indicators without summarizing the value of
the indicator, such as (Chorus and Bertolini, n.d.), which is different
from the traditional node-place model using the pair with the highest
correlation score. The index establishment evaluation model determines
the strength and balance of the TODness of each rail transit station,
which can adequately reflect the difference between the stations.
However, because of the lack of comprehensiveness, it is not suitable for
weighing the comprehensive TODness of a single station. Papa and
Bertolini (2015) chose to use the strength of the correlation between two
variables (node and place) to express the city’s TODness.
Similarly, when measuring TODness, fewer variables are considered,
and the description of the index value is not so accurate. Studies have
also shown that the importance of various elements of transportation
sustainability is relatively balanced (Haghshenas and Vaziri, 2012).
When evaluating the overall index value of transportation sustainability,
the values of different indicators measured by different units are stan­
dardized. Then, their average value is used to represent the sustainable
traffic value in the final city dimension. However, we believe that the
premise of using the mean value to integrate the indicators is to have
sufficient reasons to explain the reliability of the results. To solve this
problem, most researchers use the multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM) method to aggregate various weighted indicators of TODness
into a final index. For example, Li et al. (2019) used Fuzzy Analytic
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) for all the indicators of each dimension in the
model and combined it with a Self-Organizing Map (SOM) to classify the
types of TOD sites. Huang and Wey (2019) used the Fuzzy Delphi
Technique (FDT) method combined with expert opinions to screen out
indicators that exceed the consensus threshold and then integrated it
with the Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP) and Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) to assign the weight of each indicator. Because their
research purpose is to determine the index weight of TOD at the
ecological level in consideration of Taiwan’s local planning technical
requirements, the operation matrix is more complicated. However, we
hope our research can fit the sustainability evaluation of stations in any
world region, so we do not need to consider Tokyo’s current urban
development policy. Also about the indicators of the ecological level of
TOD, Motieyan and Mesgari (2019) combine geo-spatial information
and Hierarchical Fuzzy Inference system (HFIS) to synthesize the in­
dicators, develop a new GTOD index by combining TOD with green
urbanism, and then verify its effectiveness. In order to clarify which
dimension of the sustainable indicator type is more dominant, De
Gruyter et al. (2017) make a sensitivity test by increasing the weight of
each measurement for each time it increases by 50 %. Their result is that
when the weight values of different types of indicators change, the city
ranking based on the sustainability index changes. From literature re­
view, the MCDM method is widely used to integrate indicators with
consideration of weights. The final index can express the development
level and distribution balance in all sustainability dimensions in
comparing individual stations. Also, to detect whether the comprehen­
sive index will fluctuate significantly due to the change of the indicator’s
weight, we add a sensitivity test to discuss the stability of the final result
of the index. However, we do not believe that the site’s sustainable
TODness can be measured only by numerical values. So, to explore the
distribution of its spatial attributes, we will add geographic information
analysis of each site’s surrounding area. The following will explain the
determination of research scope and spatial analysis method in detail.
1.2.4. Catchment area
The catchment area of a station refers to an area around the station
formed by the people attracted by the traffic station, and its range is
generally measured by people’s walking distance (Luan et al., 2020).
3
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
Andersen and Landex (2008) used the pedestrian road network to assess
the crowd needs of the station. Eom et al. (2019) infer the configuration
of the catchment area in different railway stations through the bus IC
Card’s cumulative distribution of alighting passengers. For the assess­
ment scope of the station’s sustainable TODness, this article refers to the
definition of the catchment area range in different studies. The American
Public Transportation Association (2009) provides three classifications
to the typical impact range of transportation modes: the core area, main
catchment area, and secondary catchment area. After initially under­
standing the definition of the catchment area, we need to find how to
generate it. Elkj and Landex (n.d.) divide the catchment areas into two
categories by their formation. One is a “Circular Buffer” based on
Euclidean distance, and the other is “Service Area” based on the road
network. For different stations, the circular buffer areas (with a radius of
400-meter and 800-meter) are overlaid with the service area.
The higher the ratio of the service area of different stations to the
circular buffer area, the better the connectivity of walkway around the
station.
Similarly, O’Connor and Harrison (2012) compared the size differ­
ence of the circular buffer area and the road network service area of
different stations within a radius of 400 m and 1000 m. On consideration
of the complexity of the urban road network, they concluded that the
service area formed based on the road network is more objective and
scientific. Given the scope of the catchment area, almost all of them
regard the proportion of the population in the service area as an
important criterion. They believe that the catchment area needs to meet
certain traffic demands, and the optimal solution of the willing walking
distance is taken as the maximum walking distance. Canepa (2007)
believes that if the purpose of the research is to evaluate TODness, the
catchment area should not be divided according to a certain proportion
of the service population density. They believe that when the radius of
the catchment area meets the walking distance of 1 km or more, the
target station can be evaluated more fairly. We perceive the range of the
catchment area and the prosperity of public transportation to be
inseparable from the policies and cultures of different countries. Guo
et al. (2018) conducted an O-D matrix from different residential areas to
train stations to ensure that the catchment area of each station can cover
90 % of the surrounding passenger flow based on a survey of the actual
travel awareness of the Japanese people. Based on their study, we will
use ArcGIS network analysis extension tool to form a service area. The
quantitative spatial maps for different indicators were superimposed to
finally generate a TODness sustainable heat distribution map for each
station.
1.3. The present study
In Tokyo, railway transportation accounts for 50 % of the trans­
portation market and has become the main transportation mode for
people to commute. After the bubble economy, Japan’s metropolitan
development plan centered on railways, so the Kanto metropolitan area
with Tokyo as the center was gradually formed (Chorus and Bertolini, n.
d.). Tokyo is one of the first global metropolises to carry out TOD pro­
jects. The sound urban construction and railway integration model is
worth learning from for cities developing railway transportation net­
works. At the same time, it faces some social problem challenges, such as
the disorderly sprawl of the city, low birthrate, and aging population.
Tokyo’s railway stations have also been improved and rebuilt with
urban renewal. Studying the sustainability TOD and internal index dis­
tribution of typical TOD stations in the Tokyo Railway Circle can analyze
the characteristics and deficiencies of different stations and provide
reference values that cannot be underestimated for future development.
Although Tokyo’s TOD development stage arrived earlier than in
other cities in the world (Chorus and Bertolini, 2016), so far, research on
the TOD index is still very limited compared to European countries and
America. The majority of existing research tends to focus on TOD ty­
pology and does not explore the sustainability of railway traffic in detail.
L. Ke et al.
We believe that a sustainable station is a future development trend,
which is reflected by the compact city and high-intensity land devel­
opment and the combination of ecological and social welfare facilities.
Therefore, this research will start at the micro-level, take 13 typical
railway stations in Tokyo, Japan as the research object, and formulate
various sub-indices around the four dimensions of transportation sus­
tainability: environment, society, economy, and transportation effi­
ciency. We hope to provide a new research perspective for future urban
micro-level sustainability evaluation through the analysis of some spe­
cific TOD stations in the Tokyo metropolitan area.
Our research objectives include: 1. Select relevant indicators from
sustainable transportation and evaluate the sustainable TODness of
specific sites at the urban micro-level. 2. Use the MCDM method to
integrate indicators, reflect each station’s scores in four dimensions
through numerical values, compare and analyze the deficiencies in their
respective development. 3. Based on quantitative analysis, we will add a
spatial analysis to represent the distribution of sustainability within
each station’s catchment area, generate a heat map, and finally combine
the numerical value to jointly discuss the current spatial distribution of
sustainable TODness index. In the second part of this article, we will
focus on selecting indicators, data sources, and quantification methods,
and how to use ArcMap software to visualize the distribution of
Fig. 1. Flow chart of study structure.
4
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
indicators within the catchment areas. In the third part, we will explain
the selection of Tokyo TOD stations, the characteristics of the stations,
and the calculation of indicators for Tokyo’s 13 railway stations. The
fourth part will analyze and compare the final quantitative results of
each site’s sustainable TODness and conduct sensitivity tests on different
index weights. The last part is the discussion with a more specific
perspective on the results, conclusion and some limitations of this
research.
2. Materials and method
2.1. Overall framework of methodology
Fig. 1 shows the primary method structure of this study. It has three
stages: In the first stage, we select relevant indicators by reading the past
literature on sustainable transportation and green TOD evaluation. After
getting an indicator list, we discuss and screen out suitable indicators. In
the second stage, we consider quantifying and integrating these in­
dicators to use a comprehensive sustainable TODness index to indicate
each site’s development level. We will also conduct five sensitivity tests
on the indicator’s weight to check the stability of the final result. As
mentioned above, it is not enough to reflect the development level of
L. Ke et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

sustainable TODness only by numerical values, so we use spatial visu­ to B7(commercial facilities). In terms of the C5(residential population),
alization as a complement to reflect the distribution of TOD sustainable we admit that TODness is inextricably linked to the residential popula­
resources in the catchment area around the station. The combination of tion, and it is often used in the macro-scale analysis. But through field
the two methods can make this type of evaluation research more research, we found that within a limited walking range of each station,
convincing. In the final stage, we will focus on the calculated data, there are very few residential areas, so we think it’s not fit for micro-
generate heat maps, compare individuals’ differences, discuss their level evaluation. Finally, for indicator D7(number of tollgates), we
respective development status, and propose constructing TOD sites in found that the tollgate and concourse correspond during the Tokyo
the future. survey. In view of the balance of the indicators in four dimensions, we
deleted D7.
2.2. Identification of indicators As for the remaining indicators, we consulted related indicator
quantification methods. For data that cannot be retrieved, we have
First, we selected the indicators that meet the four dimensions of referred to some literature and used indicators that are positively
sustainable transportation through literature reading. This article refers correlated with the fundamental indicators as substitutes. Because the
to the 20 indicators proposed by Miller (2014) for evaluating the sus­ final index value is standardized, the effectiveness of the alternative plan
tainable degree of 33 transportation systems in America (Motieyan and is considered equivalent to the original plan. In the end, we determined
Mesgari, 2019), the new GTOD indicator that combines TOD and green the 18 indicators—under necessary conditions—and to facilitate the
urbanism. We initially formulate relevant evaluation indicators numerical comparability of the index in the future, we replaced some
(Table 1). At the same time, in the last column of the table, we record the measurement schemes with density schemes. As mentioned above, in
positive or negative effect of the indicator value on sustainable TODness. the final selection phase of indicators, we had a discussion and deleted
After listing all the indicators, we need to choose indicators that meet some indicators that were unanimously considered to be unimportant in
this research’s purpose. For the indicators that need to delete, we have the sustainable TODness evaluation process. Although this behavior
the following considerations: caused a small deficiency in our effectiveness indicators due to the
For A3(noise pollution), we need to go to the site to measure. But guarantee of the number of indicators in each dimension, the compre­
because of COVID-19, different districts in Tokyo adopt different hensive evaluation of sustainable TODness by the indicator structure
response policies, the data collected around different stations is not was considered adequate and worthy of implementation.
feasible. For A6(vertical green and green roof), we found through actual The final indicator scheme is shown in Table 2. We have added in­
site inspections that three-dimensional greening is still not popular in dicator calculation instructions and essential data sources to the table. In
stations. For B3(distance to the CBD area), we did not select our alternative options, such as A2, we use the reduction in carbon dioxide
research’s target stations according to different geographic scope. There emissions brought about by choice of public transportation mode as an
are some stations with relatively close geographical locations, such as alternative option because it has the practical value of measuring the
Ginza Station and Tokyo Station. Their various reference centers’ loca­ emissions of TOD stations, so it is selected as the alternative program.
tion (the entrance and exit of the site) leads to different spatial char­ The point of interest (POI) distribution density replaces almost all the
acteristics. As a result, the dissimilarity between the two will be counting indicators in the station catchment area, which facilitates the
weakened if we consider the geographical locations. For B4(mixedness comparison of different station indexes. In addition, the generation of
of commercial land use), we believe that the B5(land use diversity) catchment areas is also one of the innovations of this article, which is
covers this range. The B8(frequency of commercial activities) is similar different from the thinking model of public transportation stations as a
single point in previous literature (Yamini Jain Singh et al., 2017;
Pezeshknejad et al., 2020). This research takes the entrances and exits of
Table 1
Indicators from references.
the station as the center to form several service areas, and then in­
tegrates them as the final service area of the station, which is more in
ID Indicator Desirability
line with the assumption that people can reach the station based on
environmental route selection in real life. In the next section, we will discuss the data
A1 quantity of energy consumed lower is desirable
sources and calculation methods of these selected indicators.
A2 mass of pollutants emitted lower is desirable
A3 noise pollution lower is desirable
A4 green infrastructure higher is desirable 2.3. Quantification of TOD sustainability indicators
A5 accessibility of nearest park higher is desirable
A6 vertical green and green roof higher is desirable The data sources of this study were divided into two categories. (1)
economic
B1 Floor Area Ratio higher is desirable
Geographical data set: extract the points, lines, and polygon information
B2 Building Coverage Ratio higher is desirable around the station from the OSM. (2) Government statistics: Obtain
B3 distance to central business district (CBD) lower is desirable government statistical information websites. The administrative
B4 mixedness of commercial land use higher is desirable boundary, railway transportation network, road network, and land-use
B5 land-use diversity higher is desirable
type data can be input into Arcmap10.5 as geospatial vector data. The
B6 density of concourse higher is desirable
B7 commercial facilities higher is desirable information about different stations is also manually verified by visiting
B8 frequency of commercial activities higher is desirable all stations. I admit that because of this, some data still have slight de­
social viations because the statistical years of some Internet data are slightly
C1 facility for disabled higher is desirable different, but because this article aims to compare the differences in the
C2 facility for welfare/education/recreation higher is desirable
C3 police box higher is desirable
sustainability index of different stations and the differences in the in­
C4 safety lower is desirable ternal spatial structure of the stations, and provide future researchers
C5 residents higher is desirable with a kind of micro-spatial level of sustainable TOD site research ideas,
transit efficiency this will not affect the conclusion.
D1 parking lot for car lower is desirable
D2 parking area for bicycle higher is desirable
D3 railway line higher is desirable 2.3.1. Environmental criteria
D4 impedance pedestrian catchment areas higher is desirable There are a total of 4 environmental indicators included in the in­
D5 connectivity to station higher is desirable dicator integration in this study, of which the data of A1 and A4 are
D6 combination with other traffic mode higher is desirable based on the POI from the OSM, and are finally expressed as the density
D7 number of tollgates higher is desirable
of POI in the station’s IPCA. For the A1 indicator, the author attempted

5
L. Ke et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

Table 2 Tokyo Metropolitan Station in 2010 is from the Ministry of Land,

Indicators for present study. Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism. Based on the above data, we
ID Indicator Explanation of indicators Data source calculated the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that can be reduced
by public rail travel. It is important to explain that we did not distinguish
Environmental
A1 Quantity of energy The density of POI in IPCA Open street map between peak and off-peak travel periods, because we only need to
consumed (OSM) control the traffic volume of different modes at the same time.
A2 Mass of pollutants The reduction of carbon Tokyo bureau of
emitted dioxide emissions by rail environment; 2.3.2. Economic criteria
mode compared with Ministry of Land,
private car mode Infrastructure,
The raw data of the floor area ratio (FAR) and building coverage rate
Transport and (BCR) in the economic criteria were obtained from the land-use infor­
Tourism; mation of Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and
National Land Policy Tourism’s National Digital Information website. The unit of information
Bureau
is the smallest administrative area in Japan—Chome. Through the
A4 Green infrastructure Density of street trees in OSM
IPCA network analysis tool in Arcmap10.5, the average FAR and BCR within
A5 Accessibility of Number of parks within Google map the IPCA of the station were obtained.
nearest park 1000 m walking distance Among economic indicators, land-use diversity is a crucial evalua­
and distance to nearest tion indicator. In past research, whether to determine the correlation
Park
Economic
between TOD typology or TOD internal factors, it is an indispensable
B1 Building Coverage Average Building Geospatial indicator. The concept of entropy is usually used to evaluate land-use
Ratio coverage ratio in IPCA Information Authority diversity (Ritsema van Eck and Koomen, 2008; Motieyan amd Mes­
of Japan gari, 2019; Nyunt and Wongchavalidkul, 2020). The formula for this
B2 Floor Area Ratio Average floor area ratio in Geospatial
study is as follows:
IPCA Information Authority
of Japan;
∑
− Pi × ln(Pi )
Ministry of Land,
entropy = i (2)
Infrastructure, ln(n)
Transport and
Tourism; Entropy represents the diversity degree, Pi is the proportion of land-
B5 Land use diversity entropy indicator of each National Land Policy use type i, and n is the number of land types. The value of entropy is
IPCA Bureau
between 0 and 1. A higher value indicates a higher sustainable TOD
B6 Density of concourse Density of traffic switch OSM
B7 Commercial facilities Density of commercial OSM index.
facilities B6 is an indicator of an area where people can gather in the station.
Social We understand that it provides space for waiting temporarily when
C1 Facility for disabled Density of disabled OSM people are checking transferring information, so it is represented by the
facilities
point marked as “transfer” in the POI data. However, not every transfer
C3 Police box Density of police box OSM
C4 Safety Average crime rate Metropolitan police point at each station has a designated waiting space, but merely the
department of Japan confirmation of the information is reliable enough for people to stay in
Transit efficiency the space, so we believe that such a quantitative method is desirable. B7
D1 Parking lot for car Density of parking lot OSM
is used to represent the business vitality of the region. Although in
points
D2 Parking area for Density of parking area OSM Table 1, B7 and B8 comprehensively highlight the commercial vitality of
bicycle points the area because of the difficulty of collecting realistic data, we use the
D3 Railway line number of railway line of East Japan railway distribution of POI marked as catering, entertainment, financial trans­
targeted station company actions, etc. in the OSM in the station catchment area to express com­
D4 IPCA (impedance Station service area OSM
mercial vitality.
pedestrian catchment within walking
areas) impedance of 1000 m
from each entrance of 2.3.3. Social criteria
station It is worth noting that in the selection process of social indicators,
D5 Connectivity to Connection of road OSM
whether the regional disability facility exists (C1), whether to set up a
station network
D6 Combination with Distance to bus stops OSM
police box (C3), and regional safety (C4) have received people’s atten­
other traffic mode around railway station tion. This also shows that in public transportation facilities, people may
pay more attention to quality and experience. The value of C1 is
calculated from the density of the POI marked as universal facilities on
to locate the information in an open-source website, but the accuracy of the OSM in IPCA. In addition, we can obtain C3 using the same method.
the data was limited to major cities in Japan. Because this research fo­ For security index (C4), we admit that there are multiple ways to mea­
cuses on the catchment area of specific stations, the resolution of data sure the security of the region, such as the visual concealment of the
based only on the level of major cities in Japan is not sufficient to meet place and physical accessibility, but in the actual data search process,
the demand of this research, so the reduction of emissions due to public the crime rate is the most direct and readily available data. We found
transportation instead of private cars is used as an alternative. The statistics on the crime rate in Chome in 2019 on the Tokyo Metropolitan
calculation of the substitute value is shown in Eq. 1: Police Department website. Because the location of each accident is
co2 emission reduction = vr × (ec − er ) (1) unknown, in ArcMap10.5, we use the regional average density of
criminal cases to represent security factors.
where ec is the carbon dioxide emissions per kilometer caused by people
using private cars, er is the carbon dioxide emissions per kilometer per 2.3.4. Transit efficiency criteria
person caused by public rail transportation, and vr is the number of Although the traffic efficiency criteria are parallel to the other three
passengers of the railway system. The data on transportation mode and of the sustainable transportation development, researchers favor the
emissions are provided by the Bureau of Tokyo Environment. Moreover, element selection process because the traffic efficiency of TOD stations
the data in relation to the passenger volume getting on and off at the can directly determine people’s choice of traffic mode. Imagine that a

6
L. Ke et al.
family who owns a private car thinks that the efficiency of public
transportation services cannot meet their needs, their possibility of
choosing public transportation may thus be reduced. We integrated the
indicators D3 and D6 of the rail transit’s conditions and the efficiency
factors of the surrounding traffic service land, D1, D2, D4, and D5, to
evaluate the station’s transit efficiency.
Among them, Impedance Pedestrian Catchment Area (IPCA) is the
most critical indicator considered by the researchers because the service
area of the TOD station directly reflects the effect of the station on the
surrounding people and the walkability. Fig. 2 shows the range of IPCA
and circular buffer areas of some stations in the Kanto area. It should be
emphasized that all IPCAs and circular buffer areas are generated based
on the entrances and exits as long as they can be found on the OSM, so
the buffer area is not a perfect circle. We believe that in actual situations,
a station should not only be regarded as a single point but also as a
general area formed by multiple entrances and exits.
In this study, the generation of IPCA is based on the premise of the
two-way walking scene in the road network, starting from the entrances
and exits of the station through the Network Analysis Tool in Arc­
map10.5; further, the impedance threshold is set to 1000 m (Y. J. Singh
et al., 2017). In this research, IPCA represents accessibility of the site.
In Fig. 2, we can obtain some preliminary information. For example,
the ratio of IPCA to the traditional circular buffer area can be seen.
Compared with the stations close to the Tokyo’ CBD, the stations far
away from the urban CBD—such as Kichijoji station and Keio Chofu
station—are also excellent examples to examine IPCAs. The compre­
hensive pedestrian network makes up for their lack of entrances and
exits. New stations, such as the Takanawa gateway station, is not well
connected to the pedestrian road network on the east side, resulting in
an uneven distribution of IPCA. This is sufficient to reflect the impor­
tance of the station’s accessibility and connectivity of the surrounding
road networks.
Road network connectivity is a crucial indicator of IPCA. “Graph
Theory” is a standard method for calculating street connectivity.
Generally speaking, most articles express the degree of road network
connectivity by calculating the cross density, network density, and dead-
Fig. 2. IPCA (impedance pedestrian catchment area) of a part of stations in Tokyo region.
7
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
end density in the area. This paper uses the “α index” method proposed
by Dill (2004) to measure street connectivity, which is one of the com­
plete indicators of road network connectivity.
e− v+1
α= (3)
2v − 5
e is the number of roads, v is the number of nodes in the road network,
and the final range of α is between 0 and 1; the closer to 1, the better the
connectivity.
In the indicator measurement of linkage with other transportation
modes, our default linkage transportation mode is the bus. Quantifica­
tion of this index is relatively simple; it consists of the density of points
identified as bus stops in POI data, but in spatial analysis, we use the
inverse distance weighted (IDW) tool in Arcmap 10.5 to reflect the
geographical distribution of the accessibility levels of all bus stops
within IPCA.
The effect of the automobile parking lots indicator on the final index
of sustainable TODness is negative. In general, parking lots near stations
always provide short-term services, so the possibility of transferring
private cars to rail transit is relatively low. On the contrary, the effect of
the bicycle parking lots indicator is considered positive. We reflect the
parking lot’s index value by the density of the POI recognized as
“parking lot” in the IPCA.
Finally, the station’s rail transit lines are obtained through rail route
information provided by the companies JR East Japan and Yahoo. Here,
only the number of railway transportation routes provided by each
station is statistically calculated.
2.3.5. Integrating TOD sustainability index
2.3.5.1. Normalization. To allow the indicators of different units and
measurements to be compared at the same level, we use the maximi­
zation standard method to standardize the indicators. After standardi­
zation, we also need to clarify whether each indicator has a positive or
negative impact on the sustainable TODness index. For indicators that
are inversely proportional to the result, we use the reciprocal of the
L. Ke et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

original value and then standardize it. suppose we construct an evaluation system with k layers and n in­
dicators for pairwise comparison. Let i,j∈n, then aij is the importance of
x’ij− xmin
xij = (4) factor ai relative to aj (ai and aj are at the same layer).
xmax − xmin The matrix (aij )n×n is constructed as follows:
⎡ ⎤
where xij is the standard value of a certain index j of station i, ranging a1 a2 a3 … an
from 0 to 1; x’ij is the initial value of a specific index j of station i; xmax and ⎢ a1 1 a21 a31 … an1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ a2 a12 1 a32 … an2 ⎥
xmin are the maximum and minimum values of the index at all stations, ⎢ ⎥ (6)
⎢ a3 a13 a23 1 … an3 ⎥
respectively. ⎢
⎣⋮
⎥
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦
an a1n a2n a3n … 1
2.3.5.2. Fahp. After quantification and standardization, we need to ( )
consider the weight of the indicators, because not every indicator has The fuzzy number of aij can be expressed as ã ij , a
̃ij = lij , mij , uij ,
the same influence on the results. In this study, the balance of differences where mij is the initial score from the expert. So the original matrix is
is calculated through the multi-criteria decision-making method expressed by fuzzy numbers as:
(MCDM). Among the MCDM methods, fuzzy AHP is a soft decision ⎡ ⎤
method formed using the traditional AHP method. It is considered to be ã1 ã2 ã3 … ãn
⎢ ã1 1 (l21 , m21 , u21 ) (l31 , m31 , u31 ) … (ln1 , mn1 , un1 ) ⎥
more reliable than AHP in expressing modeling uncertainty (Meshram ⎢
⎢ ã2 (l12 , m12 , u12 )
⎥
1 (l32 , m32 , u32 ) … (ln2 , mn2 , un2 ) ⎥
et al., 2019; Motieyan and Mesgari, 2019). ⎢
⎢ ã3 (l13 , m13 , u13 ) (l23 , m23 , u23 ) 1
⎥
… (ln3 , mn3 , un3 ) ⎥
In this research, the integration of indicators has three steps: ⎢
⎣⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮
⎥
⎦
Step 1: Build the evaluation hierarchy ãn (l1n , m1n , u1n ) (l2n , m2n , u2n ) (l3n , m3n , u3n ) … 1
Although FAHP uses fuzzy numbers to calculate the final weight of (7)
indicators, its indicator hierarchy is the same as AHP. As shown in Fig. 3,
the index evaluation system covers three levels: the first level is the total (2) Calculate fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to ith alternative:
sustainable TODness index, the second level is the environmental, eco­ After constructing the matrix, we need to calculate the fuzzy
nomic, social, and transportation efficiency indicators, and the third comprehensive degree value Si of each ai in the layer k according to the
level is their sub-indicators. The calculation of indicators’ weights relies following formula:
on pairwise comparison at the same level by experts. We will give ( )− 1
∑ n n ∑
∑ n
detailed instructions in the next step. Si = ãij × ãij (8)
Step2: Expert questionnaire j=1 i=1 j=1
The expert evaluation team is composed of 25 ph.D. students
(3) Calculate the degree of possibility:
majoring in planning at Chiba University, Japan. They include 13
After obtaining the fuzzy comprehensive degree value of each indi­
women and 12 men, with an age range of 25–40 years old and an
cator, the next step is defuzzification. In general, we use the possibility
average age of 28. 4 of them are from the Landscape Planning Research
of a fuzzy number higher than all other fuzzy numbers at the same level
Office, 6 from the Urban Planning Research Office, 4 from the Regional
as its final weight.
Planning Research Office, 6 from the Urban Design Research Office, and ( )
five from the Ecological Environment Research Office. They all Suppose there are two fuzzy numbers Si (li , mi , ui ) and Sj lj , mj , uj ,
expressed a strong willingness to participate in this research. We used then Si ≥ Sj can be calculated by the following formula:
the 9− 9 scale to perform pairwise comparisons of different indicators at ( ) [ (
V Si ≥ Sj = sup min μSi (y), μSj (y)
)]
(9)
the same level. Before filling in the questionnaire, we introduced the
purpose of scoring to the participants and ensured that the premise of ⎧
1, if mj > mi
⎪
the scoring was that each participant had a good understanding of the ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
research content. In appendix, we give an expert scoring sample form. ( ) ( )
V Si ≥ Sj = tgh Si ∩ Sj =
0, if li > uj
(10)
Step3: Calculation of indicators’ weights ⎪
⎪
⎪ li − uj
⎪
⎩ ( ) ( ) if otherwise
Unlike AHP, FAHP converts precise data into fuzzy numbers for mj − uj − mi − lj
calculation, which is called fuzzification. A membership function is
usually used. There are three main types of membership functions: In summary, the final weight of the indicator ai is
Singleton, Gaussian, and Triangular. This article will use the most ( )
Wi = V(Si ≥ Si+1 …Sn ) = minV Si ≥ Sj i, j = 1……n (11)
widely used trigonometric function. The trigonometric function is
formulated by l, m, u, where m is the expert’s value in the pairwise
comparison scoring. Chang (1996) proposed a method to determine the 2.4. Spatial visualization analysis
fuzzy weight of each index through the degree technique of trigono­
metric function. The following is the formula of the trigonometric Unlike traditional quantitative data research, the sustainable TOD­
function: ness index, we suggest, has spatial characteristics—not just mathemat­
⎧
x− l ical or statistical. Therefore, although we obtain the final sustainable
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
; 1≤x≤m TODness values of different stations through MCDM integration, we do
⎨ m− l
μA (x) = u − x (5) not stop there. The aim of this study is to use geospatial analysis to
⎪
⎪
⎪ u− m
; m≤x≤u explore the characteristics of the sustainability index distribution within
⎪
⎪
⎩
0; otherwise the pedestrian shed. All spatial analyses were performed in the software
environment of Arcmap10.5.
where μA (x) represents the membership function of the triangular fuzzy
number A. l ≤ m≤u, l represents the minimum value, m is the median 2.4.1. The delineation of catchment area
value, and u is the maximum value. The target area of this analysis is the IPCA of the TOD station;
And we calculate according to the following points: therefore, first, we need to find the public road network information and
(1) Construct a fuzzy number matrix: generate a 1000-meter radius service area with the aid of the network
Suppose there are t experts involved in evaluating indicators, and analysis tool in Arcmap10.5. As the necessary information for this
analysis, the road network data around the site is also one of the

8
L. Ke et al.
Fig. 3. The evaluation hierarchy.
difficulties of spatial data input. As shown in Fig. 4, it is composed of
multi-step spatial operations in ArcGIS. The road network and POI in­
formation around the station are from the open street map. Unlike
previous studies, the IPCA is not a separate area formed only by the
center point of the station but a fusion of pedestrian buffers created by
all the station’s entrances and exits.
2.4.2. Heat map
The kernel density of facilities can reflect the distribution of re­
sources within a specific range. For example, the commercial vitality of
the city and the development of social facilities. For indicators that
cannot be measured by density, such as the connectivity between
transportation modes. We try to express the tightness of the connection
between the two in the catchment area. As shown in Fig. 5, we finally
superimposed the geographic distribution heat maps of different re­
sources in Arcmap10.5 to form a heat distribution map of all indicators,
reflecting the geographic distribution of station’s integrated TODness
sustainability.
2.5. Sensitivity test
Considering that different weights of indicators may impact the re­
sults, we add a sensitivity test to understand which criteria can have a
more significant impact on the results. In this study, we conducted five
sensitivity tests by changing the weight of each criterion. One is
Fig. 4. process of IPCA formation.
9
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
averaging the weights of four criteria, and the other is adding weights on
each criterion in each time orderly. For each time, we change the weight
of one criterion to make it twice the others.
3. Case study
When it comes to Tokyo, many people will marvel at its complicated
railway transportation system. It is a typical large city dominated by rail
transit in the world. Rail transit, as a type of transportation mode with
high safety and rapid effectiveness has enough influence on the forma­
tion of urban structures, promoting the population to gather along the
rail transit line. The change in urban population structure makes the
basic infrastructure corresponding to the population demand begin to
distribute along the track, thus promoting the development of compact
cities and the formation of urban pedestrian living circles. Since the
1990s, Tokyo’s urban circle has determined the pattern of taking the
Tokyo station area as the center and spreading outward. However, such
a structure puts too much pressure on the city center, and the railway
traffic toward the central city is scarce. In order to disperse some func­
tions of the city center, the metropolitan area of the Kanto region
gradually formed. Tokyo suburban cities carry the functions of inter­
national airports, international ports, and industry. They are connected
with Tokyo through the railway network so that the functions of the
cities are complementary and play the agglomeration advantages of the
urban circle.
In addition, in terms of business interests, railway development and
urban construction are inseparable. The costs of line development and
facility maintenance need to ensure certain operational benefits. In turn,
the construction of urban facilities is also spreading and expanding
along the railway line into the suburbs. The two are reciprocal, which
makes the railway traffic structure stable. The railway passenger volume
of the Kanto metropolitan area is shown in Fig. 6. The railway traffic
volume decreases with the increase in the Kanto city circle radius, and
some non-city center stations have a large traffic volume because they
share part of the city functions. However, the formation of an urban
circle is not achieved overnight. The formation of railway networks in
the Kanto regional urban circle has spanned a century.
3.1. TOD development in Tokyo
Since the 1970s, Tokyo began to develop small-scale business models
around railway stations. It is just the rudiment of Tokyo’s TOD. The real
opportunity for TOD development can be summarized as two points: (1)
To protect the interests of the public railway, the Tokyo government
restricted the expansion of the private railway to the inner side of the
Yamato line. (2) To enhance the efficiency of railway operation, on the
one hand, due to the fact that private railways extend the railway line
into the urban suburbs; on the other hand because suburban land prices
are cheap, they develop entertainment facilities, educational facilities,
commercial facilities, and residential areas along the line. In this way,
Tokyo’s railway system has continuously improved, popularity has
steadily been accumulated, the station’s transportation hub function has
L. Ke et al.
Fig. 5. Weighted overlay in ArcGIS.
Fig. 6. Railway traffic volume in Kanto metropolitan circle.
Illustrated by the author.
Data source: http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/index.html.
been strengthened, and the residents nearby also have their daily busi­
ness life circle.
Unlike most cities in the world, Tokyo’s railway transportation hub
function is also strengthened by it linking with other transportation
methods. For example, public buses tend to target railway stations
instead of directly leading to urban centers. The formation of urban
centers and sub-centers overlaps with transportation hubs, such as
Shinjuku, Shibuya, and Ikebukuro. In order to encourage the develop­
ment of these sub-city centers, the government has relaxed the FAR limit
and reduced some taxes, allowing railway developers to earn more
commercial benefits. However, the premise of this is that the developer
is willing to assume the responsibility of building public facilities. In the
end, a win-win situation was achieved through the government and
private developers on railway development, which further consolidated
the TOD development model in the Tokyo area.
10
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
3.2. Popular TOD stations in Tokyo
Because the average distance is 1.2 km between stations, the railway
stations’ distribution in the Kanto city circle is relatively dense.
Although many stations are the centers of surrounding residential areas,
some stations have a weak contribution in the rail transit network due to
different development statuses. Stations with a strong presence usually
have high traffic efficiency. In selecting stations, we considered some
methods, such as selecting all stations on only one transportation route
for exploration or selection relying on the distance from the CBD.
However, we believe that these two methods have certain shortcomings
because the distance between the stations is relatively close, so their
catchment areas will overlap. Some researchers judge the attribution of
the overlapping part based on the proportion of residents choosing the
station; besides, there are studies to avoid overlapping by reducing the
radius of the catchment area. For macro-level research, we agree
entirely that this approach is optimal. However, if we focus on the
evaluation of the resources of the station itself, changing the scope and
L. Ke et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

size of the catchment area will restrict the research to a certain extent. Table 3
Without considering the location of stations, we emphasize the Weight of each indicator by FAHP.
intrinsic characteristics and status of stations. In this paper, based on the Criteria Weights Indicators Weights
TOD station cases summarized in (Shinkenchikusha, 2019), 13 rail
environment 0.155 A1 0.026
transit stations (see Fig. 7) are selected. Some of them carry the A2 0.025
enhanced city vibrant old TOD stations, such as Shinjuku station, Shi­ A4 0.053
buya station, and Tokyo station. In addition, there are some emerging A5 0.051
stations, such as the Takanawa Gateway Station. As the geographic economic 0.346 B1 0.050
B2 0.050
location, construction background, and land-use scale are different, we B5 0.123
can explore the differences in their sustainability caused by these dif­ B6 0.061
ferences in objective characteristics. In many studies, the improvement B7 0.062
of traffic efficiency and land-use intensity are positively correlated with social 0.246 C1 0.082
C3 0.081
the results of TODness. If measured from a sustainable perspective, focus
C4 0.083
can be placed on whether railway stations with high traffic efficiency transit efficiency 0.251 D1 0.042
and high concentration are in line with sustainable development trends. D2 0.040
Therefore, we pose the question, what should be paid attention to in the D3 0.042
future development process? Issues related to this topic are worthy of D4 0.040
D5 0.043
our in-depth discussion. D6 0.044

4. Results
4.1. Sustainable TODness of 13 stations
The weights of all indicators are shown in Table 3. It can be seen that
in the four dimensions of environment, economy, society, and trans­
portation efficiency, the weight of economic indicators accounts for a
large proportion. Among them, the diversity of land-use is the most
weighted factor. Among the three criteria other than economic criteria,
environmental indicators accounted for the lowest proportion. Notably,
economic development is still able to affect the final result to a greater
extent than the other criteria even at the sustainable development level
of TOD. In addition, the share of social factors and traffic efficiency is
evenly divided, but there is still a particular gap compared to economic
indicators.
Through the quantification and standardization of the data of each
indicator, we obtained the values of 18 indicators from 13 sites. As
shown in Table 4, all values are standardized, so they are in the range of
0− 1. It should be pointed out that because the Takanawa gateway sta­
tion was just launched on March 14, 2020, there is no ride data, so the
data in A2 are missing. For this station only, when we integrated the
indicators, we evenly distributed the weight of the A2 indicator to the
other three indicators in the same dimension to obtain the final index.
According to the data in Table 4, we can sort the final sustainability
indicators of TOD stations. Fig. 8 shows the ranking results. Shinjuku
Station (SHIN) has the highest sustainability TODness, followed by
Tokyo Station (TOK), Shibuya Station (SHIB), Ginza Station (GIN),

Fig. 7. Location of typical TOD stations in Tokyo metropolitan area.

11
L. Ke et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

Table 4
Indicator value for 13 stations.
TOK GIN SHIB SHIN ROP KIC FUT KYO TAK TAM KEI SHI MIN

A1 0.66 0.73 0.56 0.66 0.37 0.21 0.04 0.85 0.21 0.05 0.16 0 1
A2 0.54 0.19 0.66 1 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.06 0 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.06
A4 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.14 0.01 0 0 0.03 0.01 0.08 0 0.01 1
A5 0.70 0.70 0.37 0.37 0.1 0.55 0.65 0.2 0 1 0.45 0.11 0.55
B1 1 0.98 0.55 0.76 0.60 0 0.17 1 0.37 0.21 0.17 0.40 0.85
B2 1 0.95 0.39 0.64 0.42 0 0.06 0.96 0.28 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.51
B5 0.78 0.35 0.80 0.48 0.80 0.64 0.81 0 1 0.72 0.80 0.84 0.18
B6 0.60 0.27 0.17 0.90 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.45 1 0 0.16 0.10 0.10
B7 0.51 0.63 1 0.86 0.49 0.34 0 0.61 0.10 0.04 0.21 0.09 0.15
C1 0.61 0.37 0.23 1 0.12 0.03 0.10 0 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.29
C3 0.75 0.60 0.23 0.42 0.41 0.39 0.19 1 0.30 0 0.16 0.07 0.01
C4 0.56 0.53 0.68 1 0.14 0.19 0.07 0.47 0.08 0.23 0.12 0.47 0
D1 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.07 1 0.01 0.25 0.12 0.06 1 0.08
D2 0.21 0.03 0.48 1 0.10 0.14 0 0.17 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.59
D3 1 0.13 0.6 0.87 0.03 0.17 0.17 0 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.27 0
D4 0.52 1 0.95 0.99 0 0.48 0.14 0.26 0.04 0.47 0.26 0.39 0.33
D5 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.23 0.06 0.40 0.17 1 0 0.29 0.21 0.17 0.16
D6 0.60 0.67 0.93 0.83 0.47 0.69 0.38 0.87 1 0.20 0.69 0.09 0

Note: TOK: Tokyo Station; GIN, Ginza Station; SHIB: Shibuya Station; SHIN: Shinjuku Station; ROP: Roppongi 1-chome Station; KIC: Kichijoji Station; FUT: Futa­
kotamagawa Station; KYO: Kyobashi Station; TAK: Takanawa gateway Station; TAM: Tamaplaza Station; KEI: Keiochofu Station; SHI: Shin-Yokohama Station; MIN:
Minatomirai Station.

Fig. 8. Station rating of sustainable TODness index.

Kyobashi Station (KYO), and Takanawa gateway Station (TAK). There is
no significant difference in the index values of the seven low-ranking
stations, and the Tamaplaza Station (TAM) is the station with the
lowest sustainability TODness. Fig. 9 shows the distribution balance of
the TOD sustainability indicators at all sites. This shows that the pro­
portion of economic factors is significantly different from the other three
types of factors. The high and low points of the distribution of each type
of factor are in different positions in the figure, that is, each high and low
value of each element belongs to different sites. For example, in the
economic dimension, the highest score is TOK (0.27), the highest social
factor score is Shinjuku Station (SHIN) (0.20), and the Minatomirai
Station (MIN) with the lowest total index score (0.11) has the highest
score of the comprehensive environmental index among the 13 stations.
The radar chart (Fig. 9) reflects the different focus of the indicator dis­
tribution, so we can better judge the difference in the proportion of the
site in each dimension.
Regarding the final results of the indicators, we have to admit that, in
the FAHP implementation results, economic factors have the highest
weight value, so the final ranking results of the indicators are greatly
affected by economic factors. Therefore, we use sensitivity analysis to
examine the influence of weights on the final ranking of stations and to
judge the robustness of the results obtained by our method.
A1: quantity of energy consumption; A2: mass of pollutants emitted;
A4: green infrastructure; A5: accessibility of nearest park; B1: BCR; B2:
FAR; B5: land-use diversity; B6: density of concourse; B7: commercial
facilities; C1: facility for the disabled; C3: police box; C4: safety; D1:
parking lot for cars; D2: parking area for bicycle; D3: railway line; D4:
IPCA area; D5: connectivity to station; D6: combination with other
traffic modes.
4.2. Sensitivity test
Because we obtain data after sufficient verification, and the in­
dicator’s weight is based on the subjective judgment of people, the
purpose of the sensitivity analysis in this study is the weight of the in­
dicator. The ranking results of the 13 stations in Table 5 are obtained
based on the indicators’ different weights. Among them, ranking 1 is the
ranking of the original weight (calculated by FAHP), ranking 2 is to

12
L. Ke et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

Fig. 9. Radar diagrams of 13 stations for TODness index and criterion scores of environment, economy, transit efficiency, and social dimensions.
Note: The indicators are normalized to the scale of 0 – 1.

Table 5 environmental, economic, social, and traffic efficiency. In part 2 of the

Rankings of 13 stations based on changing weights of indicators. appendix, we added the weights of all factors in different scenarios.
Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Table 5 shows the results of the sensitivity test. We find that the top 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 stations are almost stabilized in all scenarios. Only in ranking 3 (envi­
TOK 2 2 2 2 2 2
ronmental factors dominated), the overall ranking of MIN rises due to
GIN 4 3 4 4 4 4 environmental factors’ leading advantage. This result shows that the
SHIB 3 4 3 3 3 3 weight of the indicator does not change the result significantly.
SHIN 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ranking 1: Original total ranking with different weights of indicators
ROP 9 12 13 12 13 13
based on FAHP; Ranking 2: total ranking with same weights of each
KIC 10 7 9 10 6 7
FUT 11 8 8 8 7 8 indicator; Ranking 3: total ranking with environmental indicators hav­
KYO 5 5 6 5 5 5 ing double weights than others; Ranking 4: total ranking with economic
TAK 6 10 12 6 10 10 indicators having double weights than others; Ranking 5: total ranking
TAM 13 9 7 11 11 11 with social indicators having double weights than others; Ranking 6:
KEI 12 13 10 13 12 12
SHI 8 11 11 9 8 9
total ranking with transit efficiency indicators having double weights
MIN 7 6 5 7 9 6 than others.
Table 6 shows the ranking of each station corresponding to different
indicators. We can see through observation that different stations have a
make the weights of the four dimensions the same and then assign the clear tendency to have an imbalance in various indicators, and this is no
weights to their branch indicators on average. This is a way is to weaken exception for stations with higher overall rankings. For example, SHIN,
the dominant position of economic factors. Ranking 3–ranking 6 in­ which ranks number one overall, has low land-use diversity because of
crease the weights of environmental, economic, social, and traffic effi­ its highly developed commerce. At the same time, highly developed
ciency factors in sequence based on ranking 2, and each increase is twice railway transportation services have not made most people completely
the weight of the remaining three dimensions. Therefore, it can be un­ abandon the way of traveling by private cars.
derstood as the overall ranking of 13 stations under the leadership of

Table 6
Ranking of 13 stations for 18 indicators.
A1 A2 A4 A5 B1 B2 B5 B6 B7 C1 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

TOK 4 3 3 3 1 1 7 3 5 2 2 3 12 4 1 4 7 8
GIN 3 5 7 2 3 3 11 5 3 3 3 4 9 12 8 1 6 7
SHIB 6 2 5 9 7 7 4 7 1 5 8 2 10 3 3 3 11 2
SHIN 4 1 2 8 5 4 10 2 2 1 4 1 11 1 2 2 4 4
ROP 7 12 10 12 6 6 5 12 6 6 5 9 8 9 10 13 12 9
KIC 9 4 12 6 13 13 9 11 7 10 6 8 6 7 5 5 2 6
FUT 12 9 11 4 12 10 3 6 13 7 9 12 2 13 6 11 8 10
KYO 2 11 6 10 2 2 13 4 4 13 1 13 13 6 13 9 1 3
TAK 8 13 8 13 9 8 1 1 10 8 7 11 3 5 7 12 13 1
TAM 11 8 4 1 10 12 8 13 12 12 13 7 4 11 11 6 3 11
KEI 10 7 13 7 11 11 6 8 8 11 10 10 7 10 9 10 5 5
SHI 13 6 9 11 8 9 2 10 11 9 11 6 1 8 4 7 9 12
MIN 1 10 1 5 4 5 12 9 9 4 12 13 2 2 12 8 10 13

13
L. Ke et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

Fig. 10. Heat maps for 13 stations.

4.3. Spatial analysis for each station
In the spatial analysis part, based on the software environment of
Arcmap10.5, in this research, we generated heat maps from 13 stations
(Fig. 10). To better analyze the sustainable development potential of the
station’s IPCA. The scores of all indicators in different evaluation di­
mensions for each station are represented by the radar chart (Fig. 11). It
helps us analyze the geographical distribution of the sustainable TOD­
ness within the IPCA of the station and makes targeted recommenda­
tions. It should be noted here that the radar chart is made using the

14
L. Ke et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788

Fig. 11. Radar Charts reflecting the distribution of indicators of 13 station.

15
L. Ke et al.
standardized value of each indicator. We excluded the weight impact
brought by indicators, and the value range of all indicators is 0–1, in
order to better observe the imbalance of internal resource distribution.
As shown in Fig. 10, the heat map allows us to obtain the condition of
the indicators’ geographic distribution in the IPCA. These stations
probably reflect three different types of spatial structures. First:
Resource-balanced type, such as Tokyo Station, Ginza Station, and
Kyobashi Station. We know that these three stations are relatively close
geographically, and the Tokyo Station occupies most of the railway re­
sources in the area, but it can still be seen on the heat map that the
distribution of resources does not center around Tokyo Station, but at
various stations, the traffic nodes are evenly distributed and lack a
prominent central area. Second: Centrally convergent type. There are
many stations of this type, including Shinjuku Station, Shibuya Station,
Kichijoji Station, Keio Chofu Station, Futakotamagawa Station, and
Shin-Yokohama Station. Although they have different advantages and
disadvantages in each index, this does not affect the formation of a
similar index value distribution structure. Third: High concentration and
multiple centers type. Such as Roppongi 1-chome Station, Takanawa
gateway Station, and Minatomirai Station. Although the overall ranking
of these stations is unsatisfactory, they all have advantages in some
index sub-items. Among them, the Takanawa gateway Station and
Minatomirai Station are all new TOD stations, so it is understandable
that some indicators have great development potential.
In addition, Fig. 11 offers information about the distribution char­
acteristics of the internal indicators of the stations. The stations with
similar index structures in the IPCA reflected by the heat map will be
placed nearby to facilitate a comparison of the various indicators’ ad­
vantages and disadvantages. In the next section, we will elaborate on the
indicator distribution of different stations around the three spatial
categories.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This paper builds on existing research on sustainable transportation,
develops the sustainable development index, and carries out quantita­
tive calculation of TOD sustainability for 13 typical stations in the Kanto
Railway circle. In the development of indicators and the determination
of weights, we interviewed the suggestions of relevant researchers. In
addition, to confirm whether different weight distributions impact the
final evaluation results, we conducted sensitivity tests on them. The
results are not significant, which proves the validity and reliability of the
ranking obtained by quantitative indicators. Parallel to the quantitative
research, we conducted a spatial analysis of the IPCA range of 13 sta­
tions based on the software environment of Arcmap10.5 to further un­
derstand the distribution structure characteristics of the indicators
within the catchment area of each station. In addition, the performance
of each station in different indicators is also displayed in the radar
charts.
First of all, Tokyo Station, Ginza Station, and Kyobashi Station have
overlapping parts of IPCA due to their close geographic location, so the
three have similar geographic structure features, which are homoge­
nized and lack a prominent central area. Although this structure
weakens the centrality of the site, it also ensures a balanced distribution
of resources. We believe that this is inseparable from the development
process of geographic regions. Tokyo Station, as the center of the rail­
way structure of the Kanto area, has reached a relatively mature level of
development with its surrounding areas. With technological advance­
ment, regional development is mainly based on urban renewal—not
exploring new areas. In the radar chart, we can obtain the distribution of
the pros and cons of the sustainable TODness of the three stations.
Among them, the green infrastructure of Tokyo Station and the con­
nectivity of surrounding roads are weak, which is mainly due to the
obsolescence of some facilities. Although the station has been refur­
bished and expanded in recent years to meet public needs, compared
with the level of transportation efficiency, the connectivity between the
16
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
pedestrian walkway and the station in the IPCA still has great potential
for improvement. Furthermore, there is not enough greenery in the area
surrounding the station to ensure the quality of leisure activities. Today,
in advocating green initiatives, we need to pursue a lifestyle where
technology and ecology coexist. The insufficiency of recreational green
space can be improved by green ecological and green infrastructure,
thereby improving environmental indicators. Similar to Tokyo Station,
the connectivity of the pedestrian roads around Ginza Station and
Kyobashi Station and the greening infrastructure need to be enhanced.
However, due to the inherent inadequacy of the railway station posi­
tioning, their transportation efficiency scores are shallow and more
railway resources are assigned to nearby Tokyo Station. The direct
impact of too few traffic service lines is that there are few passengers.
The high-end commercial positioning around Ginza Station adds com­
mercial value to the station’s catchment area, which has a positive effect
on attracting people. The Ginza Station and Kyobashi Station play a
supporting role for Tokyo Station in regional railway transportation.
They strengthen commercial and office functions, increase the attrac­
tiveness of the area’s pedestrian flow, and reduce Tokyo Station’s cen­
tral pressure. Conversely, the considerable passenger flow at Tokyo
Station also has a positive impact on the surrounding stations, which
complement each other to form a complete regional success.
As mentioned above, Tokyo Station has always been the center of the
railway network during the development of rail transit in the Tokyo
Metropolitan Region. Subsequently, due to the adjustment of trans­
portation planning policies and intensive land use, some stations along
the Yamamoto railway line, such as Shibuya Station, accumulated a
large amount of pedestrian flow. In order to increase revenue for private
railway investors and induce the government’s relaxation of regional
construction policies (such as increasing the upper limit of the building
coverage ratio), these stations have developed into the city’s sub-centers
and important transportation interchange points. It can be seen from the
indicator value of sustainable TODness that the composite index of
Shinjuku Station surpassed Tokyo Station, becoming the station with the
highest sustainable TODness value. Although the comprehensive eval­
uation of indicators is very high, the comparison of the advantages and
disadvantages of indicators of different dimensions is undeniable. For
example, in the environmental criterion, except for the relatively low
level of motor vehicle emissions caused by the high proportion of people
using rail transit, other indicators have performed poorly. Among them,
green infrastructure is nothing compared to highly developed busi­
nesses. In future urban area renewal projects, increasing the proportion
of green infrastructure based on past gray facilities, or using ecological
technology in buildings, should become the direction that policymakers
consider. Among the economic criteria, the land-use type index scores
are low because the land-use type is relatively single. From the
perspective of the development positioning of the site, this is not an
aspect that can be improved because Shinjuku is a sub-center, and the
massive flow of people has an impact on commercial development. The
driving force behind this is without questions. In terms of traffic effi­
ciency, the connectivity scores of the surrounding walkways are also
relatively low, largely accredited to the complex road network around
Shinjuku Station and the chaos of some pedestrian systems. There is no
evident and easy-to-understand signal system, so people sometimes
cannot find the correct location. Although Shinjuku Station, as the sub-
center of the city, has a considerable railway service system, there is still
great potential for developing green infrastructure and public service
facilities.
The station close to Shinjuku’s civil status is Shibuya, which is also a
sub-center of the city and has similar imbalances to Shinjuku Station,
such as insufficient green infrastructure and low connectivity of pedes­
trian roads. Compared with Shinjuku Station, Shibuya has a lower FAR,
but the land-use type is more balanced than Shinjuku. In terms of safety,
the average crime rate in Shibuya is higher than that of Shinjuku.
Although the discussion of security is beyond the scope of this article,
regional development cannot be separated from the assistance of public
L. Ke et al.
service facilities. Regardless of whether it is Shinjuku Station or Shibuya
Station, their indicators are centrally concentrated in terms of spatial
characteristics. This structure reflects the high concentration of re­
sources in the IPCA of the station. Some entrances and exits of the site
are connected with the commercial building’s internal passages, so that
the commercial functions of the site are further amplified, thereby
providing faster and more convenient services. However, the highly
concentrated structure is brought about by the development and utili­
zation of excessively high-intensive land use in the central area. From
the overall distribution level of the indicators, the comprehensive in­
dicators in the surrounding areas are not low. This also reflects the root
of the imbalance in the indicators. The city’s sub-centers have the best
economic resources. However, in the current environment of promoting
the construction of ecological cities, urban policymakers need to up­
grade the gray facilities while also expanding the functional effects of
green ecology and introducing a more recognizable identification sys­
tem based on the established road network. In addition, universal design
solutions need further attention.
Except for Shibuya and Shinjuku, among the stations showing a trend
of central convergence, other stations ranked relatively low in the sus­
tainable TOD index. The Kichijoji Station has functional road connec­
tivity. The Futakotamagawa Station has a high score for land-use
diversity, and due to its geographical location near the river belt green
space, it has outstanding performance in environmental scores. How­
ever, its IPCA has a rough shape and is smaller than other stations
because of its location. We must admit that in the environmental index,
energy-efficient buildings, roof gardens, and vertical greening are not
covered in the consideration list owing to data scarcity. After field
research, we believe that the sustainable advantages of the Futakota­
magawa Station are fully reflected in terms of environmental factors.
Similarly, Tamaplaza station has good green space accessibility, few
parking spaces for motor vehicles, and a highly connected walking route
to promote the station catchment area to have excellent pedestrian
friendliness. The advantage of the Keiochofu Station lies in its bond with
the functional bus system and pedestrian connectivity, but other in­
dicators have considerable room for improvement. Shin-Yokohama
Station has the highest land-use diversity index, and non-motorized
travel is promoted.
From the above analysis, we can conclude that although each sta­
tion’s spatial structure is similar in terms of the geographical distribu­
tion of the sustainable TOD index, it can be judged from the balance of
the pros and cons of the indicators. Because of the differences in policy
positioning, historical development origin, and geographic environ­
ment, the scores of the indicators of the stations vary greatly. Under the
influence of low development positioning, it is understandable that the
total sustainable TODness of the site is low, but in fact, we are more
looking forward to the balance of the distribution of indicators in
various dimensions, or a tendency to balance. A more balanced alloca­
tion of indicators will bring higher ecological value to the communities
around stations and the entire city.
The Roppongi 1-chome Station, Takanawa gateway Station, and
Minatomirai Station all present a highly concentrated and multi-
centered structure pattern, which is between a balanced structure and
a centralized structure. Although Minato Mirai Station ranks poorly on
the overall index, its environmental index, universal facilities, and non-
automobile advocacy score are at the forefront. These advantages are
unique among the 13 stations. The Takanawa Gateway Station is a sta­
tion that operates only in the first half of 2020. It is in a leading position
in terms of land-use diversity, convenient station transfers, non-
automobile advocacy, and bus system connectivity. At the same time,
the scores of other indicators were not very satisfactory. Besides various
land-use types and relatively complete social service indicators, the
Roppongi 1-Chome Station has room for improvement in other in­
dicators. As emerging stations, unlike old TOD stations, their develop­
ment model is more in accordance with the future definition of
sustainable TOD. The unsound development of economic factors can be
17
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
attributed to the insufficient operation period, and the station catchment
area has not yet brought specific economic effects due to the flow of
people. However, their future development is worth looking forward to.
In previous research on TOD, the TOD comprehensive index of each
area of the city was jointly considered from the operational efficiency of
the urban transportation system and the surrounding land use, instead of
focusing on the IPCA of the station to analyze the imbalance of the in­
dicator distribution. From the perspective of sustainability, this study
comprehensively evaluates the performance of each indicator specific to
each station. Based on these analyses, each station’s development po­
tential in the four dimensions of sustainability has been clarified as well
as more targeted suggestions for policymakers in terms of improving the
sustainability of future stations. Our research does have some limita­
tions, mainly reflected in the collection of raw data. For example, in
making environmental indicators, we have given up some meaningful
indicators due to some objective reasons and inaccessible data sources,
such as noise pollution, ecological buildings and new greening. This
makes our research somewhat inadequate, but from another perspec­
tive, the easy accessibility of all data in this study shows that the study’s
replication is feasible in any country and region in the world, which is
also the value of this article.
The development of public transportation is reflected in the high
efficiency of TOD and pays attention to social service and ecological
friendliness, because this is a point that must be considered in most
urban development and renewal projects today. Therefore, the research
topic on the sustainability of traffic stations is worthy of in-depth
exploration. How can cities improve the efficiency of TOD stations
that have been established in the past and have now matured? Before
establishing the new TOD station, what problems should we pay atten­
tion to and avoid? We believe these questions can be answered and can
produce a great deal of inspiration through quantitative analysis of the
existing catchment areas.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102788.
References
American Public Transportation Association. (2009). Defining transit areas of influence,
APTA SUDS-UD-RP-001-09, Washington, D.C..
Andersen, J. L. E., & Landex, A. (2008). Catchment areas for public transport. Presented at
the WIT Transactions on the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT080171.
pp. 175–184.
Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, New
Developments in Urban Transportation Planning, 15, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tranpol.2007.10.005
Barfod, M. B., & Salling, K. B. (2015). A new composite decision support framework for
strategic and sustainable transport appraisals. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, 72, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.12.001
Bertolini, L. (1999). Spatial development patterns and public transport: The application
of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice & Research, 14, 199–210.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459915724
Boarnet, M., & Crane, R. (1997). L.A. Story: A reality check for transit-based housing. .
Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944369708975914
Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our Common future; World commission on environment
and development. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
L. Ke et al.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American
dream. Princeton Architectural Press.
Canepa, B. (2007). Bursting the bubble determining the transit-oriented development’s
walkable limits. Transportation Research Record.. https://doi.org/10.3141/1992-04
Castillo, H., & Pitfield, D. E. (2010). ELASTIC – A methodological framework for
identifying and selecting sustainable transport indicators. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(4), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2009.09.002
Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997a). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity,
and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2, 199–219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997b). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity,
and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2, 199–219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
Cervero, R., & Murakami, J. (2009). Rail and property development in Hong Kong:
Experiences and extensions. Urban Studies, 46, 2019–2043. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0042098009339431
Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European
Journal of Operational Research, 95, 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217
(95)00300-2
Chorus, P., & Bertolini, L. (2016). Developing transit-oriented corridors: Insights from
Tokyo. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10, 86–95. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15568318.2013.855850
Chorus, P., Bertolini, L., n.d. An application of the node place model to explore the
spatial development dynamics of station areas in Tokyo 15.
Comparing Transit-Oriented Development Sites by Walkability Indicators - Marc
Schlossberg, Nathaniel Brown, 2004 [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://journals.
sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3141/1887-05 (accessed 5.14.20).
Currie, G. (2011). New Perspectives and Methods in Transport and Social Exclusion Research.
Emerald Group Publishing.
De Gruyter, C., Currie, G., & Rose, G. (2017). Sustainability measures of Urban public
transport in cities: A world review and focus on the Asia/Middle East region.
Sustainability, 9, 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010043
Dill, J. (2008). transit use at transit-oriented developments in Portland, Oregon. Area:
Transportation Research Record.. https://doi.org/10.3141/2063-19
Dou, Y., Luo, X., Dong, L., Wu, C., Liang, H., & Ren, J. (2016). An empirical study on
transit-oriented low-carbon urban land use planning: exploratory spatial data
analysis (ESDA) on Shanghai, China. . Habitat International, 53, 379–389. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.12.005
Dobranskyte-Niskota, A., Perujo, A., Pregl, M. (2007). European Commission, Joint
Research Centre, & Institute for Environment and Sustainability. http://bookshop.
europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:LBNA23041:EN:HTML.
Elkj, J.L., Landex, A., n.d. GIS-based Approaches to Catchment Area Analyses of Mass
Transit 14.
Eom, J. K., Choi, J., Park, M. S., & Heo, T.-Y. (2019). Exploring the catchment area of an
urban railway station by using transit card data: Case study in Seoul. Cities, 95,
Article 102364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.033
Griffiths, B., & Curtis, C. (2017). Effectiveness of transit oriented development in
reducing car use: Case study of subiaco, Western Australia. Urban Policy and
Research, 35, 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2017.1311855
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Ohman, M. C.,
Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., & Noble, I. (2013). Policy:
Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495, 305–307. https://
doi.org/10.1038/495305a
Guo, J., Nakamura, F., Li, Q., & Zhou, Y. (2018). Efficiency assessment of transit-oriented
development by data envelopment analysis: Case study on the Den-en toshi line in
Japan. J. Adv. Transp.. , Article 6701484. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6701484
Haghshenas, H., & Vaziri, M. (2012). Urban sustainable transportation indicators for
global comparison. Ecological Indicators, 15, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2011.09.010
Huang, W., & Wey, W.-M. (2019). Green urbanism embedded in TOD for Urban built
environment planning and design. Sustainability, 11, 5293. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11195293
Jeon, C. M., Amekudzi, A. A., & Guensler, R. L. (2010). Evaluating Plan Alternatives for
Transportation System Sustainability: Atlanta Metropolitan Region. International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4(4), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15568310902940209
Kahn, M. E. (2007). Gentrification trends in new transit-oriented communities: Evidence
from 14 cities that expanded and built rail transit systems. Real Estate Economics, 35,
155–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6229.2007.00186.x
18
Sustainable Cities and Society 68 (2021) 102788
Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S., & Turrell, G. (2014). Advance transit
oriented development typology: Case study in Brisbane, Australia. . Journal of
Transport Geography, 34, 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.11.002
Kopits, E., & Cropper, M. (2005). Traffic fatalities and economic growth. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 37(1), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2004.04.006
Li, Z., Han, Z., Xin, J., Luo, X., Su, S., & Weng, M. (2019). Transit oriented development
among metro station areas in Shanghai, China: Variations, typology, optimization
and implications for land use planning. Land Use Policy, 82, 269–282. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.003
Loo, B. P. Y., & Banister, D. (2016). Decoupling transport from economic growth:
Extending the debate to include environmental and social externalities. Journal of
Transport Geography, 57, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.10.006
Luan, X., Cheng, L., Song, Y., & Zhao, J. (2020). Better understanding the choice of travel
mode by urban residents: New insights from the catchment areas of rail transit
stations. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, Article 101968. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2019.101968
Lyu, G., Bertolini, L., & Pfeffer, K. (2016). Developing a TOD typology for Beijing metro
station areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 55, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2016.07.002
Meshram, S. G., Alvandi, E., Singh, V. P., & Meshram, C. (2019). Comparison of AHP and
fuzzy AHP models for prioritization of watersheds. Soft Comput, 23, 13615–13625.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-03900-z
Miller, P. (2014). Sustainability and public transportation theory and analysis. https://doi.
org/10.11575/PRISM/27943
Monajem, S., & Ekram Nosratian, F. (2015). The evaluation of the spatial integration of
station areas via the node place model; an application to subway station areas in
Tehran. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, 14–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.009
Motieyan, H., & Mesgari, M. S. (2019). A novel spatial index using spatial analyses and
hierarchical fuzzy expert system for obtaining green TOD: A case study in Tehran
city. Geocarto International, 34, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10106049.2017.1353644
National Academies of Sciences, E. (2004). Transit-oriented development in the United
States: Experiences, challenges, and prospects. https://doi.org/10.17226/23360
O’Connor, D., & Harrison, O. (2012). Rail Catchment analysis in the Greater Dublin Area 9.
Papa, E., & Bertolini, L. (2015). Accessibility and transit-oriented development in
European metropolitan areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 47, 70–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.07.003
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, Douglas, & United States, Transit Development
Corporation, National Research Council (U.S.). (1996). transit and urban form, report
/ transit cooperative research program. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Pezeshknejad, P., Monajem, S., & Mozafari, H. (2020). Evaluating sustainability and land
use integration of BRT stations via extended node place model, an application on
BRT stations of Tehran. Journal of Transport Geography, 82, Article 102626. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102626
Renne, J. (2018). Transit-oriented development and ports: A national analysis in the
United States. JTLU, 11. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1121
Rodríguez, D. A., & Kang, C.-D. (2020). A typology of the built environment around rail
stops in the global transit-oriented city of Seoul, Korea. . Cities, 100, Article 102663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102663
Schlossberg, M., & Brown, N. (2004). Comparing transit-oriented development sites by
walkability indicators. Transportation Research Record.. https://doi.org/10.3141/
1887-05
Shinkenchikusha. (2019). Ekimachi ittai kaihatsu (1st ed.) Tokyo.
Singh, Y. J., Lukman, A., Flacke, J., Zuidgeest, M., & Van Maarseveen, M. F. A. M. (2017).
Measuring TOD around transit nodes - Towards TOD policy. Transport Policy, 56,
96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.013
Sung, H., & Choi, C. G. (2017). The link between metropolitan planning and transit-
oriented development: An examination of the Rosario plan in 1980 for Seoul, South
Korea. Land Use Policy, 63, 514–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2017.01.045
Transit-Oriented Development at the Urban Periphery: Insights from a Case Study in
Shanghai, China - Haixiao Pan, Qing Shen, Chang Liu, 2011 [WWW Document], n.d.
URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3141/2245-12 (accessed 5.14.20).
Vale, D. S. (2015). Transit-oriented development, integration of land use and transport,
and pedestrian accessibility: Combining node-place model with pedestrian shed ratio
to evaluate and classify station areas in Lisbon. Journal of Transport Geography, 45,
70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.04.009
Singh, Y. J., Lukman, A., Flacke, J., Zuidgeest, M., & Van Maarseveen, M. F. A. M. (2017).
Measuring TOD around transit nodes - Towards TOD policy. Transport Policy, 56,
96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.013