The probability of land use to transform under the influence of transport corridors is an economic measurement unit of a specific land use defined by its accessibility level, economic level and spatial interactions. This study examines land use transitions due to development of transport corridor using expert judgement analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for measuring priority ranking of a particular land use to transit to other use, along the second Vivekananda Bridge- Belghoria Expressway(2VBBE) running through a relatively depressed urban fringe of Kolkata, India. Using the rank scores from AHP, a spatial model-Multivariate Grid Analysis (MVGA) was conceptualized to analyze the probability of transition of land activity in the zone of influence. The model has used data of over a period of 16 years (1999–2006) to find out the Transition Probability Index (TPI) of land use in the congruous lands. MVGA cumulatively uses property values, accessibility, environmental and demographic factors to project the proposed land use structure for 2020. It spatially predicted the land uses which might undergo incredible changes due to the facility development. These results can implicate policies for internalization of benefits of the corridor in urban development of Kolkata Metropolitan Area.
AlonsoW. (1964). Location and land use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
AntunesP.SantosR.VideiraN. (2006). Participatory decision making for sustainable development-The use of mediated modelling techniques. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 44–52.
3.
BanisterD.BerechmanY. (2001). Transport investment and the promotion of economic growth. Journal of Transport Geography, 9(3), 209–218.
4.
BeinatE.NijkampP. (1998). Multicriteria evaluation in land-use management: Methodologies and case studies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5.
BoclinA.S.C.de MelloR. (2006). A decision support method for environmental impact assessment using a fuizzy logic approach. Ecological Economics, 58(1), 170–181.
6.
CerveroR. (1994). Rail transit and joint development: Land market impacts in Washington, D.C. and Atlanta. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(1), 83–95.
7.
CerveroR. (2003a). Road expansion, urban growth, and induced travel: A path analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 145–164.
8.
CerveroR. (2003b). The built environment and travel: Evidence from the United States. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 3(2), 119–137.
9.
CerveroR.MurphyS.FerrellC.GogutsN.TsaiY.-H.ArringtonG. B. (2004). Transit-oriented development in the United States: Experiences, challenges, and prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 102. Washington: Transportation Research Board.
10.
CES Pvt. Ltd, M/s Dywidag
. (1993). Second Vivekananda bridge: Detail project report (Vol. 1). Kolkata: Second Vivekananda Bridge Tollway Co. Pvt. Ltd.
11.
ConwayT. M. (2005). Current and future patterns of land use change in the coastal zone of New Jersey. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 877–893.
12.
EberlyS.SwallJ.HollandD.CoxB.BaldridgeE. (2004). Developing spatially interpolated surfaces and estimating uncertainty (Vol. EPA-454/R-04–004): United States Environmental Protection Agency.
13.
EwingR.CerveroR. (2001). Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1780(1), 87–114. doi: 10.3141/1780-10.
14.
ForkenbrockD. J.FosterN. S. J. (1990). Economic benefits of a corridor highway investment. Transportation Research A, 24A(4), 303–312.
15.
ForkenbrockD. J.WeisbrodG. E. (2001). Guidebook for assessing the social and economic effects of transportation projects, NCHRP Report 456, Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_456-a.pdf
16.
ICF Consulting. (2005). Handbook on Integrating Land Use Considerations into Transportation Projects to Address Induced Growth as part of NCHRP Project25-25,Task 3 : Analysis of Assessment and Mitigation Strategies for Land Development Impacts of Transportation Improvements, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,Transportation Research Board: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on the Environment.
17.
KangasJ. (1992). Multiple-use planning of forest resources by using the analytic hierarchy process. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 7(1–4), 259–268.
18.
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA). (2006). City development plan. Kolkata Metropolitan Area: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM).
19.
KrankS.SarosaW.WallbaumH. (2009, March23–26). Coping with growth and sustainable development? Urban management indicators in Jakarta. Paper presented at the 8th International Symposium of the International Urban Planning and Environment Association: Kaiserslautern (Germany).
20.
KrigeD. G. (1951). A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the Witwasersrand. Journal of the Chemical, Metallurgical and Mining Society of South Africa, 52 (6), 119–139.
21.
LeeW.B.LauH.LiuZ.TamS. (2001). A fuzzy analytical hierarchy process approach in modular product design. Expert Syst, 18(1), 32–42. doi: 10.1111/1468-0394.00153.
22.
LitmanT. (1995). Land use impact costs of transportation. World Transport Policy & Practice. 1(4), 9–17. doi: 10.1108/13527619510101981.
23.
LotfiS.SolaimaniK. (2009). An assessment of Urban Quality of Life by Using Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach (Case study: Comparative Study of Quality of Life in the North of Iran). Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 123–133. doi: 10.3844/jssp. 2009 .123.133.
24.
Louis Berger Group Inc. (2002). National highway cooperative research program report 466 desk reference for estimating the indirect effects of proposed transportation projects. Project B25-10(02) FY ‘96 (pp. 109): Transportation Research Board, National Research Council Washington, D.C.
25.
MillsE.S. (1972). Studies in the structure of the urban economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
MohringH.HarwitzM. (1962). Highway benefits: An analytical framework. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
27.
MooreT.SanchezT. (2001). A guidebook for evaluating the indirect land use and growth impacts of highway improvements: Final report. Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group Federal Highway Administration 200 Hawthorne SE, Suite B-240 Washington, D. C . Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/td/tp_res/docs/reports/aguidebookforusingindirland.pdf
28.
MuthR. (1969). Cities and housing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
PushkarevB.ZupanJ.CumellaR. (1982). Urban rail in America: An exploration of criteria for fixed-guideway transit. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
30.
RamanathanR. (2001). A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63(1), 27–35.
31.
RamanathanR.GaneshL.S. (1994). Group preference aggregation method employed in the AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2), 249–265.
32.
SaatyT.L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchial structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.
33.
SattyT.1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
34.
SattyT.L.KearnsK.P. (1985). Analytical planning: The organization of systems. Oxford: Pergamon.
35.
SanchezT. (2004). Land use and growth impacts from highway capacity increases. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 130(2), 75–82. doi: 0.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488( 2004 )130:2(75).
36.
SanchezT.W.DuekerK.J.RufoloA. (1999). Geographic information system methodology for assessing growth effects of highway improvements. In Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board,TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1660, 75–83.
37.
SayersT.M.JessopA.T.Hills P.J. (2003). Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options–flexible, transparent and user-friendly?Transport Policy, 10(2), 95–105.
38.
SeskinS.N. (1996). Development near Transit: An international perspective. TCRP Project H-1, Transit and Urban Form, Public Policy and Transit-oriented Development: Six International Case Studies. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_16-4.pdf
39.
SridharK.S.ReddyA.V.SrinathP. (2010). Is it push or pull? Recent evidence from migration in India. South Asia network of economic research institutes. Retrieved from http://saneinetwork.net/Files/10_04___K_S_Sridhar.pdf
40.
United Nations. (1986). Population growth and policies in mega-cities: Calcutta. Population Policy Paper, (1). New York: Department of International Economic and Social Affairs.
41.
United Nations. (2009). World urbanization prospects the 2009 revision. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division.
42.
Uri AvinP.CerveroR.MooreT.Christopher DorneyP. (2007). Forecasting indirect land use effects of transportation projects as part of NCHRP project 25–25, Task 22, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on the Environment. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/notesdocs/25-25(22)_fr.pdf
43.
VerburgP.H.EckJ.R.R.v.NijsT.C.d.DijstM.J.SchotP. (2004). Determinants of land use change patterns in the Netherlands. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(1), 125–150.
44.
VoldA. (2005). Optimal land use and transport planning for the Greater Oslo area. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(6), 548–565. doi: 10.1016/j.tra. 2005 .02.007.
45.
Von ThunenJ. (1826). Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung ant Landswirtschaft and Nationalekomie. Hamburg. Pergamon Press, New York. English translation WartenbergC.M. (1966) The Isolated State: an English Edition of Der isolierte Staat. Pergamon Press, HallP.G. editor.
46.
WaddellP.A.BorningA.NothM.FreierN.BeckeM.UlfarssonG. (2003). Microsimulation of urban development and location choices: Design and implementation of urbanism. Networks and Spatial Economics, 3(1), 43–67.
47.
WeisbrodG.E.BeckwithJ. (1992). Measuring economic development benefit for highway decision-making: the Wisconsin case. Transportation Quarterly, 46(1), 57–79.
48.
YangJ.GakenheimerR. (2007). Assessing the transportation consequences of land use transformation in urban China. Habitat International, 31(3–4), 345–353. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.05.001.
49.
ZhangX.PaulleyN.HudsonM.Rhys-TylerG. (2006). A method for the design of optimal transport strategies. Transport Policy, 13(4), 329–338.
50.
ZhouB.KockelmanK. M. (2008). Neighborhood impacts on land use change: A multinomial logit model of spatial relationships. Annals of Regional Science, 42(2), 321–340.
