MODELING OF TERRITORIAL DIFFERENTIATION BY TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT Текст научной статьи по специальности «Социальная и экономическая география»

UDC 656.1/.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46783/smart-scm/2021-6-4

JEL Classification: C44, H54, O18, R41, R42. Received: 18 March 2021

Cherednichenko K.V. Master degree, PhD student, Assistant at Department of aviation works and services, National Aviation University (Ukraine)

ORCID - 0000-0002-9388-3521 Researcher ID - AAJ-7693-2021 Scopus author id: -

Miroshnikova Ju.O. Students of aviation works and services, National Aviation University (Ukraine)

ORCID - 0000-0001-5962-7594 Researcher ID - AAM-7419-2021 Scopus author id: -

MODELING OF TERRITORIAL DIFFERENTIATION BY TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT

Cherednichenko Kostiantyn, Miroshnikova Julia. «Modeling of territorial differentiation by transport infrastructure level of development». The research paper presents theoretical and practical aspects of differentiation of territories according to the level of transport infrastructure development. The purpose of the research is to develop a formalized approach to territorial differentiation according to the level of transport infrastructure development on the example of Ukrainian regions. The issues with the term of "transport infrastructure" are defined. Classical methodological approaches to transport infrastructure level of development assessment are described. The essence of the concept of "differentiation" and its meaning in the transport industry are revealed. The coefficients for assessing the provision of regions with transport infrastructure, transport network density coefficient and the assessment of transport network safety indicator are considered. On the basis of the considered coefficients and initial statistical data, the analysis of regions of Ukraine, based on a level of development of a transport infrastructure, was conducted. The inequality of transport infrastructure level of development (even within one country) is caused due to both objective (geographical location, resource potential) and subjective reasons (efficient use of resources, effectiveness of regional management). An integrated assessment in order to solve this task was formed. It is based on the apparatus of the methodology of decision-making in conditions of uncertainty. For the practical demonstration, the regions of Ukraine were differentiated, according to the level of transport infrastructure development. During the evaluation, it is possible to determine the factor with the greatest impact on the overall result by region. Improving the quantitative indicators that form the most influential qualitative assessment would lead to an increasement of the overall assessment. Thus, using the developed algorithm, it becomes possible to optimize the management of transport infrastructure development of a particular territory.

Keywords: transport infrastructure, territorial differentiation, mathematical modeling, integrated assessment, transport safety, transport network density, carrying capacity.

HepedHineHKo KocmaHmuH, MipowHiKOBa tonia. «ModemnmBaHHa dufyepeHuiau'ú mepumopiu 3a piBHeM po3BumKy mpaHcnopmHoi ÍH$pacmpyKmypu». y cmammi euKnadeH meopemuuHÍ ma

практичн аспекти диференцацП територй за р'1внем розвитку транспортно нфраструктури. Метою дано)'роботи е розробка формал'вованого п'дходу територ'юльно)'диферен^ацп за р'тнем розвитку транспортно) iнфраструктури на приклад/ рег'он'т Укра)ни. Розкрито проблематику та визначено термн «транспортна iнфраструктура». Описано класичн методичн Ыдходи до формування о^нок рiвня транспортно) iнфраструктури та )х недолки. Розкрито сутн'!сть поняття «диферен^а^я» та )) значення у транспортнй галуз'!. Розглянуто коефiцiенти о^нки забезпеченостi регонт транспортною '¡нфраструктурою. На базI' розглянутих коефiцiентiв та вих'!дних статистичних даних був проведений анал'в рег'юн'т Укра)ни за р'тнем розвитку транспортно)'iнфраструктури. Нер'тн'!сть рiвня розвитку транспортно)iнфраструктури (навть у межах одне кра)ни) обумовлена як об'ективними (географiчне розташування, ресурсний потен^ал), так / суб'ективними причинами (ефективне використання ресурс'т, ефективн'!сть рег'юнального управлiння). Для виршення дано) проблеми була розрахована /нтегральна о^нка. Базуючись на дан/'й оцнц для практично) демонстрацП розробленого алгоритму, було продиферен^йовано регони Укра)ни за р'тнем розвитку транспортно) iнфраструктури. Використовуючи розроблений алгоритм, стае можливим оптим'зувати управл'1ння розвитком транспортно)' iнфраструктури певно)' територИ.

Кпючов'1 слова: транспортна шфраструктура, диференщащя територм, щтьнкть транспортно!' мережу транспортна безпека, пропускна здатнкть, математична модель, штегральна оцшка.

Чередниченко Константин, Мирошникова Юлия. «Моделирование дифференциации территорий по уровню развития транспортной инфраструктуры». В статье изложены теоретические и практические аспекты дифференциации территорий по уровню развития транспортной инфраструктуры. Целью данной работы является разработка формализованного подхода территориальной дифференциации по уровню развития транспортной инфраструктуры на примере регионов Украины. Раскрыто проблематику и определение термина «транспортная инфраструктура». Описаны классические методические подходы к формированию оценок уровня транспортной инфраструктуры и их недостатки. Раскрыта сущность понятия «дифференциация» и его значение в транспортной отрасли. Рассмотрены коэффициенты оценки обеспеченности регионов транспортной инфраструктурой. На базе рассмотренных коэффициентов и исходных статистических данных был проведен анализ регионов Украины по уровню развития транспортной инфраструктуры. Неравенство уровня развития транспортной инфраструктуры (даже в пределах одной страны) обусловлена как объективными (географическое положение, ресурсный потенциал), так и субъективными причинами (эффективное использование ресурсов, эффективность регионального управления). Для решения данной проблемы была рассчитана интегральная оценка. Основываясь на данной оценке для практической демонстрации разработанного алгоритма, были оценены регионы Украины по уровню развития транспортной инфраструктуры. Используя разработанный алгоритм, становится возможным оптимизировать управление развитием транспортной инфраструктуры определенной территории.

Ключевые слова: транспортная инфраструктура, дифференциация территорий, плотность транспортной сети, транспортная безопасность, пропускная способность, математическая модель, интегральная оценка.

Introduction. The transport system has significant importance for the modern economy, because other industries productivity and, as a consequence, the financial welfare of the state depends on it. The role of transport systems is constantly growing, especially during the implementation of large-scale international integration plans.

Transport infrastructure refers to the framework that supports transport system. This includes roads, railways, ports and airports. The inequality of transport infrastructure level of development (even within one country) is caused due to both objective (geographical location, resource potential) and subjective reasons (efficient use of resources, effectiveness of regional management).

Literature review and problem statement. In modern scientific researches, "transport infrastructure" is interpreted in several aspects [1-5]. However, none of the considered approaches takes into account the impact of integration processes on transport infrastructure.

A general definition of transport infrastructure is formulated as a connecting element between production and consumption, which includes networks of connections of all modes of transport and facilities serving vehicles and communications (stations, airports, ports, etc.). It is also recommended to consider the transport infrastructure as a system of infrastructure by types of transport. Analysis of scientific research about transport infrastructure showed a variety of approaches to the assessment of its development level. Namely: the concepts of "transport network density" [6], "carrying capacity" [7], "transportation timing" [8] and "transport infrastructure provision". Most of the modern methods of transport infrastructure assessment, however, do not include transport safety and geographical location indicators.

Unfortunately, each approach analyzes only one factor, ignoring other indices that could potentially affect the overall level of transport infrastructure. The lack of integrated assessment could lead to a misinterpretation of the real level of development and, as a consequence, inefficient management of transport system.

The aim and objective of research. The aim of the study is to develop a formalized approach of territorial differentiation by transport infrastructure level of development on the example of Ukrainian regions.

Presentation of the main material. The differentiation of transport infrastructure (TI) should be considered as a process of distribution of transport infrastructures on the basis of integrated quantitative assessments of their level of development.

The classic approach to transport infrastructure assessment is the analysis of

regions provision with transport infrastructure, which is based on coefficients of Engel, Goltz, Uspensky, Vasilevsky [8]:

K* =

KG =

\rsTH'

JS^Ñ

K„ =

VS*H* t'

(D

(2)

(3)

(4)

ys* H *Q where KE — Engel coefficient; KG - Goltz coefficient; Ku - Uspensky coefficient; Kv - Vasilevsky coefficient; L — the length of roads in the region; S — area of region; H — population; N — number of settlements; t - the total weight of freights transported to the territory;

Q - total weight of products produced on the territory.

However, this method has disadvantages, such as: a region with a large area loses to a country with a smaller area in advance; the geographical factor is not taken into account; etc. Therefore, during territorial analysis, these coefficients must be supplemented. It is recommended to take into account transport network density coefficients [8].

Transport network density coefficient is the ratio of total roads length in the region to the area of region (formula 5) and population (formula 6):

1000L

— (5)

dc =

dH =

1000L

H

(6)

Density of roads in relation to: the area of region and population (formula 7), density of

cargo transportation by road (formula 8), GBP (formula 9):

SAT

"s^ - "

rtA -

AS*A -&SAT —

,SRVR &SAT

SAT

JsR *n;

SAT

R 'A

(7)

(8) (9)

where SAT- density of highways; SR - area of region; Ar - population;

- range of transportation of goods by

road; VR- GDP.

Then the formula of integral assessment of road density:

:AT

dSAT = 4

\¡SRARNRVR'

(10)

It is worth to be included another approach to transport infrastructure level assessment, which is based on traffic safety index in transport network [9].

Accident rate:

_ 106z

7 _ 365 *L*N' where z - number of accidents per year; N - average daily traffic intensity in both directions; L - the road length.

Using formulas (1-11) and statistical data [11-15], the coefficients of transport infrastructure level of development of Ukrainian regions were calculated:

Table 1. Transport infrastructure level of development assessment

Region

Criterion n io re n io gi re & i« > o n io gi re c S Central region Northwestern region n io re Black Sea region Carpathian region Capital region

i« t et n o o ni ■a CL i« to e t or & ls o CL

KF 0,0242 0,0348 0,0439 0,0446 0,0424 0,0498 0,0328 0,036 0,047

KG 1,1831 1,4694 1,3309 1,4903 1,297 1,0768 1,2999 1,386 1,395

Ku 0,9045 1,174 1,6462 1,5807 1,6521 1,8136 1,134 1,146 1,495

Kv 1,1095 1,1228 1,4768 1,0877 0,8555 1,4537 1,4434 1,273 1,374

ds 262203 317140 343750 305006 312 750 395051 234981 381084 309524

dH 2225,5 3810,8 5618,5 6531,0 5734,8 6271,9 4587,8 3571,6 6987,2

HA 1,1 1,3 1,4 1,9 2,0 2,3 1,1 2,3 1,4

,SrA &SAT 23,9 23,2 27,4 30,2 38,2 42,4 17,0 38,8 20,2

,SRVR &SAT 0,06 0,09 0,09 0,16 0,19 0,18 0,08 0,17 0,07

dsAT 0,35 0,49 0,56 0,85 0,99 0,98 0,43 0,80 0,45

I 0,03 0,09 0,09 0,06 0,05 0,08 0,15 0,12 0,11

The next step is the formation of an infrastructure level of development for integrated assessment of transport territorial differentiation. It is possible to use

the apparatus of decision-making theory in conditions of uncertainty in order to conduct this procedure. It is recommended to use Savage's criterion (C_S). In this case, by

"alternatives" should be understood "certain regions" (table 1), the calculated coefficients (formulas 1-11) - as expert assessments.

rij —WlCLXi<i<mCLj Œij (12)

To conduct the assessment, it is necessary to develop a table (table 2) of relative values from table 1.

Table 2. Relative values of transport infrastructure level of development

Region Assessment

KE Kg Kv Kv dSAT I

Donetsk region 0,4859 0,7941 0,4983 0,5796 0,3535 0,2000

Prydniprovskyi region 0,6988 0,9873 0,6472 0,7603 0,4949 0,6000

Northeastern region 0,8815 0,8938 0,9074 0,8626 0,5657 0,6000

Central region 0,8956 1,0000 0,8716 0,9844 0,8586 0,6000

Northwestern region 0,8514 0,8705 0,9107 1,0000 1,0000 0,4000

Podilsk region 1,0000 0,7240 1,0000 0,9303 0,9899 0,3333

Black Sea region 0,6586 0,6964 0,6251 0,6811 0,4343 1,0000

Carpathian region 0,7410 0,7834 0,6318 0,8125 0,8081 0,8000

Capital region 0,9337 0,9873 0,8241 0,9770 0,4545 0,7333

According to formulas (12-13) a table of r_ij was formed (table 3):

Table 3. Table of r,,-

Region Assessment

KF Kr, KF Kv KF I

Donetsk region 0,5141 0,2059 0,5017 0,4204 0,6465 0,8000

Prydniprovskyi region 0,3012 0,0127 0,3528 0,2397 0,5051 0,4000

Northeastern region 0,1185 0,1062 0,0926 0,1374 0,4343 0,4000

Central region 0,1044 0,0000 0,1284 0,0156 0,1414 0,4000

Northwestern region 0,1486 0,1295 0,0893 0,0000 0,0000 0,6000

Podilsk region 0,0000 0,2760 0,0000 0,0697 0,0101 0,6667

Black Sea region 0,3414 0,3036 0,3749 0,3189 0,5657 0,0000

Carpathian region 0,2590 0,2166 0,3682 0,1875 0,1919 0,2000

Capital region 0,0663 0,0127 0,1759 0,0230 0,4455 0,2667

Then the territorial differentiation of regions (table 4):

Table 4. Territorial differentiation of Ukrainian regions

Place Region Integrated assessment (1 - Cs)

1 Carpathian region 0,6318

2 Central region 0,6000

3 Northeastern region 0,5657

4 Prydniprovskyi region 0,4949

5 Capital region 0,4545

6 Black Sea region 0,4343

7 Northwestern region 0,4000

8 Podilsk region 0,3333

9 Donetsk region 0,2000

According to the results, the Carpathian region is the most developed region of Ukraine, and the Donetsk region is the least developed.

Conclusions. The developed algorithm allows to estimate the level of transport infrastructure by integrated assessment. During the evaluation, it is possible to

determine the factor with the greatest impact on the overall result by region. Improving the quantitative indicators that form the most influential qualitative assessment would lead to an increasement of the overall assessment. Thus, using the developed algorithm, it becomes possible to optimize the management of transport infrastructure development of a particular territory.

References

1. Sadlovska I.P. Strategichne upravlinnya natsionalnoyu transportnoyu infrastrukturoyu Ukrainy [monografia]. Kyiv, 2011. 356 p.

2. Bakaev A.A., Pirozhkov I.I. Revenko S.I. Mezhdunarodnyie transportnyie koridoryi Ukrainyi: seti i modelirovanie. Kiev, 2003. 518 p.

3. Novikova O.F., Pokotilenko R.V. Ekonomichna bezpeka: kontseptualne viznachennya ta mehanizmy zabezpechennya [monografia]. Donetsk, 2006. 408 p.

4. Lozhachevska O.M. Upravlinnya funktsionuvannyam ta rozvitkom transportnogo kompleksu regionu [monografia]. Kyiv, 2002. 248 p.

5. Transportna Infrastruktura [Elektronniy resurs] // Vikipediya. Vilna entsiklopediya. - Rezhim dostupu: https://is.gd/sS18BU.

6. Usmanov Z.K. Integralnaya shema otsenki obespechennosti regionov avtomobilnyimi dorogami. Tashkent, 2014. 186-188 pp.

7. Freydman O.A. Otsenka potentsiala transportnoy sistemyi kak osnova formirovaniya transportno-logisticheskogo klastera. «Ekonomika», 2014, vol 3, pp 109-117.

8. Tohirov T. Otsenka sostoyaniya transportnoy infrastrukturyi regiona. Ekonomika i Upravlenie. Voprosyi upravleniya, Sankt-Peterburg, 2018, pp. 79-83.

9. Vedomstvennyie stroitelnyie normyi. Ukazaniya po obespecheniyu bezopasnosti dvizheniya na avtomobilnyih dorogah. Vsn 25-86 [Elektronniy resurs] - Rezhim dostupu do resursu : https://zakonbase.ru/content/part/399001 - Nazva z ekrana.

10. Transport Ukrainy [Elektronniy resurs] // Derzhavna sluzhba statistiki UkraYini. -KiYiv, 2020. - Rezhim dostupu do resursu: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2020/zb/10/zb_trans_19.pdf.

11. Spisok regionov Ukrainyi po chislennosti naseleniya [Elektronniy resurs] // Vikipediya : Vilna Entsiklopediya - Rezhym dostupu do resursu: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/CnHC0K_perH0H0B_YKpaHHH_n0_HHcneHH0CTH_HaceneHHa.

12. Spisok regionov Ukrainyi po ploschadi [Elektronniy resurs] // Vikipediya : Vilna Entsiklopediya - Rezhim dostupu do resursu: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/CnHC0K_perH0H0B_YKpaHHH_n0_nn0^agH - Nazva z ekrana.

13. NaselenI punkti UkraYini [Elektronniy resurs] // Vikipediya : Vilna Entsiklopediya -Rezhim dostupu do resursu: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hacenem_nyHKTH_YKpaÏHH - Nazva z ekrana.

14. DBN V.2.3-4-2015. AvtomobIlnl dorogi. Chastina I. Proektuvannya. Chastina II. [Na zamInu DBN V.2.3-4-2007; chinniy vId 01-04-2016]. Kyiv, 2015. 104 s.

15. Cilkina G.Yu. Teoriya prinyatiya resheniy i upravlenie riskami. Modeli konfliktov, neopredelennosti, riska. SPb, 2003. 72 p.

16. Yanchuk. M. B. i dr. Naukovo-metodichnI pIdhodi do upravlInnya transportnimi rizikami v multimodalnih vantazhnih perevezennyah. BIznes Inform, H., 2021, Vol 2, pp. 198-209.