Volume List  / Volume 11 (3)



DOI: 10.7708/ijtte2021.11(3).03

11 / 3 / 375 - 391 Pages


Snežana Tadić - University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Vojvode Stepe 305, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia -

Milorad Kilibarda - University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Vojvode Stepe 305, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia -

Milovan Kovač - University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Vojvode Stepe 305, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia -

Slobodan Zečević - University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Vojvode Stepe 305, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia -


The development of intermodal transport (IT) systems is one of the global and European imperatives with the goal of mitigating logistics activities (especially transportation) negative impact on the environment, but also to improve the efficiency of logistics systems. Despite its importance acknowledged long ago, the treatment of IT greatly varies in different countries. In the developed countries, IT has an institutional character and clearly defined development directions, while in the developing countries, the problems of IT in most cases are ignored. The main scientific contribution of this paper is in being the first one to assess the status of IT in the countries of the Danube region. Seven criteria and six evaluation scenarios, that were not present in the existing literature in this form, are defined, which represents another contribution of the paper. The criteria are defined so that they would include the treatment of IT in strategic documents, the opinions of users and service providers, but also empirical/statistical indicators of IT development degree. The evaluation scenarios differ in the criteria significance and the aspect of the problem. A novel hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model, based on fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MARCOS methods, is developed for the assessment, which represents an additional scientific contribution of the paper. According to IT results, the countries are grouped into five categories, micro-regions. The results indicate that with the degree of economic development the status of IT improves as well, so Germany and Austria are leading, followed by the Czech Republic, then by countries such as Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia, while other countries fall behind greatly.

Download Article

Number of downloads: 151


AECOM Ingenieria SRL. 2014. Romania General Transport Master Plan.


Akcan, S.; Taş, M. A. 2019. Green supplier evaluation with SWARA-TOPSIS integrated method to reduce ecological risk factors, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 191(12): 736-757.


Barysiene, J. 2012. A multi-criteria evaluation of container terminal technologies applying the COPRAS-G method, Transport 27(4): 364-372.


BMVIT. 2011. National Action Plan, Danube Navigation (NAP). Available from Internet: https://www.bmvit.gv.at/en/verkehr/waterways/nap.html. Accessed on: 17.09.2020.


Caris, A.; Macharis, C.; Janssens, G. K. 2013. Decision support in intermodal transport: A new research agenda, Computers in Industry 64(2): 105-112.


EC - European Commission. 2011. White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System. Available from Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/strategies/doc/2011_white_paper/white‐paper‐illustrated‐brochure_en. Pdf.


ECMT – European Conference of Ministers of Transport. 2001. Terminology on combined transport. Available from Internet: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/wp24/documents/term.pdf.


Eftestöl-Wilhelmsson, E.; Bask, A.; Rajahonka, M. 2014. Intermodal transport research: A law and logistics literature review with EU focus, European Transport Law 49(6): 609-674.


Eng-Larsson, F.; Kohn, C. 2012. Modal shift for greener logistics – the shipper’s perspective, International Journal of Physics Distribution & Logistics Management 42(1): 36-59.


Fang, X.; Cao, C.; Chen, Z.; Chen, W.; Ni, L.; Ji, Z.; Gan, J. 2019. Using mixed methods to design service quality evaluation indicator system of railway container multimodal transport, Science Progress 103(1): 1-27.


Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (FMoTBD). 2010. Freight Transport and Logistics Action Plan - Logistics Initiative for Germany.


FTTE. 2018. Transport study for the Danube Region - Study of intermodal transport users’ needs in the Danube Region. Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. The study is co-founded by EU fonds (ERDF and IPA II).


Gharehgozli, A.; De Vries, H.; Decrauw, S. 2019. The role of standardisation in European intermodal transportation, Maritime Business Review 4(2): 1-19.


Hungarian Competition Authority. 2009. Merger in Combined Road-Railway Transportation Services.


Islam, D.M.Z.; Ricci, S.; Nelldal, B.L. 2016. How to make modal shift from road to rail possible in the European transport market, as aspired to in the EU Transport White Paper 2011, European Transport Research Review 8(3): 18.


Kersuliene, V.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2010. Selelection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA), Journal of Business Economics and Management 11(2): 243-258.


Kutlu, A. C.; Ekmekcioglu, M. 2012. Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS/based fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications 39(1): 61–67.


Mavi, R.; Goh, M.; Zarbakhshnia, N. 2017. Sustainable third-party reverse logistic provider selection with fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 91(5-8): 2401-2418.


Ministry of Infrastructure, Republic of Slovenia. 2014. Transport Development Strategy in the Republic of Slovenia.


Ministry of Transport, Czech Republic. 2014. The Transport Policy of the Czech Republic for 2014 - 2020 with the prospect of 2050.


Rani, P.; Mishra, A.R.; Mardani, A.; Cavallaro, F.; Štreimikiene, D.; Khan, S.A.R. 2020. Pythagorean fuzzy SWARA-VIKOR framework for performance evaluation on solar panel selection, Sustainability 12(10): 4278-4295.


Shukla, S.; Mishra, P. K.; Jain, R.; Yadav, H. C. 2016. An integrated decision making approach for ERP system selection using SWARA and PROMETHEE method, International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise 3(2): 120-147.


Stanković, M.; Stević, Ž.; Kumar Das, D.; Subotić, M.; Pamučar, D. 2020. A new fuzzy MARCOS method for road traffic risk analysis, Mathematics 8: 457-475.


Stević, Ž.; Brković, N. 2020. A novel integrated FUCOM-MARCOS model for evaluation of human resources in a transport company, Logistics 4(4): 1-14.


Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D.; Puška, A.; Chatterjee, P. 2020. Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS), Computers & Industrial Engineering 140: 1-33.


Suarez-Aleman, A.; Trujillo, L.; Medda, F. 2014. Short sea shipping as intermodal competitor: A theoretical analysis of European transport policies, Maritime Policy & Management 42(4): 1-18.


Tadić, S.; Zečević, S. 2012. Development of intermodal transport and logistics in Serbia, International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering 2(4): 380-390.


Tadić, S.; Zečević, S.; Milenković, D. 2017. Intermodal transport treatment in developed and developing countries, Tehnika 67(6): 897-902.


Tadić, S.; Zečević, S.; Milenković, D. 2018а. Problems regarding intermodal transport in the Danube Region. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Traffic and Transport Engineering, ICTTE 2018, Belgrade, Serbia, 483-489.


Tadić, S.; Zečević, S.; Krstić, M. 2018b. Assessment of political city logistics initiatives sustainability, Transportation Research Procedia 30: 285-294.


Ulutas, A.; Bulent Karakus, C.; Topal, A. 2020. Location selection for logistics center with fuzzy SWARA and CoCoSo methods, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 38(1): 1-17.


Ulutas, A.; Karabasevic, D.; Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D.; Nguyen, P.T.; Karakoy, C. 2020. Development of a novel integrated CCSD-ITARA-MARCOS decision-making approach for stackers selection in a logistics system, Mathematics 8: 1672-1687.


Van den Berg, R.; De Langen, P.W. 2014. Assessing the intermodal value proposition of shipping lines: Attitudes of shippers and forwarders, Maritime Economics & Logistics 17(1): 32-51.


World Bank. 2016. Logistics performance index. Available from Internet: https://lpi.worldbank.org.


Zarbakhshnia, N.; Soleimani, H.; Ghaderi, H. 2018. Sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider evaluation and selection using fuzzy SWARA and developed fuzzy COPRAS in the presence of risk criteria, Applied Soft Computing 65: 307-319.


Zečević, S. 2009. Logistics centres and freight villages [in Serbian: Robni terminali i robno-transportni centri]. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia, 280p.