Lombardi, P and Ferretti, V (2015) New spatial decision support systems for sustainable urban and regional development. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 4(1), pp. 45-66. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose – Policy makers are frequently challenged by the need to achieve sustainable development in cities and regions. Current decision-making processes are based on evaluation support systems which are unable to tackle the problem as they cannot take a holistic approach or a full account of actors. The purpose of this paper is to present a new generation of evaluation systems to support decision making in planning and regeneration processes which involve expert participation. These systems ensure network representation of the issues involved and visualization of multiple scenarios. Design/methodology/approach – A literature review is used for both revising existing evaluation tools in urban planning and the built environment and highlighting the need to give stakeholders (industry, cities, operators, etc.) new tools for collaborative or individual decisions and to facilitate scaling up solutions. An overview of the new generation of decision support systems, named Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support Systems (MC-SDSS) is provided and real case studies are analyzed to show their ability to tackle the problem. Findings – Recent research findings highlight that decisions in urban planning should be supported by collaborative and inclusive processes. Otherwise, they will fail. The case studies illustrated in this study highlight the usefulness of MC-SDSS for the successful resolution of complex problems, thanks to the visualization facilities and a network representation of the scenarios. Research limitations/implications – The case studies are limited to the Italian context. Practical implications – These SDSS are able to empower planners and decision makers to better understand the interaction between city design, social preferences, economic issues and policy incentives. Therefore, they have been employed in several case studies related to territorial planning and regeneration processes. Originality/value – This study provides three case studies and a review of the new MC-SDSS methodology which involve the Analytic Network Process technique to support decision-making in urban and regional planning.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytic network process; multicriteria analysis; spatial decision support systems; sustainability assessments; undesirable facilities location; urban and regional planning |
| Index terms: | urban planning, preference, visualization, decision-making, methodology, regional development, literature review, sustainable development, sustainability assessment, decision support, analytic network process, resolution, evaluation tool, interaction, scaling, urban and regional planning, holistic approach, planner, built environment, decision-making process, spatial decision support system, multicriteria analysis, case study |
| Subjects: | behavioral psychology, infrastructure and transport systems, decision-making and optimization, decision analysis, conflict resolution, urban design, health safety and environment, decision-making and reasoning, research methods, sustainability assessment, design practice, data analysis and analytics, urban planning, organization, business, profession, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Governance, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here