4.7 Article

Sustainable cities and communities assessment using the DARIA-TOPSIS method

期刊

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2022.103926

关键词

Multi-criteria decision analysis; MCDA; Sustainability assessment; Temporal MCDA assessment; Sustainable cities and communities; development measurement

资金

  1. program of the Minister of Science and Higher Education [001/RID/2018/19]
  2. National Science Centre, Cracow, Poland [2018/29/B/HS4/02725]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective evaluation of cities' and communities' sustainability is crucial for sustainable development. This paper proposes an innovative approach that integrates the MCDA method with the DARIA-TOPSIS method to assess sustainable cities and communities in European countries.
Effective evaluation of cities' and communities' sustainability is important for sustainable development. From a methodological point of view, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods proved their usability in the sustainability evaluation domain. Nevertheless, the process of building a model in the classical MCDA paradigm is based on a single set of input data. Therefore, it may lead to oversimplification, especially in the domain of sustainability. Moreover, in addition to the current assessment, it is also important to know the dynamics of sustainability change over time. Therefore, this paper proposes an innovative sustainability assessment method that integrates the MCDA approach with the variability of the alternatives' performance measurement called Data vARIability Assessment Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (the DARIA-TOPSIS method). This method was used to assess sustainable cities and communities in 26 European countries. Time-based analyses conducted using the DARIA-TOPSIS method for aggregated data (countries), individual sustainability dimensions, and alternatives proved our new approach's usefulness, suitability, and effectiveness in sustainable cities and society domain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据