Decision map for spatial decision making in urban planning

In this paper, we introduce the concept of decision map and illustrate the way this new concept can be used effectively to support participation in spatial decision making and in urban planning. First, we start by introducing our spatial decision process which is composed of five, non-necessary sequential, phases: problem identification and formulation, analysis, negotiation, concertation, and evaluation and choice. Negotiation and concertation are two main phases in spatial decision making but most available frameworks do not provide tools to support them effectively. The solution proposed here is based on the concept of decision map which is defined as an advanced version of conventional geographic maps which is enriched with preferential information and especially designed to clarify decision making. It looks like a set of homogenous spatial units; each one is characterised with a global, often ordinal, evaluation that represents an aggregation of several partial evaluations relative to different criteria. The decision map is also enriched with different spatial data exploration tools. The procedure of the construction of a decision map contains four main steps: definition of the problem (i.e. generation of criteria maps), generation of an intermediate map, inference of preferential parameters, and generation of a final decision map. The concept of decision map as defined here is a generic tool that may be applied in different domains. This paper focuses on the role of the decision map in supporting participation in spatial decision making and urban planning. Indeed, the decision map is an efficient communication tool in the sense that it permits to the different groups implied in the spatial decision process to ‘think visually’ and to communicate better between each other.ou

GIS-based multicriteria analysis as decision support in flood risk management

In this report we develop a GIS-based multicriteria flood risk assessment and mapping approach. This approach has the ability a) to consider also flood risks which are not measured in monetary terms, b) to show the spatial distribution of these multiple risks and c) to deal with uncertainties in criteria values and to show their influence on the overall assessment. It can furthermore be used to show the spatial distribution of the effects of risk reduction measures. The approach is tested for a pilot study at the River Mulde in Saxony, Germany. Therefore, a GISdataset of economic as well as social and environmental risk criteria is built up. Two multicriteria decision rules, a disjunctive approach and an additive weighting approach are used to come to an overall assessment and mapping of flood risk in the area. Both the risk calculation and mapping of single criteria as well as the multicriteria analysis are supported by a software tool (FloodCalc) which was developed for this task. --

Environmental urbanization assessment using gis and multicriteria decision analysis: a case study for Denizli (Turkey) municipal area

In recent years, life quality of the urban areas is a growing interest of civil engineering. Environmental quality is essential to display the position of sustainable development and asserts the corresponding countermeasures to the protection of environment. Urban environmental quality involves multidisciplinary parameters and difficulties to be analyzed. The problem is not only complex but also involves many uncertainties, and decision-making on these issues is a challenging problem which contains many parameters and alternatives inherently. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a very prepotent technique to solve that sort of problems, and it guides the users confidence by synthesizing that information. Environmental concerns frequently contain spatial information. Spatial multicriteria decision analysis (SMCDA) that includes Geographic Information System (GIS) is efficient to tackle that type of problems. This study has employed some geographic and urbanization parameters to assess the environmental urbanization quality used by those methods. The study area has been described in five categories: very favorable, favorable, moderate, unfavorable, and very unfavorable. The results are momentous to see the current situation, and they could help to mitigate the related concerns. The study proves that the SMCDA descriptions match the environmental quality perception in the city. © 2018 Erdal Akyol et al

Enhancing geographical information systems capabilities with multi-criteria evaluation functions

ou

ntegrated Spatial Assessment: a Multidimensional Approach for Sustainable Planning

EnThe paper presents the different steps of a multidimensional methodological approach for supporting the construction of planning choices, starting from the concept of “integrated assessment”. The integration among Problem Structuring Methods, Public Participation, GIS, Multicriteria and Multigroups Decision Support Systems and Geographic Information Systems identifies a decision-making process explored for the transformation strategies definition in the spatial planning field according to sustainable and complex values

Key challenges and meta-choices in designing and applying multi-criteria spatial decision support systems

There is an increasing use of multi-criteria spatial decision support systems in recent years for dealing with problems that have a spatial distribution of consequences. This growth might be explained by the widespread recognition that there are multiple and conflicting objectives to be considered in spatial planning (e.g. minimizing pollution to air, water and soil, increasing the acceptance of the projects, reducing implementation costs), by new requirements to consider societal values in the evaluation and to increase participation in decision processes, as well as by the crucial role that the spatial dimension plays in such problems. However, we argue in this paper that there are key challenges confronted by DSS designers who are developing such systems and by DSS practitioners who are employing them to support decision making. These challenges impose important meta-choices to designers and practitioners, which may lead to different contents of the evaluation model and to distinctive outcomes of the analysis. In this paper, we present and discuss these key challenges and the associated meta-choices. The contribution that we aim to provide to both researchers and practitioners can be summarized as follows: (i) an increased awareness about choices to be made in the design and implementation of these decision support systems; (ii) a better understanding about the available alternatives for each choice, based on recent developments in the literature; and (iii) a clearer appraisal about the inherent trade-offs between advantages and disadvantages of each alternative

Developing a decision support system to identify strategically located land for land reform in South Africa

Land reform is identified as a key tool in fostering development in South Africa. With two decades after the advent of democracy in South Africa, the land question remains a critical issue for policy makers. A number of frameworks have been put in place by the government to identify land which is strategically located for land reform. However, many of these frameworks are not well aligned and have hampered the government’s land reform initiative in promoting inclusive development. Strategically located land is herein defined as land parcels that are well positioned for the promotion of agriculture, human settlements, rural and tourism development. Accordingly, there is a need to develop a decision tool which facilitates the identification of strategically located land for development. This study proposes the use of geographic information systems (GIS), earth observation (EO) data and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) to develop a spatial decision support system (SDSS) to identify strategically located land for land reform. The SDDS was therefore designed using GIS, EO data and MCDM to create an index for identification of strategically located land. Expert-led workshops were carried out to ascertain criteria for identifying strategically located land and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was utilised used to weight the criteria. The study demonstrates that GIS and EO are invaluable tools in facilitating evidence-based decisions for land reform. However, there is need for capacity building on GIS and EO in government departments responsible for land reform and development planning. The study suggests that there is an urgent need to develop sector specific criteria for the identification of strategically located land for inclusive development