A GIS/MMP-based coordination model and its application to distributed environmental planning

Xiang, W-N

doi:10.1068/b200195

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The GIS-MADA approaches account for about Note: percentages of the total are given in brackets Note: percentages of the total are given in brackets 70% of the total [16,56,81,90,103,114,145]. Approximately 30% of the approaches fall into the GIS-MODA category [1,2,6,10,65,97,107,192,194]. The GIS-MADA and GIS-MODA approaches can be further subdivided into two categories: individual and group decision making.…”

Section: Mcda Components Of Gis-mcdamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

Ehrgott¹,

Figueira²,

Greco³

2010

International Series in Operations Research &Amp; Management Science

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Mcda Components Of Gis-mcdamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A majority of the GIS-MCDA articles represented the individual decision maker's approaches (Tables 13.3 and 13.4). These approaches were found in about 64% of the GIS-MADA articles [16,29,96,145] and 36% of the GIS-MODA papers [1,6,38,97,99,192]. The group/participatory approaches were presented in 70 articles.…”

Section: Mcda Components Of Gis-mcdamentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

Ehrgott¹,

Figueira²,

Greco³

2010

International Series in Operations Research &Amp; Management Science

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other researchers integrate the facilities offered by geographical information systems (GIS) with expert systems (Djokic, 1991;Evans et al, 1993) or with linear programming (Campbell et al, 1992); Monte Carlo simulation (Fisher, 1991;Xiang, 1993); multiple accounts (Brown et al, 1994); knowledge-based systems (Miller, 1994;Cheng and O'Connor, 1996) to determine the most desirable alternative. Although the above approaches may lead to an optimal solution, they are generally not competent to deal with conflicting requirements as are imposed by the simultaneous requirement to maximize efficiency while minimizing the adverse impacts to human and natural resources (Zhen et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A compromise programming model for site selection of borrow pits

Pantouvakis

Manoliadis

2008

Construction Management and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Road fill construction requires soil for filling low areas; this soil is obtained from temporary mineral workings known as 'borrow pits' (BP). Between a number of possible BPs, the appropriate site should be selected based upon conflicting econo-technical and environmental criteria aiming at achieving optimal BP performance while minimizing the adverse impacts to human and natural resources. For solving this problem a model for BP selection has been developed by this research using compromise programming (CP). The model incorporates a hierarchical structure integrating criteria and sub-criteria whose relative importance is set by the decision makers. Possible alternative BP sites are subsequently assessed on all these sub-criteria. Based upon this analysis, the model determines the distance of each of the possible alternatives from the utopia (ideal) point; the option with the minimum distance is considered the best compromise. The relevant concepts are exemplified through the presentation of a case study concerning the BP site selection for an Egnatia Motorway section in northwest Greece. The main conclusion that can be drawn from this work is that the CP approach is appropriate and valid for BP selection and, furthermore, it may also be used for other multiple objective construction-related site selection problems.Multiple objectives, decision making, compromise programming, borrow pits,

show abstract

“…[Fisher (1991); Campbell et al (1992); Xiang (1993); Brown et al (1994)]. [Fisher (1991); Campbell et al (1992); Xiang (1993); Brown et al (1994)].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

compromise programming model in site selection for construction temporary facilities

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the important project resources that have been overlooked during the planning phases of most construction projects is site selection of temporary facilities. In some projects, site selection can be as crucial as any other construction resource. Researchers have attempted to put together models that perform or assist planners in site selection. The aim of this paper is to present a framework for utilizing compromise programming (CP) for site selection of Construction Temporary Facilities (CTF) Compromise programming is used as a comprehensive tool that enables comparison between CTF alternatives. The CTF to be located concerns a site selection study conducted to evaluate locations for an onsite concrete batch plant to support the construction of the proposed facilities at the Savannah River Site. A comparison between the proposed model and Analytical Hierarchy Programming (AHP) models recently appeared in the literature is presented. As a construction management tool the proposed methodology describes better the trade-off between engineering performance (engineering, geoscience) and environmental performance (ecology, human health). However, the decision-making is project specific and relies on technical characteristics effectively limited the CTF site selection process criteria and the relative importance (weights) of the different factors involved.

show abstract

A GIS/MMP-based coordination model and its application to distributed environmental planning

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

A compromise programming model for site selection of borrow pits

compromise programming model in site selection for construction temporary facilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About