MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius

Abstract

Urbanization has a massive effect on the environment, both locally and globally. With an ever-increasing scale of construction and manufacturing and misuse of energy resources come poorer air quality, growing mortality rates and more rapid climate change. For these reasons, a healthy and safe built environment is ever more in demand. Global debates focus on sustainable development of the built environment; a rational approach to its analysis is multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. Alternative MCDM methods applied to the same problem often produce different results. In the search for a more reliable tool, this study proposes that a system of MCDM methods should be applied to a single problem. This article assesses 21 neighborhoods in Vilnius in the context of a healthy and safe built environment in view of the principles of sustainable development. MCDM methods were used for this purpose: entropy, Criterion Impact LOSs (CILOS) and Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights (IDOCRIW) methods were used to determine the objective weights of the criteria, while expert judgement determined the subjective weights. With the overall weights determined, the Vilnius neighborhoods were assessed through the application of COmplex PRoportional ASsessment (COPRAS), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) methods. The final results were then processed using the rank average method, Borda count and Copeland's method.

Novel Integrated Multi-Criteria Model for Supplier Selection: Case Study Construction Company

“…This method [111] has a number of extensions, and the extension by fuzzy logics [114] is performed exactly in the field of supply chain for supplier selection. Several studies have already been published in different fields, where this method has been applied in its traditional form or some other forms [113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122]. Besides the mentioned advantages of EDAS method, we can point to additional advantages important for this paper: (1) stability of the solution on change of nature and character of the criteria; (2) provides well-structured analytical frame for ranging of alternatives; (3) the number of steps stays the same no matter of the number of criteria; (4) very useful in the case of large number of alternatives and criteria; (5) applicable for the qualitative and quantitative type of criteria; (6) provides the possibility of the stability analysis of the model regarding weight factor interval change.…”

“…This method [111] has a number of extensions, and the extension by fuzzy logics [112] is performed exactly in the field of supply chain for supplier selection. Several studies have already been published in different fields, where this method has been applied in its traditional form or some other forms [113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122]. It resembles a very important support in decision making in everyday conflict situations.…”

A Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations Based ANP Model for R&D Project Selection

“…We also made the comparisons between our proposed model and the COPRAS method [40][41][42][43][44][45]. The final ranking is the same but the relative significances are different.…”

Evaluating the Significance of Criteria Contributing to Decision-Making on Brownfield Land Redevelopment Strategies in Urban Areas

“…Prioritization tools based on sustainability frameworks and MCDA allow assessing requalification options from different points of view, respecting the needs of multiple stakeholders [20,43,68,70]. Due to MCDA ability to combine heterogeneous inputs with cost/benefit information and stakeholder views and being recognized as suitable tool to support the ranking of regeneration alternatives based on the sustainability framework [21][22][23]70], the previously described MCDA method [41] in combination with the expert's ranking was used to identify a final set of criteria in this study.…”