IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v88y2019ics0264837719300924.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A GIS-based decision support system for facilitating participatory urban renewal process

Author

Listed:
  • Omidipoor, Morteza
  • Jelokhani-Niaraki, Mohammadreza
  • Moeinmehr, Athena
  • Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem
  • Choi, Soo-Mi

Abstract

Renovation of Urban Blighted Areas (UBAs) plays a vital role in the improvement of Urban Quality of Life (UQL), notably in developing countries. Due to socio-economic and legal issues in UBAs, the renovation process cannot be sufficiently realized without the intervention of both public and private sectors. As active involvement of owners, investors and urban managers in urban renovation increases the success of renewal projects, more considerable attention has been paid to owner-investor participatory models in the last few decades. In order to promote participatory urban renewal processes, a Spatial (GIS-based) Decision Support System (SDSS) has been developed. The primary objective of proposed SDSS is to present a general framework for the involvement of owners, investors, and urban managers in UBA processes. Through the integration of Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), the proposed SDSS provides an appropriate tool for the facilitation of participatory renewal procedures in UBAs. In addition to entering, storing, manipulating, analyzing and representing spatial data related to UBAs, the system provides further features for stakeholders including spatial negotiation, weighting, prioritization, validation, monitoring, and decision rule capabilities. The SDSS has been implemented in Tehran, and its quality has been validated from the perspective of developers, experts, and end users (owners and investors) in accordance with the ISO/IEC_9126 standard. Based on three group’s opinion, the system is relatively acceptable in terms of functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, and portability in facilitating the urban renewal process.

Suggested Citation

  • Omidipoor, Morteza & Jelokhani-Niaraki, Mohammadreza & Moeinmehr, Athena & Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem & Choi, Soo-Mi, 2019. "A GIS-based decision support system for facilitating participatory urban renewal process," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837719300924
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719300924
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104150?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gupta, Himanshu & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2016. "Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 69-79.
    2. Grace Lee & Edwin Chan, 2008. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach for Assessment of Urban Renewal Proposals," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 155-168, October.
    3. Zheng, Wei & Shen, Geoffrey Qiping & Wang, Hao & Hong, Jingke & Li, Zhengdao, 2017. "Decision support for sustainable urban renewal: A multi-scale model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 361-371.
    4. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    5. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    6. Gorsevski, Pece V. & Cathcart, Steven C. & Mirzaei, Golrokh & Jamali, Mohsin M. & Ye, Xinyue & Gomezdelcampo, Enrique, 2013. "A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 374-385.
    7. Mahya Ghanaee & Ali Asghar Pourezzat, 2013. "Identifying the critical success factors for urban renovation projects; lessons learned from Tehran residential renovation projects," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 414-423, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elkadeem, M.R. & Younes, Ali & Sharshir, Swellam W. & Campana, Pietro Elia & Wang, Shaorong, 2021. "Sustainable siting and design optimization of hybrid renewable energy system: A geospatial multi-criteria analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 295(C).
    2. Agnieszka Bieda & Agnieszka Telega, 2021. "The Analysis of Research Hotspots in the Field of Urban Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-6, August.
    3. Olszewski, Robert & Wendland, Agnieszka, 2021. "Digital Agora – Knowledge acquisition from spatial databases, geoinformation society VGI and social media data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Claire Daniel & Christopher Pettit, 2022. "Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: Results of a citation network analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(7), pages 1875-1892, September.
    5. Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki & Mohammadreza Jelokhani-Niaraki & Soo-Mi Choi, 2020. "A Volunteered Geographic Information-Based Environmental Decision Support System for Waste Management and Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Ferretti, V., 2021. "Framing territorial regeneration decisions: Purpose, perspective and scope," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Ghavami, Seyed Morsal & Taleai, Mohammad & Arentze, Theo, 2022. "An intelligent web-based spatial group decision support system to investigate the role of the opponents’ modeling in urban land use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Pasquale De Toro & Francesca Nocca & Andrea Renna & Luigi Sepe, 2020. "Real Estate Market Dynamics in the City of Naples: An Integration of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Geographical Information System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, February.
    9. Hettinga, Sanne & Boter, Jaap & Dias, Eduardo & Fruijtier, Steven & de Vogel, Brian & Scholten, Henk, 2021. "Urban energy transition in a gaming context: The role of children," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    10. Salihoğlu, Tayfun & Albayrak, Ayşe Nur & Eryılmaz, Yaşasın, 2021. "A method for the determination of urban transformation areas in Kocaeli," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    2. Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Gupta, Himanshu & Kunc, Martin, 2021. "Risks associated with the implementation of big data analytics in sustainable supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    4. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    7. Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    8. Shih-Chia Chang & Ming-Tsang Lu & Mei-Jen Chen & Li-Hua Huang, 2021. "Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Sisto, Roberta & Fernández-Portillo, Luis A. & Yazdani, Morteza & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi, 2022. "Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    10. Gupta, Himanshu, 2018. "Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 35-47.
    11. van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    12. Javid Nafari & Alireza Arab & Sina Ghaffari, 2017. "Through the Looking Glass: Analysis of Factors Influencing Iranian Student’s Study Abroad Motivations and Destination Choice," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    13. Alexander Kuan Daiy & Kao-Yi Shen & Jim-Yuh Huang & Tom Meng-Yen Lin, 2021. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Open Banking Business Partners," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Vineet Kaushik & Shobha Tewari, 2023. "Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 667-698, August.
    15. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Shorabeh, Saman Nadizadeh & Firozjaei, Hamzeh Karimi & Firozjaei, Mohammad Karimi & Jelokhani-Niaraki, Mohammadreza & Homaee, Mehdi & Nematollahi, Omid, 2022. "The site selection of wind energy power plant using GIS-multi-criteria evaluation from economic perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Penjani Hopkins Nyimbili & Turan Erden, 2021. "Comparative evaluation of GIS-based best–worst method (BWM) for emergency facility planning: perspectives from two decision-maker groups," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 1031-1067, January.
    18. Ren, Jingzheng & Liang, Hanwei & Chan, Felix T.S., 2017. "Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for Eco-City: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 29-39.
    19. Dragan Pamučar & Ljubomir Gigović & Zoran Bajić & Miljojko Janošević, 2017. "Location Selection for Wind Farms Using GIS Multi-Criteria Hybrid Model: An Approach Based on Fuzzy and Rough Numbers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-23, July.
    20. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837719300924. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.