IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p2144-d1603584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Decision Support for Determining Suitable Emergency Assembly Places Using GIS and MCDM Techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Ridvan Ertugrul Yildirim

    (Department of Geomatics, Faculty of Engineering, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun 55139, Türkiye)

  • Aziz Sisman

    (Department of Geomatics, Faculty of Engineering, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun 55139, Türkiye)

Abstract

Natural and man-made disasters threaten humans. Effective emergency management is essential to minimize disasters and their harmful effects. Prevention, preparation, response, and recovery are the basic phases of emergency management. Emergency assembly places are very important in emergency management during the preparation phase, as these are the first places to be reached during and after the disaster. This study aims to identify the most suitable locations for emergency assembly points, which play a critical role in sustainable disaster management. The location of emergency assembly points is influenced by many criteria. In this study, suitable locations for emergency places were investigated on the basis of criteria. The Best–Worst Method (BWM), a relatively new multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method that requires fewer pairwise comparisons and yet provides consistent results, is used to calculate the weights of the criteria after comparing results with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The weighted criteria were then used to perform spatial analyses using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In this study, a two-phase approach was used to determine suitable locations for assembly points: In the first phase, suitable areas were identified by applying raster-based analyses, and in the second phase, vector-based analyses were performed. The results of the two phases were evaluated together, and suitable locations for disaster assembly places were determined. In Atakum District, which is the study area, 41 emergency assembly places were identified, and suitable assembly places were ranked by the Preference Ranking Technique with Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. Results showed that the first three highest-ranked assembly points (AP) were AP20, AP15, and AP25, while the last three lowest-ranked assembly points were AP2, AP7, and AP6. The identification of these locations will provide crucial decision support for local governments, disaster management authorities, urban planners, etc. in ensuring a more sustainable city.

Suggested Citation

  • Ridvan Ertugrul Yildirim & Aziz Sisman, 2025. "Spatial Decision Support for Determining Suitable Emergency Assembly Places Using GIS and MCDM Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-28, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2144-:d:1603584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2144/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2144/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alper Akar & Özlem Akar & Berkant Konakoğlu, 2024. "Analysis of emergency assembly points for post-earthquake disaster management: a case study of Erzincan, Türkiye," 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. 120(13), pages 11791-11824, October.
    2. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    3. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    4. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    5. Laijun Zhao & Huiyong Li & Yan Sun & Rongbing Huang & Qingmi Hu & Jiajia Wang & Fei Gao, 2017. "Planning Emergency Shelters for Urban Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Location-Allocation Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Kheybari, Siamak & Kazemi, Mostafa & Rezaei, Jafar, 2019. "Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 612-623.
    7. Aditi Kharb & Sandesh Bhandari & Maria Moitinho de Almeida & Rafael Castro Delgado & Pedro Arcos González & Sandy Tubeuf, 2022. "Valuing Human Impact of Natural Disasters: A Review of Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-11, September.
    8. Jairo Ortega & Sarbast Moslem & János Tóth & Tamás Péter & Juan Palaguachi & Mario Paguay, 2020. "Using Best Worst Method for Sustainable Park and Ride Facility Location," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Styliani Karamountzou & Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2023. "Suitability and Sustainability Assessment of Existing Onshore Wind Farms in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Shao, Meng & Zhao, Yuanxu & Sun, Jinwei & Han, Zhixin & Shao, Zhuxiao, 2023. "A decision framework for tidal current power plant site selection based on GIS-MCDM: A case study in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(PB).
    4. Yongming Song & Jun Hu, 2017. "Vector similarity measures of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    6. Hae-Yeol Kang & Seung Taek Chae & Eun-Sung Chung, 2023. "Quantifying Medium-Sized City Flood Vulnerability Due to Climate Change Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: Case of Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    9. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," 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. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    10. Feng, Jianghong & Guo, Ping & Xu, Guangyi & Xu, Gangyan & Ning, Yu, 2024. "An integrated decision framework for resilient sustainable waste electric vehicle battery recycling transfer station site selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 373(C).
    11. Pedro Ponce & Citlaly Pérez & Aminah Robinson Fayek & Arturo Molina, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation in Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Fuzzy TOPSIS and S4 Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Mohit Jain & Gunjan Soni & Deepak Verma & Rajendra Baraiya & Bharti Ramtiyal, 2023. "Selection of Technology Acceptance Model for Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Agri-Fresh Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    14. Ayodele, T.R. & Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O. & Odigie, O. & Munda, J.L., 2018. "A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1853-1869.
    15. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    16. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Deb, Madhujit & Debbarma, Bishop & Majumder, Arindam & Banerjee, Rahul, 2016. "Performance –emission optimization of a diesel-hydrogen dual fuel operation: A NSGA II coupled TOPSIS MADM approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 117(P1), pages 281-290.
    18. Kuang-Hua Hu & Wei Jianguo & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2017. "Risk Factor Assessment Improvement for China’s Cloud Computing Auditing Using a New Hybrid MADM Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 737-777, May.
    19. Wabukala, Benard M. & Bergland, Olvar & Mukisa, Nicholas & Adaramola, Muyiwa S. & Watundu, Susan & Orobia, Laura A. & Rudaheranwa, Nichodemus, 2024. "Electricity security in Uganda: Measurement and policy priorities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Fernando Rojas & Peter Wanke & Víctor Leiva & Mauricio Huerta & Carlos Martin-Barreiro, 2022. "Modeling Inventory Cost Savings and Supply Chain Success Factors: A Hybrid Robust Compromise Multi-Criteria Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(16), pages 1-18, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2144-:d:1603584. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.