IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/sustdv/v14y2006i5p287-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of an indicator model and ranking of sustainable revitalization alternatives of derelict property: a Lithuanian case study

Author

Listed:
  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Jurgita Antucheviciene

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

The paper deals with the problem of the redevelopment of derelict buildings and abandoned sites as a complex issue that includes environmental, social and economic aspects. The objective of the research was to suggest a model for determining the rational revitalization of derelict immovable property from the perspective of sustainable development. The authors assume that a multi-criterion analysis is an appropriate technique to use to assure equilibrium among various domains of sustainability. When taking into account the uncertainty of a problem, calculations using the fuzzy version of the TOPSIS method were proposed. The development of a model for determining revitalization priorities of abandoned buildings was based on a case study of derelict rural buildings in Lithuania. A set of indicators was defined and used to perform the multi-criterion analysis of revitalization alternatives of the derelict buildings. Based on results from calculations, scientific recommendations for a rational revitalization of buildings and their sites were prepared. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2006. "Development of an indicator model and ranking of sustainable revitalization alternatives of derelict property: a Lithuanian case study," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 287-299.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:14:y:2006:i:5:p:287-299
    DOI: 10.1002/sd.285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/sd.285
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sd.285?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Munda, G. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 1995. "Qualitative multicriteria methods for fuzzy evaluation problems: An illustration of economic-ecological evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 79-97, April.
    2. V. Udachin & B. J. Williamson & O. W. Purvis & B. Spiro & W. Dubbin & S. Brooks & B. Coste & R. J. Herrington & I. Mikhailova, 2003. "Assessment of environmental impacts of active smelter operations and abandoned mines in Karabash, Ural Mountains of Russia," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 133-142.
    3. James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 1999. "How costly is “clean”? An analysis of the benefits and costs of Superfund site remediations," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 2-27.
    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. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    2. Małgorzata Fedorczak-Cisak & Alicja Kowalska-Koczwara & Filip Pachla & Elżbieta Radziszewska-Zielina & Bartłomiej Szewczyk & Grzegorz Śladowski & Tadeusz Tatara, 2020. "Fuzzy Model for Selecting a Form of Use Alternative for a Historic Building to be Subjected to Adaptive Reuse," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, June.
    3. Małgorzata Fedorczak-Cisak & Alicja Kowalska-Koczwara & Krzysztof Nering & Filip Pachla & Elżbieta Radziszewska-Zielina & Grzegorz Śladowski & Tadeusz Tatara & Bartłomiej Ziarko, 2019. "Evaluation of the Criteria for Selecting Proposed Variants of Utility Functions in the Adaptation of Historic Regional Architecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, February.
    4. Vizzarri, Corrado & Sangiorgio, Valentino & Fatiguso, Fabio & Calderazzi, Antonella, 2021. "A holistic approach for the adaptive reuse project selection: The case of the former Enel power station in Bari," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Wojciech Bonenberg & Oleg Kapliński, 2018. "The Architect and the Paradigms of Sustainable Development: A Review of Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.

    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. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    2. Stavins, Robert & Hahn, Robert & Cavanagh, Sheila, 2001. "National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-38, Resources for the Future.
    3. Roel Plant & Spike Boydell & Jason Prior & Joanne Chong & Aleta Lederwasch, 2017. "From liability to opportunity: An institutional approach towards value-based land remediation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 197-220, March.
    4. El Hadj Matar Gueye & Adel Badri & Bryan Boudreau-Trudel, 2021. "Multi-criteria evaluation of the socioeconomic impact of mining in Canada from a sustainable development perspective: a theoretical model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7808-7834, May.
    5. Liu, Shuang & Proctor, Wendy & Cook, David, 2010. "Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2374-2382, October.
    6. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Jacob LaRiviere & Matthew McMahon & Justin Roush, 2019. "Second-Best Prioritization of Environmental Cleanups," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1225-1249, April.
    8. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    9. Minwir Al-Shammari & Mehdi Mili, 2021. "A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process model for customers’ bank selection decision in the Kingdom of Bahrain," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 1429-1446, September.
    10. Anna Bozza & Domenico Asprone & Gaetano Manfredi, 2015. "Developing an integrated framework to quantify resilience of urban systems against disasters," 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. 78(3), pages 1729-1748, September.
    11. Haastrup, P. & Maniezzo, V. & Mattarelli, M. & Mazzeo Rinaldi, F. & Mendes, I. & Paruccini, M., 1998. "A decision support system for urban waste management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 330-341, September.
    12. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    13. Ragona, Maddalena & Mazzocchi, Mario & Rose, Martin, 2012. "Regulatory impact assessment of food safety policies: A preliminary study on alternative EU interventions on dioxins," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 135093, Agricultural Economics Society.
    14. Gayer, Ted & Kip Viscusi, W., 2002. "Housing price responses to newspaper publicity of hazardous waste sites," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 33-51, February.
    15. Robert B. Avery & Raphael W. Bostic & Glenn B. Canner, 2003. "Assessing the CRA's Necessity and Efficiency," Working Paper 8606, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
    16. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Deng, Hepu & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2000. "Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for performance evaluation of bus companies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 459-473, November.
    17. Robin R. Jenkins & Elizabeth Kopits & David Simpson, 2006. "Measuring the Social Benefits of EPA Land Cleanup and Reuse Programs," NCEE Working Paper Series 200603, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Sep 2006.
    18. Giuseppe Munda, 2004. "Métodos y procesos multicriterio para la evaluación social de las políticas públicas," Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, Red Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, vol. 1, pages 31-45.
    19. Adam Eckerd & Andrew Keeler, 2012. "Going green together? Brownfield remediation and environmental justice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 293-314, December.
    20. Hottenroth, H. & Sutardhio, C. & Weidlich, A. & Tietze, I. & Simon, S. & Hauser, W. & Naegler, T. & Becker, L. & Buchgeister, J. & Junne, T. & Lehr, U. & Scheel, O. & Schmidt-Scheele, R. & Ulrich, P. , 2022. "Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:sustdv:v:14:y:2006:i:5:p:287-299. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .

    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.