Integrating multicriteria evaluation and data visualization as a problem structuring approach to support territorial transformation projects

EURO Journal on Decision Processes

Volumn 2, Issue 3-4, 2014, Pages 281-312

  Lami, I M ^a   Abastante, F ^a   Bottero, M ^a   Masala, E ^b   Pensa, S ^b  

^a POLITECNICO DI TORINO   (Italy)

^b Istituto Superiore sui Sistemi Territoriali per l'Innovazione   (Italy)

Author keywords

MCDA; Territorial planning; Transport; Visualisations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84973267390     PISSN: 21939438     EISSN: 21939446     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40070-014-0033-x     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Abastante F, Lami IM (2012) A complex analytic network process (ANP) network for analyzing Corridor24 alternative development strategies. In: CCCA’ 2012, international conference on communications, computing and control applications, Marseilles, France 6–8 December 2012
2. Abastante F, Lami IM (2013) An analytical model to evaluate a large scale urban design competition. GEAM. Geoingegneria ambientale mineraria 139:27–36
3. Abastante F, Guenther F, Lami IM, Masala E, Pensa S, Tosoni I (2014) Analytic network process, interactive maps and strategic assessment: the evaluation of Corridor24 alternative development strategies. In: Lami IM (ed) Analytical decision making methods for evaluating sustainable transport in European Corridors. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 205–232
4. Ackermann F (2012) Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: arguing the case for Soft OR. Eur J Oper Res 219(3):652–658
5. Ackermann F, Eden C (2010) Strategic options development and analysis. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 135–190
6. Aczèl J, Roberts FS (1988) On the possible merging functions. Math Soc Sci 17:205–243
7. Aczèl J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio Judgements. J Math Psychol 27:93–102
8. Agarwal A, Shankar R, Tiwari MK (2006) Modelling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: an ANP-based approach. Eur J Oper Res 173:211–225
9. Andersen DF, Richardson GP (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Interview 13(2):107–129
10. Andrienko G, Andrienko N, Jankowski P, Keim D, Kraak MJ, MacEachren AM et al (2007) Geovisual analytics for spatial decision support: setting the research agenda. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 21(8):839–857
11. Aragonés-Beltrán PA, Chaparro-González F, Pastor-Ferrando JPP, Rodríguez-Pozo F (2010a) An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant investment projects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14(1):249–264
12. Aragonés-Beltrán PA, Ferrando JPP, Garcia FG, Agullo AP (2010b) An analytic network process approach for siting a municipal solid waste plant in the metropolitan area of Valencia (Spain). J Environ Manage 91:1071–1086
13. Asch S (1955) Options and social pressure. Freeman and Company, San Francisco
14. Batty M (2007) Planning support system: progress, predictions, and spectaculations on the shape of things to come. CASA, working paper series 122. University College London, London. Retrieved 5 November 2013. http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/casa/publications/working-paper-122
15. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
16. Belton V, Stewart T (2010) Problem structuring and multi criteria decision analysis. In: Hergot et al (eds) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science 142, Springer Science and Business Media, pp 209–239
17. Bennett P, Bryant J, Howard N (2001) ‘Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In: Rosenhead JV, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester
18. Black LJ, Andersen DF (2012) Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:194–208
19. Bond SD, Carlson KA, Keeney RL (2008) Generating objectives: can decision makers articulate what they want? Mgt Sci 54:56–70
20. Bond SD, Carlson KA, Keeney RL (2010) Improving the generation of decision objectives. Decis Anal 7:238–255
21. Bottero M, Lami IM (2010) Analytic network process and sustainable mobility: an application for the assessment of different scenario. J Urban 3(3):275–293
22. Bottero M, Comino E, Riggio V (2011) Application of the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems. Environ Model Softw 26:1211–1224
23. Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Finn C (2004) Visible thinking: unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Wiley, Chichester
24. Cascetta E (2009) Transportation system analysis: models and applications. Springer, New York
25. Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester
26. Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Chichester
27. Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, Chichester
28. Das S, Chakraborty S (2011) Selection of non-traditional machining processes using analytic network process. J Manuf Syst 30:41–53
29. Dodge M (2005) Information Maps: Tools for Document Exploration. CASA, working paper series 94. University College London, London. Retrieved 5 November 2013. http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/casa/publications/working-paper-94
30. Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res 36(1):1–13
31. Eden C (1990) The unfolding nature of group decision support: two dimensions of skill. In: Eden C, Radford J (eds) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London, pp 48–52
32. Eden C, Ackermann F (2010) decision making in groups: theory and practice. In: Nutt PC, Wilson DC (eds) Handbook of decision making. Wiley, Chichester, pp 231–272
33. European Commission (2008) Guide to cost benefit analysis of investment project, Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf
34. Forsyth D (2009) Group dynamics, 5th edn. Cengage Learning, Wadsworth
35. Franco LA (2013) Rethinking Soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur J Oper Res 231(3):720–733
36. Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205(3):489–500
37. Franco LA, Montibeller G (2011) ’On-the-spot’ modelling and analysis: the facilitated modelling approach. In: Cochran JJ, Cox LA Jr, Keskinocak P, Kharoufeh JP, Smith JC (eds) Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Wiley, New York
38. Friend J, Hickling A (2005) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam
39. Geertman SCM, Stillwell J (2003) Planning support systems in practice. Springer, Heidelberg
40. Geertman SCM, Stillwell J (2009) Planning support systems: new methods and best practice (advances in spatial science). Springer Publishers, New York
41. Günther F, Tosoni I (2012) Code24 collaborative assessment: input paper. Technical report, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) of Zürich, Zürich
42. Hahn W (2014) Making decisions with multiple criteria: a case in energy sustainability planning. EURO J Decis Process. doi:10.1007/s40070-014-0025-x
43. Hickman R, Banister D (2014) Transport, climate change and the city. Routledge, Abingdon
44. Huang I, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis is environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409:3578–3594
45. Jackson MC (2003) system thinking: creative holism for managers. Wiley, Chichester
46. Jackson MC, Keys P (1984) Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 35:473–486
47. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision-making. Integr Environ Assess Manage 1(2):95–108
48. Klosterman RE (1997) Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning. J Plan Educ Res 17:45–54
49. Klosterman RE (2012) Simple and complex models. Environ Plan 39(1):1–6
50. Lami IM (2014) Evaluation tools to support decision making process related to European Corridors. In: Lami IM (ed) Analytical decision making methods for evaluating sustainable transport in European Corridors. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 85–102
51. Lami IM, Abastante F (2014) Decision making for urban solid waste treatment in the context of territorial conflict: can the analytic network process help? Land Use Policy 41(2014):11–20
52. Landry M, Malouin JL, Oral M (1983) Model validation in operations research. Eur J Oper Res 14:207–220
53. Lee Y, Kozar KA (2006) Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decis Support Syst 42(3):1383–1401
54. MacEachren AM (2004) Geovisualization for knowledge construction and decision-support. Pennsylvania State University, GeoVISTA Center and Department of Geography
55. Marina O, Masala E, Pensa S, Stavric M (2012) Interactive model of urban development in residential areas in Skopje. In: Leduc T, Moreau G, Billen R (eds) Usage, usability and utility of 3D city models. EDP Sciences
56. Marshall S, Banister D (2007) Land use and transport: European research towards integrated policies. Elsevier, Oxford
57. Marttunen M, Mustajoki J, Dufva M, Karjalainen TP (2013) How to design and realize participation of stakeholders in MCDA processes? A framework for selecting an appropriate approach. EURO J Decis Process (forthcoming)
58. Masala E (2012a) ETH December 13, 2011—Computational assessment workshop. Retrieved 5 November 2013. http://youtu.be/PSnu_Ti66VU
59. Masala E (2012b) ETH March 20, 2012—Computational assessment workshop. Retrieved 5 November 2013. http://youtu.be/6ghuI0h1YRU
60. McKenzei J, Winkelen CV (2011) Beyond words: visual metaphors that can demonstrate comprehension of KM as a paradoxical activity system. Syst Res Behav Sci 28(2):138–149
61. Milani AS, Shanian A, Lynam C, Scarinci T (2013) An application of the analytic network process in multiple criteria material selection. Mater Des 44:622–632
62. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152:530–554
63. Mitchel DW (2004) More on spreads and non-arithmetic means. Math Gazette 88:142–144
64. Næss P (2006) Cost-benefit analyses of transportation investments: neither critical nor realistic. J Crit Realism 5(1):32–60
65. Neaupane KM, Piantanakulchai M (2006) Analytic network process model for landslide hazard zonation. Eng Geol 85:281–294
66. Niemura MP, Saaty TL (2004) An analytic network process model for financial-crisis forecasting. Int J Forecast 20:573–587
67. Omerod RJ (2013) OR competences: the demands of problem structuring methods. EURO J Decis Process. doi:10.1007/s40070-013-0021-6
68. Ostanello A (1997) Validation aspects of a prototype solution implementation to solve a complex MC problem. In: Clìmaco J (ed) Multi-criteria analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 61–74
69. Pensa S (2012) 9 May 2012. InViTo participatory process test—Torino. Retrieved 22 February 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVpm1EW7z-sandlist=PLA68D9CE96846CD66andindex=1
70. Pensa S (2013) InViTo, GeoVisualizzazione Interattiva a Supporto dei Processi di Decisione Territoriale. Ph.D. candidate thesis. Politecnico di Torino
71. Pensa S, Masala E, Marietta C. (2011) The effects of decision-making on urban form: a tool for supporting planning processes. In: Pinto NN, Tenedorio JA, Santos M, Deus R (eds) Proceedings of the 7th international conference on virtual cities and territories, Lisbon, October 11–13, 2011, pp 41–44. Coimbra: Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Coimbra and e-GEO, Research Centre in Geography and Regional Planning of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities of the Nova University of Lisbon
72. Pensa S, Masala E, Lami IM (2013a) Supporting planning processes by the use of dynamic visualization. In: Geertman S, Toppen F, Stillwell J (eds) Planning support systems for sustainable urban development. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 451–467
73. Pensa S, Masala E, Marina O (2013b) What if form follows function? The exploration of suitability in the city of Skopje. DisegnareCon 6(11):141–148
74. Pensa S, Masala E, Lami IM, Rosa A (2014) Seeing is knowing: data exploration as a support to planning. Civil Engineering Special Issue 167 May 2014 Issue CE5:3–8
75. Piantanakulchai M (2005) Analytic network process model for highway corridor planning. In: International symposium on the analytic hierarchy process ISAHP 2005, Honolulu, 8–10 July 2005
76. Promentilla MAB, Furuichi T, Ishii K, Tanikawa N (2006) Evaluation of remedial countermeasures using the analytic network process. Waste Manage 26:1410–1421
77. Qiu Y, Fan Y (2013) A problem structuring method for innovation strategy: a tentative DPSIR approach. iBusiness 5:80–83
78. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sci 14:155–169
79. Rosenhead J (1996) What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26(6):117–131
80. Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester
81. Roy B, Slowinski R (2013) Question guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. EURO J Decis Process 1:69–97
82. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process, planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York
83. Saaty TL (2001) The analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
84. Saaty RW (2003) Decision-making in complex environments: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision-making and the analytic network process (ANP) for decision-making with dependence and feedback. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
85. Saaty TL (2005) Theory and applications of the analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
86. Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2005) The encyclicon: a dictionary of applications of decision-making with dependence and feedback based on the analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburg
87. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2006) Decision-making with the analytic network process. Springer Science, New York
88. Secchi B (2013) La città dei ricchi e la città dei poveri. Laterza, Roma
89. te Brömmelstroet M (2010) Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands. J Transp Land Use 3:25–41
90. Tsoukiàs A (2007) From decision theory to decision aiding methodology. Eur J Oper Res 18:138–161
91. Tuzkaya U, Onut S (2008) A fuzzy analytic network process based approach to transportation-mode selection between Turkey and Germany: a case study. Inf Sci 178:3132–3145
92. Ulutas BH (2005) Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey. Energy 30:1146–1161
93. Vennix J (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using systems dynamics. Wiley, London
94. von Winterfeldt D (2013) Providing a decision focus for global systems analysis. EURO J Decis Process 1:99–114
95. Vonk G, Geertman S, Schot P (2005) Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environ Plan A 37(5):909–924
96. Whitehead T, Simmonds D, Preston J (2006) The effect of urban quality improvements on economic activity. J Environ Manage 80:1–12