Investigation of Urban Design Approaches in Renewal Areas with Hybrid Decision Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Urban Renewal Projects in the Study Area
2.2. Data Collection and Processing
2.3. Method
2.3.1. Fuzzy DEMATEL
- Step 1: An expert group is formed and the number of goals and criteria to be achieved pursuant to the decision is determined.
- Step 3: The mean of the linguistic evaluations of decision-makers is obtained as a result of the evaluations made within the group. These linguistic evaluations are converted into fuzzy numbers according to the scale. In this step of the fuzzy DEMATEL analysis, fuzzy coefficients matrix Aij is created based on the mean of linguistic evaluations collected from experts as shown in Table 2.
- 4.1
- Normalization calculation is performed for lower, middle and upper values in each alternative. (Calculate left and right normalized values.)
- 4.2
- Determination of normalized values on the right and left for defuzzification; compute left (ls) and right (rs) normalized values; for j = 1, 2, …, n
- 4.3
- Calculate crisp values for defuzzification
- Step 5: From the obtained values, Equations (12) and (13) and the normalized direct relation matrix are determined.
- Step 6: The total relationship matrix ( ) is determined. After obtaining the normalized direct relationship matrix, the total relationship matrix is determined using Equations (14) and (15). This equation is represented by the unit matrix (I).
- Step 7: After the total relation matrix is found, the sum of columns and rows in the matrix are obtained by the formulas given in Equations (16) and (17).
- Step 8: The values found in step 7 are replaced in Equation (18), and the result weights of the criteria are calculated.
2.3.2. Weighted Linear Combination (WLC)
2.3.3. Integration of Fuzzy DEMATEL and WLC Method
- A fuzzy coefficient matrix based on arithmetic averages will be created by the expert group by comparing the main and sub-criteria within the scope of the linguistic scale given in Table 2.
- The defuzzification process will be performed by applying the fuzzy data into crisp scores (CFCs) method developed by Opricovic and Tzeng [41] to the fuzzy A coefficients matrix.
- Using the total relationship matrix obtained from the defuzzification process, the weights of the main and sub-criteria will be calculated with Equation (18) given in step 8 of the fuzzy DEMATEL method.
- The obtained criteria weights will be included as input to the WLC method to be applied in the ArcGIS 10.2 program. These weights and the score values converted to the 0–1 range (in the 0–1 range) for the criteria given in Table 3 will be combined with Equation (19) and the GIS-based total suitability value (Ai) will be calculated for each alternative renewal area. With the GIS-based suitability values obtained, renewal areas will be evaluated between 0 (very bad) and 1 (very good) scores in terms of urban design and the results will be visualized on the map.
3. Application
4. Results and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Auböck, M. Open Spaces: The City; Planbox Publishing: Vienna, Austria, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Elliott Ortega, K. Urban Design as Problem Solving: Design Thinking in the Rebuild by Design Resiliency Competition. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Lang, J. Urban Design: The American Experience; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, M.; Greed, C. Approaching Urban Design: The Design Process; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.-H.; Huang, X.; Fu, G.; Chen, J.-T.; Zhao, X.; Li, J.-H.; Tzeng, G.-H. Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making. Land Use Policy 2021, 108, 105570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona, M.; Tiesdell, S.; Heath, T.; Oc, T. (Eds.) Public Places—Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Yıldız, S.; Kıvrak, S.; Gültekin, A.B.; Arslan, G. Built environment design-social sustainability relation in urban renewal. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biddulph, M. Urban design, regeneration and the entrepreneurial city. Prog. Plan. 2011, 76, 63–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehdipanah, R.; Malmusi, D.; Muntaner, C.; Borrell, C. An evaluation of an urban renewal program and its effects on neighbourhood resident’s overall wellbeing using concept mapping. Health Place 2013, 23, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Hanbali, A.; Alsaaideh, B.; Kondoh, A. Using GIS-based weighted linear combination analysis and remote sensing techniques to select optimum solid waste disposal sites within Mafraq City, Jordan. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2011, 33, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Juan, Y.-K.; Roper, K.O.; Castro-Lacouture, D.; Kim, J.H. Optimal decision making on urban renewal projects. Manag. Decis. 2010, 48, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, G.K.L.; Chan, E.H.W. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 89, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeang, K. Ecodesign: A Manual for Ecological Design; Wiley-Academy: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, Y.; Lai, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, X. An alternative model for measuring the sustainability of urban regeneration: The way forward. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Shen, Q.; Tang, B.S.; Skitmore, M. An integrated approach to supporting land-use decisions in site redevelopment for urban renewal in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 2013, 38, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, L. Emerging study on the transmission of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) from urban perspective: Evidence from China. Cities 2020, 103, 102759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makhno, S. Life after Coronavirus: How Will the Pandemic Affect Our Homes. Dezeen. 2020. Available online: https://www.dezeen.com/2020/03/25/life-after-coronavirus-impact-homes-designarchitecture/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Honey-Rosés, J.; Anguelovski, I.; Bohigas, J.; Chireh, V.; Daher, C.; Konijnendijk, C.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. The Impact of COVID-19 on Public Space. A Review of the Emerging Questions. OSF Prepr. 2020, 5, 263–279. [Google Scholar]
- Wainwright, O. Smart lifts, lonely workers, no towers or tourists: Architecture after coronavirus. The Guardian, 21 December 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sardeshpande, M.; Rupprecht, C.; Russo, A. Edible urban commons for resilient neighbourhoods in light of the pandemic. Cities 2021, 109, 103031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dejtiar, F. Is coronavirus pandemic accelerating the digitalization and automation of cities. ArchDaily, 12 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Dreessen, T. How COVID-19 will change the design of our cities. Ottowa Bus. J. 2020, 21, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Kashdan, R. Six Ways Urban Spaces May Change Because of Coronavirus. 2020. Available online: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/property/2020/04/30/urban-spaces-coronavirus/ (accessed on 1 January 2021).
- Lubell, S. Commentary: Past pandemics changed the design of cities. Six ways COVID-19 could do the same. Los Angeles Times, 22 April 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Megahed, N.A.; Ghoneim, E.M. Antivirus-built environment: Lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muggah, R.; Ermacora, T. Opinion: Redesigning the COVID-19 City. Special Series—The Coronavirus Crisis; NPR Media Organization: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus and COVID-19 pandemic: A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novakovic, S. Will COVID-19 Spell the End of Urban Density? Don’t Bet on It; Azure Publishing Inc.: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Çelen, B. Public Housing Projects and Systematic Management Design Principles and Social Facilities: Kayaşehir Case. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul, Terkey, 2016. (In Turkish). [Google Scholar]
- Batuman, B.; Baykan, D.A. Critique by design: Tackling urban renewal in the design studio. Urban Des. Int. 2014, 19, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cubillos-González, R.A. Sustainable urban design criteria in medium-sized, Colombian cities. New Des. Ideas 2017, 1, 59–70. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, L.; Zheng, W.; Hong, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, G. Paths and strategies for sustainable urban renewal at the neighbourhood level: A framework for decision-making. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 55, 102074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yung, E.H.; Conejos, S.; Chan, E.H. Social needs of the elderly and active aging in public open spaces in urban renewal. Cities 2016, 52, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Chuu, S. Group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a manufacturing system. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 154, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Zhang, G.; Li, Y.; Asare, M.H. Fuzzy evaluation of comprehensive benefit in urban renewal based on the perspective of core stakeholders. Habitat Int. 2017, 66, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TBMM. The Law for Municipality (No. 5393); TBMM: Ankara, Turkey, 2005. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- TBMM. The Law for Renewal of Disaster Risk Areas (No. 6306); TBMM: Ankara, Turkey, 2012. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
- Bostancı, B.; Zeydan, M.; Çete, M.; Demir, H.; Karaağaç, A. Decision Making for Site Selection Using Fuzzy Modeling. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2016, 143, 05016010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabus, A.; Fontela, E. World Problems, An Invitation to Further Thought within the Framework of DEMATEL; Battelle Geneva Research Centre: Geneva, Switzerland, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Herrera, F.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Martinez, L. A fusion approach for managing multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2000, 114, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.H. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 156, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Promentilla, M.A.B.; Furuichi, T.; Ishii, K.; Tanikawa, N. A fuzzy analytic network process for multi-criteria evaluation of contaminated site remedial counter measures. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 479–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, B.; Chang, C.W.; Wu, C.H. Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 1850–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dağdeviren, M. Integrated modelling the performance evaluation process with fuzzy AHP. Sigma J. Eng. Nat. Sci. 2007, 25, 268–282. [Google Scholar]
- Gottwald, S. An early approach toward graded identity and graded membership in set theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2010, 161, 2369–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalalah, D.; Hayajneh, M.; Batieha, F. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 8384–8391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsc, C.-Y.; Chen, K.-T.; Tzeng, G.-H. FMCDM with Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach for Customers’ Choice Behavior Model. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2007, 9, 236–246. [Google Scholar]
- Kamaike, M. Design elements in the passenger car development: The classification and the influence analysis in case of recreational vehicle. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Des. 2001, 48, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Yuzawa, A. A state and subjects of TMO conception for city core vitalization countermeasure: A case study of Maebashi TMO Conception. Bull. Maebashi Inst. Technol. 2002, 5, 61–67. [Google Scholar]
- Mohammadi, H.; Nouri, I.; Ehsanifar, M. Applying fuzzy DEMATEL method to analyze supplier selection criteria (Case study: WagonPars Company). Int. Res. J. Financ. Econ. 2013, 115, 76–86. [Google Scholar]
- Kazancoglu, Y.; Kazancoglu, I.; Sagnak, M. Fuzzy DEMATEL-based green supply chain management performance: Application in cement industry. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 412–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falatoonitoosi, E.; Leman, Z.; Sorooshian, S.; Salimi, M. Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2013, 5, 3476–3480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vardopoulos, I. Critical sustainable development factors in the adaptive reuse of urban industrial buildings. A fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aksakal, E.; Dağdeviren, M. Yetenek yönetimi temelli personel atama modeli ve çözüm önerisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimar. Fakültesi Derg. 2015, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghaleb, A.M.; Kaid, H.; Alsamhan, A.; Mian, S.H.; Hidri, L. Assessment and comparison of various MCDM approaches in the selection of manufacturing process. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 2020, 4039253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danesh, D.; Ryan, M.J.; Abbasi, A. A systematic comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods for the improvement of project portfolio management in complex organisations. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 2017, 16, 280–320. [Google Scholar]
- Triantaphyllou, E. Multi-criteria decision making methods. In Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 5–21. [Google Scholar]
- Seker, S.; Zavadskas, E.K. Application of fuzzy DEMATEL method for analyzing occupational risks on construction sites. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abbasi, M.; Hosnavi, R.; Tabrizi, B. Application of fuzzy DEMATEL in risks evaluation of knowledge-based networks. J. Optim. 2013, 2013, 913467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-Y.; Wu, T.-S.; Li, M.-L.; Wang, C.-T. Integration of Importance-Performance Analysis and Fuzzy Dematel. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2018, 10, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Su, J. A combined fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS approach for estimating participants in knowledge-intensive crowdsourcing. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 137, 106085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.-W.; Lee, Y.-T. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2007, 32, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malczewski, J. On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: Common and best practice approaches. Trans. GIS 2000, 4, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sujatha, E.R.; Rajamanickam, G.V. Landslide hazard and risk mapping using the weighted linear combination model applied to the Tevankarai Stream Watershed, Kodaikkanal, India. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2015, 21, 1445–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, C.-L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications a State-Of-The-Art Survey; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012; Volume 186. [Google Scholar]
- Drobne, S.; Lisec, A. Multi-attribute decision analysis in GIS: Weighted linear combination and ordered weighted averaging. Informatica 2009, 33, 459–474. [Google Scholar]
- Stanimirovic, I.P.; Zlatanovic, M.L.; Petkovic, M.D. On the linear weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization. Facta Acta Univ. 2011, 26, 49–63. [Google Scholar]
- Başkurt, Z.M.; Aydin, C.C. Nuclear power plant site selection by Weighted Linear Combination in GIS environment, Edirne, Turkey. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2018, 104, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeydan, M.; Bostancı, B.; Oralhan, B. A new hybrid decision making approach for housing suitability mapping of an urban area. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 7038643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.-Y.; Kumar, V. A framework for prioritization of intellectual capital indicators in R&D. J. Intellect. Cap. 2009, 10, 277–293. [Google Scholar]
- Qureshi, M.N.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, D. Framework for benchmarking logistics performance using fuzzy AHP. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Supply Chain. Model. 2009, 1, 82–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
District | Neighborhood | Area (ha) | Population (Person) |
---|---|---|---|
Kocasinan | Ahievran | 25.5 | 240 |
Kocasinan | Cırkalan | 260.55 | 397 |
Kocasinan | Sahabiye | 50 | 5341 |
Kocasinan | Seyrani | 5.1 | 340 |
Kocasinan | Uğurevler | 87.23 | 6240 |
Kocasinan | Yunus Emre | 7.3 | 780 |
Kocasinan | Yıldızevler | 27 | 1628 |
Kocasinan | Ziya Gökalp | 23.25 | 1568 |
Melikgazi | Anbar | 5.8 | 268 |
Melikgazi | Karacaoğlu | 3.7 | 284 |
Melikgazi | Küçük Ali | 3.5 | 336 |
Melikgazi | Kazım Karabekir | 32 | 1392 |
Melikgazi | Yeni | 85.53 | 2752 |
Total | 593.21 | 21,566 |
Linguistic Scale | Abbreviation | Fuzzy Triangular Numbers |
---|---|---|
No Effect | N | (0.00, 0.00, 0.25) |
Very Low Level Effect | VL | (0.00, 0.25, 0.50) |
Low Level Effect | L | (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) |
High Level Effect | H | (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) |
Very High Level Effect | VH | (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) |
Code | Criterion | Too Bad (0.00) | Bad (0.25) | Medium (0.50) | Good (0.75) | Very Good (1.00) | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1.1 | Typologic Diversity | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Number of rooms |
C1.2 | Height | >13 | 10–12 | 8–9 | 4–7 | 0–3 | Number of floors |
C1.3 | Smart Systems | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Technological opportunities |
C1.4 | Usage Diversity | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Diversity in area usage |
C1.5 | Scale-Ratio | X/5 (-) | X/4 | X/3 | X/2 | X/2 + 7 | X * |
C2.1 | Ownership/ Identity | <25% | 25% | 50% | 75% | 100% | Protection rate, Texture continuity |
C2.2 | Noise | >101 | 81–100 | 66–80 | 41–65 | 0–40 | Decibel |
C2.3 | Security | <1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >5 | Number of securing devices/arrangements |
C2.4 | Neighborhood Social Relationship | <1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >5 | Neighborhood opportunities –Number of apartments in floor |
C2.5 | Centrality | >5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Proximity to the center (km) |
C2.6 | User Diversity | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >5 | Suitability for varying users (disabled, child, old, etc.) |
C2.7 | Density | >801 | 601–800 | 600–401 | 400–201 | <200 | Net density value |
C3.1 | Slope | >21% | 20–16 | 15–11 | 10–6 | <5 | Slope (%) |
C3.2 | Climate | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Number of climate data |
C3.3 | Direction/Insolation | >5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Number of floor on South/Floor |
C3.4 | Geological Status | >5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Earthquake analysis score |
C3.5 | Energy Efficiency | <1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >5 | Number of energy efficiency solutions (isolation, solar energy, etc.) |
C4.1 | Playground | >501+ | 401–500 | 301–400 | 201–300 | 0–200 | Distance (m) |
C4.2 | Parks | >501+ | 401–501 | 301–401 | 201–301 | 0–200 | Distance (m) |
C4.3 | Public Areas | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | >11 | Diversity |
C4.4 | Parking Areas | <40 | 40–60 | 60–80 | 80–100 | 100% | Number of solutions |
C5.1 | Education | >801 | >801 | 800–601 | 600–401 | 400 | Distance (m) |
C5.2 | Health | >1251 | 1001–1250 | 751–1000 | 501–750 | 0–500 | Distance (m) |
C5.3 | Religion | >501 | >801 | 800–601 | 600–401 | 400 | Distance (m) |
C5.4 | Commerce | >501 | >801 | 800–601 | 401–200 | <200 | Distance (m) |
C5.5 | Sociocultural | >501 | >801 | 800–601 | 600–401 | 400 | Distance (m) |
C5.6 | Sports | >501 | 401–501 | 301–401 | 201–301 | 0–200 | Distance (m) |
C6.1 | Relaxation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Presence of general urban furniture; all the sub-criteria will be given the same value |
C6.2 | Illumination | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
C6.3 | Garbage | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
C6.4 | Material Quality | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
C6.5 | Technology | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
C7.1 | Bus | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Number of lines |
C7.2 | Rail System | >501 | >801 | 800–601 | 401–200 | <200 | Distance (m) |
C7.3 | Private Vehicle | >50 m | 30–40 m | 20–30 m | 20–0 m | Underground | Distance (m) |
C7.4 | Pedestrian/Disabled | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Number of solutions |
C7.5 | Non-motorized Vehicle | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Number of solutions |
Member | Age | Sex | Education | Occupation | Institution | Expertise |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 36 | Male | Ph.D. | Urban Planner/Academic | Erciyes University | Urban Design, Urban Renewal, Urban Projects |
B | 36 | Female | Ph.D. | Architect/Academic | Erciyes University | Urban Design, Urban Projects |
C | 37 | Female | Ph.D. | Architect/Academic | Erciyes University | Urban Renewal, Urban Design, Urban Projects |
D | 38 | Male | Ph.D. | Architect/Academic | Erciyes University | Urban Renewal, Urban Design, Urban Projects |
E | 33 | Female | Ph.D. | Urban Planner/Academic | Erciyes University | Urban Renewal Areas, Large-Scale Urban Project Areas |
F | 37 | Male | Ph.D. | Urban Planner | Kadıköy Municipality-İstanbul | Urban Renewal Projects, Urban Project Areas |
G | 40 | Male | Ph.D. | Survey Engineer/Academic | Erciyes University | GIS, Urban Projects, Urban Renewal |
H | 48 | Male | Ph.D. | Survey Engineer/Academic | Erciyes University | GIS, Urban Project Areas, Urban Renewal |
Criterion Name | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | Construction Characteristics | H | VH | L | N | N | N | |
C2 | Project Area Characteristics | H | VH | VH | H | L | VH | |
C3 | Conformity to Natural Structure | VH | H | H | N | N | H | |
C4 | Green Area/Public Area | VL | L | VL | H | VH | N | |
C5 | Social Reinforcement Area | N | H | L | H | L | H | |
C6 | Urban Furniture | N | VL | N | H | VL | N | |
C7 | Accessibility | H | VH | H | H | H | N |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 0.00000 | 0.16667 | 0.21970 | 0.11364 | 0.00758 | 0.00758 | 0.00758 |
C2 | 0.16667 | 0.00000 | 0.21970 | 0.21970 | 0.16667 | 0.11364 | 0.21970 |
C3 | 0.21970 | 0.16667 | 0.00000 | 0.16667 | 0.00758 | 0.00758 | 0.16667 |
C4 | 0.06061 | 0.11364 | 0.06061 | 0.00000 | 0.16667 | 0.21970 | 0.00758 |
C5 | 0.00758 | 0.16667 | 0.11364 | 0.16667 | 0.00000 | 0.11364 | 0.16667 |
C6 | 0.00758 | 0.06061 | 0.00758 | 0.16667 | 0.06061 | 0.00000 | 0.00758 |
C7 | 0.16667 | 0.21970 | 0.16667 | 0.16667 | 0.16667 | 0.00758 | 0.00000 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 0.22827 | 0.41290 | 0.44318 | 0.40001 | 0.19359 | 0.17106 | 0.21047 |
C2 | 0.53054 | 0.50185 | 0.63884 | 0.73456 | 0.49448 | 0.40112 | 0.53146 |
C3 | 0.48267 | 0.51026 | 0.34798 | 0.53855 | 0.26734 | 0.22351 | 0.39075 |
C4 | 0.23864 | 0.35650 | 0.28333 | 0.30299 | 0.33564 | 0.37036 | 0.19597 |
C5 | 0.28605 | 0.49729 | 0.41768 | 0.54329 | 0.26505 | 0.32797 | 0.39847 |
C6 | 0.10594 | 0.19233 | 0.12904 | 0.30648 | 0.16951 | 0.11101 | 0.10355 |
C7 | 0.48997 | 0.62757 | 0.55669 | 0.62784 | 0.45352 | 0.27869 | 0.31682 |
Criteria | D | R | D + R | D-R | Wi | Normalized Wi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 2.0595 | 2.3621 | 4.4215 | −0.3026 | 4.4319 | 0.1219 |
C2 | 3.8329 | 3.0987 | 6.9315 | 0.7342 | 6.9703 | 0.1917 |
C3 | 2.7611 | 2.8167 | 5.5778 | −0.0557 | 5.5781 | 0.1534 |
C4 | 2.0834 | 3.4537 | 5.5371 | −1.3703 | 5.7042 | 0.1569 |
C5 | 2.7358 | 2.1791 | 4.9149 | 0.5567 | 4.9464 | 0.1360 |
C6 | 1.1179 | 1.8837 | 3.0016 | −0.7659 | 3.0977 | 0.0852 |
C7 | 3.3511 | 2.1475 | 5.4986 | 1.2036 | 5.6288 | 0.1548 |
Main Criteria | Code | Sub-Criteria Name | Weight (Intragroup) | Weight (General) | Order of Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1: Construction Characteristics (0.1219) | C1.1 | Structure Diversity | 0.2482 | 0.0303 | 14 |
C1.2 | Structure Heights | 0.2334 | 0.0285 | 18 | |
C1.3 | Smart Systems | 0.0870 | 0.0106 | 36 | |
C1.4 | Usage Diversity | 0.2230 | 0.0272 | 20 | |
C1.5 | Scale-Ratio | 0.2084 | 0.0254 | 23 | |
C2: Project Area Characteristics (0.1917) | C2.1 | Ownership/Identity | 0.1232 | 0.0236 | 24 |
C2.2 | Noise | 0.1042 | 0.0200 | 30 | |
C2.3 | Security | 0.1586 | 0.0304 | 13 | |
C2.4 | Neighborhood-Social Relationship | 0.1512 | 0.0290 | 16 | |
C2.5 | Centrality | 0.1648 | 0.0316 | 12 | |
C2.6 | User Diversity | 0.1406 | 0.0270 | 21 | |
C2.7 | Density | 0.1574 | 0.0302 | 15 | |
C3: Conformity to Natural Structure (0.1534) | C3.1 | Slope | 0.1489 | 0.0228 | 25 |
C3.2 | Climate | 0.1489 | 0.0228 | 26 | |
C3.3 | Direction/Insolation | 0.2800 | 0.0430 | 3 | |
C3.4 | Geological Status | 0.1322 | 0.0203 | 29 | |
C3.5 | Energy Efficiency | 0.2900 | 0.0445 | 2 | |
C4: Green Area/Public Area (0.1569) | C4.1 | Playground | 0.2576 | 0.0404 | 5 |
C4.2 | Parks | 0.2691 | 0.0422 | 4 | |
C4.3 | Public Areas | 0.2997 | 0.0470 | 1 | |
C4.4 | Parking Lot | 0.1736 | 0.0272 | 19 | |
C5: Social Reinforcement Area (0.1360) | C5.1 | Education | 0.1947 | 0.0265 | 22 |
C5.2 | Health | 0.0960 | 0.0131 | 34 | |
C5.3 | Religious Facilities | 0.0225 | 0.0031 | 37 | |
C5.4 | Commerce | 0.2107 | 0.0287 | 17 | |
C5.5 | Sociocultural | 0.2413 | 0.0328 | 9 | |
C5.6 | Sports | 0.2347 | 0.0319 | 11 | |
C6: Urban Furniture (0.0852) | C6.1 | Relaxation | 0.2581 | 0.0220 | 27 |
C6.2 | Illumination | 0.1841 | 0.0157 | 33 | |
C6.3 | Garbage | 0.1302 | 0.0111 | 35 | |
C6.4 | Material Quality | 0.1894 | 0.0161 | 32 | |
C6.5 | Technology | 0.2382 | 0.0203 | 28 | |
C7: Accessibility (0.1548) | C7.1 | Bus | 0.2194 | 0.0340 | 7 |
C7.2 | Rail System | 0.2111 | 0.0327 | 10 | |
C7.3 | Private Vehicle | 0.1149 | 0.0178 | 31 | |
C7.4 | Pedestrian/Disabled | 0.2401 | 0.0372 | 6 | |
C7.5 | Non-motorized Vehicle | 0.2145 | 0.0332 | 8 |
Neighborhood | WLC Suitability Value |
---|---|
Anbar | 0.28 |
Karacaoğlu | 0.32 |
Küçükali | 0.39 |
Kazım Karabekir | 0.34 |
Yeni | 0.30 |
Ahievran | 0.40 |
Cırkalan | 0.29 |
Sahabiye | 0.33 |
Seyrani | 0.42 |
Uğurevler | 0.34 |
Yunus Emre | 0.25 |
Yıldızevler | 0.28 |
Ziyagökalp | 0.43 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Koçak Güngör, M.; Bostancı, B.; Yılmaz Bakır, N.; Doğan, U. Investigation of Urban Design Approaches in Renewal Areas with Hybrid Decision Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710543
Koçak Güngör M, Bostancı B, Yılmaz Bakır N, Doğan U. Investigation of Urban Design Approaches in Renewal Areas with Hybrid Decision Model. Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):10543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710543
Chicago/Turabian StyleKoçak Güngör, Merve, Bülent Bostancı, Neşe Yılmaz Bakır, and Umut Doğan. 2022. "Investigation of Urban Design Approaches in Renewal Areas with Hybrid Decision Model" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 10543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710543