Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing Biodiversity in Urban Green Space; An Exploration of the IAD Framework Applied to Ecologically Mature Trees
Open AccessArticle

Prioritizing Sustainable City Indicators for Cambodia

1
Office of Sustainable Lifestyle, Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh 12301, Cambodia
2
Graduate School of Urban Studies, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3(4), 104; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3040104
Received: 23 September 2019 / Revised: 9 October 2019 / Accepted: 14 October 2019 / Published: 22 October 2019
This research is based on our previous research that developed consensus sustainable city indicators for Cambodia through three-round Delphi panel surveys. That research developed indicators in the first round based on UN sustainable development goal 11, ASEAN environmentally sustainable city, Korean case study, and domestic green and clean city indicators, and validated the developed indicators in the last two rounds. After consensus analysis, that research obtained 32 assessment indicators categorized by nine criteria. However, these indicators are not prioritized yet due to the limitation of the Delphi technique. Hence, this research aims to prioritize these indicators by applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique and to confirm whether the levels of importance verified by Delphi can be used for prioritizing or ranking the indicators. This research surveyed potential respondents experienced and working in relevant fields both offline and online. Online surveys were processed through E-mail, Facebook, and LinkedIn. A total of 118 questionnaires were gathered from the surveys, and 16 were inconsistent (consistency ratio > 0.1). The results showed that the highest and lowest weights are 0.0557 and 0.086. The top ten indicators are slum population (0.0557), unemployment (0.0516), crime prevention (0.0470), water supply (0.0469), city’s migration (0.0462), low-income housing (0.0445), solid waste collection (0.0437), labor-force (0.0421), construction safety (0.0400), and traffic congestion (0.0398). The rank of all indicators based on their levels of importance is completely different from the rank of their weights. Therefore, this research confirms that the levels of importance verified by Delphi cannot be used for ranking or prioritizing the consensus indicators. The priority weights in this research would be useful to policymaking, strategic direction, and budget allocation for the development and management of sustainable cities in Cambodia. View Full-Text
Keywords: Delphi panel survey; AHP priority calculator; Cambodia sustainable city assessment; UN sustainable development goals; sustainable urban development; priority weight analysis Delphi panel survey; AHP priority calculator; Cambodia sustainable city assessment; UN sustainable development goals; sustainable urban development; priority weight analysis
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Chan, P.; Lee, M.-H. Prioritizing Sustainable City Indicators for Cambodia. Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 104.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop