A Sustainability-driven Integrated model of strategic management for coastal urban projects

Figures & data

Figure 1. Network visualization of keywords on coastal urban management strategies.

Table 1. Clustering of research categories on coastal urban management strategies.

Cluster	Number of selected items	Representative keywords with cluster
Cluster 1 (Red color)	58	Climate change, sustainable development, urban area, coastal zone management, flooding, sea level, risk management, adaption, coastal zone, adaptive management, economic and social effect, economic development, disaster, etc.
Cluster 2 (Green color)	34	Water quality, water management, water pollution, ground water, storms, water management, etc.
Cluster 3 (Blue color)	28	Article, ecosystem, environment management, environment protection, marine pollution, human, environment planning, etc.
Cluster 4 (Yellow color)	14	Beach, coastal ecosystem, coastal management, erosion, management strategies, tourism, urban areas, etc.
Cluster 5 (Purple color)	11	Biodiversity, conservation management, ecosystem services, human activity, wetland(s), etc.
Cluster 6 (Light blue color)	5	Coastal area, environment impact, population growth, population statistics, strategic planning
Cluster 7 (Orange color)	2	Eurasia, Europe
Cluster 8 (Brown color)	1	Public health
Total	153

Figure 2. Density visualizations of keywords on coastal urban management strategies.

Table 2. Distribution of MCDM applications in strategic management phases.

References	Field	Strategic management process
		Analysis of strategy inputs	Development	Assessment - Controlling
(Mukeshimana et al., 2021)	Renewable energy	SWOT-ISM
(Padash & Ghatari, 2020)	petrochemical industry	PESTEL-SWOT-AHP-SPACE
(Alizadeh et al., 2020)	Energy policy		BOCR-ANP
(Dushenko et al., 2018)	Port			AHP
(Kim & Hwang, 2018)	Facility site selection	GIS-AHP
(Chen et al., 2019)	Carbon Offset Project	SWOT-AHP		TOPSIS
(Ghavami et al., 2019)	Disaster management			GIS-AHP
(Henríquez-Antipa & Cárcamo, 2019)	Seaweed aquaculture	SWOT-AHP
(Ghavami, 2020)	Transportation			GIS-AHP
(Arsic et al., 2017)	Ecosystem management	SWOT-ANP
(Mani Murali et al., 2018)	Coastal management			AHP
(Harmain & Parvez, 2018)	Manufacture companies			Fuzzy-TOPSIS
(Shahba et al., 2017)	Mining waste management	SWOT-AHP		TOPSIS
(Pourebrahim & Amoushahi, 2017)	Land use management; Eco- tourism	SWOT-ANP-DEMATEL
(Ghasemzadeh et al., 2017)	Petroleum	BSC-FuzzyAHP
(Gigović et al., 2016)	Eco-tourism	GIS-Fuzzy DEMATEL
(Balkovskaya & Filneva, 2016)	Banking	BSC-DEMATEL
(Rahimnia & Kargozar, 2016)	University management	BSC-DEMATEL
(García-Melón et al., 2015)	Power	ANP
(Grošelj & Zadnik Stirn, 2015)	Environmental management	SWOT-ANP
(Erdil & Erbıyık, 2015)	Milk factory	SWOT-AHP
(Zavadskas et al., 2015)	Port	AHP-Fuzzy
(Scholten et al., 2015)	Water management			MAVT/MAUT
(Shafiee et al., 2014)	Supply chain management	BSC-DEA-DEMATEL
(Tan & Kuo, 2014)	Park management		DEMATEL
(Shaik & Abdul-Kader, 2014)	Logistics	BSC-DEMATEL
(Yavuz & Baycan, 2014)	Water management	SWOT-AHP
(Yazdani Chamzini et al., 2014)	Investment	AHP - FuzzyTOPSIS - DEMATEL
(Khalili & Duecker, 2013)	Environmental management			ELECTRE III
(Costa et al., 2019)	corporate social responsibility	BSC-Fuzzy-SAW
(Verdecho et al., 2021)	Renewable energy	ANP
(Şevkli et al. 2012)	airline industry	SWOT-fuzzy ANP
(Hosseini Nasab & Milani, 2012)	Tile material			Fuzzy TOPSIS

Figure 3. The BFAD framework.

Table 3. The list of performance measures within strategic perspective of coastal urban projects.

Strategic perspective	Criteria	Notation	Definition
Learning and Growth	Human resource	H	Work efficiency of human resources
	Culture	C	Performance of teamwork, organizational culture and project coordination
	System	S	The degree to which information technology and automation are implemented in the project
Internal Processes	Time	T	Project’s time performance
	Quality	Q	Degree of fulfillment of technical quality characteristics
	Technology	TE	Improvement level in applied technical and professional skills
	Resources	R	Priority use of locally available resources and environmentally friendly materials to complete and operate the project
	Legal Compliance	L	The extent to which contract terms are met; consistency of applicable policies; legal practices of project participants
Sustainable Development	Health and Safety	HS	Satisfaction of health and safety conditions
	Financial Performance	F	Project financial performance
	Predictability	P	Accuracy in the project’s response to future needs and potentials
	Environment	E	The extent to which strategic environmental objectives are met
Stakeholder Satisfaction	Stakeholder Satisfaction	SS	Overall satisfaction of key stakeholders and customers using the project

Table 4. Triangular fuzzy numbers of the 9-point Saaty scale (Buckley, 1985).

Scale	(l)	(m)	(u)	Meaning
1	1	1	1	Equally important
2	1	2	3
3	2	3	4	Slightly more important
4	3	4	5
5	4	5	6	More important
6	5	6	7
7	6	7	8	Much more important
8	7	8	9
9	9	9	9	Extremely more important
1/2	1/3	1/2	1
1/3	1/4	1/3	1/2
1/4	1/5	1/4	1/3
1/5	1/6	1/5	1/4
1/6	1/7	1/6	1/5
1/7	1/8	1/7	1/6
1/8	1/9	1/8	1/7
1/9	1/9	1/9	1/9

Table 5. Triangular fuzzy numbers of the 5-point DEMATEL scale (Acuña-Carvajal et al., 2019).

Scale	(l)	(m)	(u)	Meaning
0	0	0	1	No impact
1	0	1	2	Pretty low impact
2	1	2	3	Low impact
3	2	3	4	Pretty high impact
4	3	4	4	High impact

Figure 4. The ANP network structure.

Figure 5. The unweighted ANP overall matrix.

Figure 6. The weighted ANP overall matrix.

Figure 7. The normalized and weighted ANP overall matrix.

Figure 8. The normalized weighted ANP overall matrix in the DEMATEL scale.

Figure 9. The initial influence matrix.

Figure 10. The overall influence matrix.

Table 6. Information of experts interviewed.

Group	Leadership position	Quantity	Experience
Government	Leaders at the city and district authority level	6	12–22 years
Clients	Super-Senior managers	8	12–20 years
Contractors	Senior managers	6	12–20 years
Consultants	Senior managers and leaders	6	13–20 years

Table 7. Priority weights of the criteria.

Perspective	Objective	Weight
Sustainable Development	Financial performance (F)	0.201
	Health & Safety (HS)	0.317
	Environment (E)	0.252
	Predictability (P)	0.23
Internal Processes	Time (T)	0.097
	Quality (Q)	0.254
	Technology (TE)	0.208
	Resources (R)	0.242
	Legal compliance (L)	0.199
Learning and Growth	Human resource (H)	0.354
	System (S)	0.306
	Culture (C)	0.339

Table 8. Cause-effect relationships.

Perspective	Objective	$(\mathit{r}+\mathit{c})$	Rank	$(\mathit{r}-\mathit{c})$
Stakeholder satisfaction Sustainable development	SS	2.739	1	−2.739	Effect
	F	3.251	1	−2.437
	HS	3.019	2	−1.158
	E	2.881	3	−0.926
	P	2.859	4	−1.327
Internal processes	T	3.688	1	0.078	Cause
	Q	3.616	3	0.360
	TE	3.637	2	1.093
	R	3.597	4	0.874
	L	3.344	5	0.800
Learning & growth	H	2.527	1	2.069
	S	2.188	3	1.342
	C	2.403	2	1.971

Figure 11. The IRM strategy map.

Figure 12. The prominence of performance measures.

Figure 13. Impact relationship in each strategic dimension.

Mukeshimana, M. C., Z.-Y. Zhao, and J. P. Nshimiyimana. 2021. “Evaluating Strategies for Renewable Energy Development in Rwanda: An Integrated SWOT – ISM Analysis.” Renewable Energy 176:402–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.104.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Padash, A., and A. R. Ghatari. 2020. “Toward an Innovative Green Strategic Formulation Methodology: Empowerment of Corporate Social, Health, Safety and Environment.” Journal of Cleaner Production 261:121075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121075.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alizadeh, R., L. Soltanisehat, P. D. Lund, and H. Zamanisabzi. 2020. “Improving Renewable Energy Policy Planning and Decision-Making Through a Hybrid MCDM Method.” Energy Policy 137:111174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111174.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dushenko, M., C. Bjorbaek, and K. Steger-Jensen. 2018. “Application of a Sustainability Model for Assessing the Relocation of a Container Terminal: A Case Study of Kristiansand Port.” Sustainability 11 (1): 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010087.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, H. Y., and J. H. Hwang. 2018. “Combining GIS with AHP for Facility Site Selection: A Case Study in Cheongju, South Korea.” Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13:7933–7939. https://doi.org/10.3923/jeasci.2018.7933.7939.

 Google Scholar

Chen, Z., D. Chen, M. P. Kwan, B. Chen, B. Gao, Y. Zhuang, R. Li, and B. Xu. 2019. “The Control of Anthropogenic Emissions Contributed to 80 % of the Decrease in PM2.5 Concentrations in Beijing from 2013 to 2017.” Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 19 (21): 13519–13533. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-13519-2019.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghavami, S. M., J. Maleki, and T. Arentze. 2019. “A Multi-Agent Assisted Approach for Spatial Group Decision Support Systems: A Case Study of Disaster Management Practice.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 38:101223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101223.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Henríquez-Antipa, L. A., and F. Cárcamo. 2019. “Stakeholder’s Multidimensional Perceptions on Policy Implementation Gaps Regarding the Current Status of Chilean Small-Scale Seaweed Aquaculture.” Marine Policy 103:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.042.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghavami, S. M. 2020. “A Web Service Based Advanced Traveller Information System for Itinerary Planning in an Uncertain Multimodal Network.” Geocarto International 35 (14): 1553–1569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2019.1583773.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arsic, S., D. Nikolic, and Ž. Živković. 2017. “Hybrid SWOT - ANP - FANP Model for Prioritization Strategies of Sustainable Development of Ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia.” Forest Policy and Economics 80:11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.02.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mani Murali, R., M. Ankita, and P. Vethamony. 2018. “A New Insight to Vulnerability of Central Odisha Coast, India Using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) Based Approach.” Journal of Coastal Conservation 22 (4): 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0610-4.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Harmain, G., and S. Parvez. 2018. Building Taxonomy for Obtaining Strategic Partnerships with Original Equipment Manufacturers of a Firm.

 Google Scholar

Shahba, S., R. Arjmandi, M. Monavari, and J. Ghodusi. 2017. “Application of Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods in SWOT Analysis of Mine Waste Management (Case Study: Sirjan’s Golgohar Iron Mine, Iran).” Resources Policy 51:67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.11.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pourebrahim, S., and S. Amoushahi. 2017. “Land Quality Management for Ecotourism Development; Case of Mahallat District.” Annual Research & Review in Biology 16 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/ARRB/2017/35229.

 Google Scholar

Ghasemzadeh, F., M. Pishdar, and J. Antucheviciene. 2017. “Prioritization of Petroleum Supply chains’ Disruption Management Strategies Using Combined Framework of BSC Approach, Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Choquet Integral Operator.” Journal of Business Economics and Management 18 (5): 897–919. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1380075.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gigović, L., D. Pamučar, D. Lukić, and S. Marković. 2016. “GIS-Fuzzy DEMATEL MCDA Model for the Evaluation of the Sites for Ecotourism Development: A Case Study of “Dunavski ključ” Region, Serbia.” Land Use Policy 58:348–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.030.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Balkovskaya, D., and L. Filneva. 2016. “The Use of the Balanced Scorecard in Bank Strategic Management.” International Journal of Business Excellence 9 (1): 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2016.073375.

 Google Scholar

Rahimnia, F., and N. Kargozar. 2016. “Objectives Priority in University Strategy Map for Resource Allocation.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 23 (2): 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2013-0094.

 Google Scholar

García-Melón, M., R. Poveda-Bautista, M. Del Valle, and J. L. 2015. “Using the Strategic Relative Alignment Index for the Selection of Portfolio Projects Application to a Public Venezuelan Power Corporation.” International Journal of Production Economics 170:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.08.023.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grošelj, P., and L. Zadnik Stirn. 2015. “The Environmental Management Problem of Pohorje, Slovenia: A New Group Approach within ANP - SWOT Framework.” Journal of Environmental Management 161:106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.038.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Erdil, A., and H. Erbıyık. 2015. “Selection Strategy via Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Application for a Small Enterprise in Milk Sector.” Procedia - Social & Behavioral Sciences 195:2618–2628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.463.

 Google Scholar

Zavadskas, E. K., Z. Turskis, and V. Bagočius. 2015. “Multi-Criteria Selection of a Deep-Water Port in the Eastern Baltic Sea.” Applied Soft Computing 26:180–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.09.019.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scholten, L., N. Schuwirth, P. Reichert, and J. Lienert. 2015. “Tackling Uncertainty in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis – an Application to Water Supply Infrastructure Planning.” European Journal of Operational Research 242 (1): 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.044.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shafiee, M., F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, and H. Saleh. 2014. “Supply Chain Performance Evaluation with Data Envelopment Analysis and Balanced Scorecard Approach.” Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (21): 5092–5112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.03.023.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tan, W.-K., and C.-Y. Kuo. 2014. “Prioritization of Facilitation Strategies of Park and Recreation Agencies Through DEMATEL Analysis.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19 (8): 859–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.812570.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shaik, M. N., and W. Abdul-Kader. 2014. “Comprehensive Performance Measurement and Causal-Effect Decision Making Model for Reverse Logistics Enterprise.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 68:87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.12.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yavuz, F., and T. Baycan. 2014. “Application of Combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for Integrated Watershed Management.” International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194.

 Google Scholar

Yazdani Chamzini, A., S. Shariati, S. Haji Yakhchali, and E. Zavadskas. 2014. “Proposing a New Methodology for Prioritising the Investment Strategies in the Private Sector of Iran.” Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 27 (1): 320–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2014.947150.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khalili, N., and S. Duecker. 2013. “Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Design of Sustainable Environmental Management System Framework.” Journal of Cleaner Production 47:188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.044.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Costa, F., L. Lispi, A. P. Staudacher, M. Rossini, K. Kundu, and F. D. Cifone. 2019. “How to Foster Sustainable Continuous Improvement: A Cause-Effect Relations Map of Lean Soft Practices.” Operations Research Perspectives 6:100091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2018.100091.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Verdecho, M.-J., F. Alarcón, D. Pérez Perales, J. Alfaro, and R. Rodríguez-Rodríguez. 2021. “A Methodology to Select Suppliers to Increase Sustainability within Supply Chains.” Central European Journal of Operations Research 29 (4): 1231–1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Şevkli, M., A. Oztekin, Ö. Uysal, N. G. Torlak, A. Turkyilmaz, and D. Delen. 2012. “Development of a Fuzzy ANP Based SWOT Analysis for the Airline Industry in Turkey.” Expert Systems with Applications 39:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.047.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hosseini Nasab, H., and A. S. Milani. 2012. “An Improvement of Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Fuzzy Numbers.” Applied Soft Computing 12 (8): 2246–2253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.03.010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buckley, J. J. 1985. “Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17 (3): 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Acuña-Carvajal, F., L. Pinto-Tarazona, H. López-Ospina, R. Barros-Castro, L. Quezada, and K. Palacio. 2019. “An Integrated Method to Plan, Structure and Validate a Business Strategy Using Fuzzy DEMATEL and the Balanced Scorecard.” Expert Systems with Applications 122:351–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.030.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar