Assessing sustainable development in urban areas using cognitive mapping and MCDA

References

• Ackermann F, Eden C. 2010. Strategic options development and analysis. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S, editors. Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. London: Springer; p. 135–136.
   Google Scholar
• Barbosa G, Drach P, Corbella O. 2014. A conceptual review of the terms sustainable development and sustainability. Int J Soc Sci. 3(2):1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Beatley T, Manning K. 1998. The ecology of place: planning for environment, economy and community. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell S, Morse S. 2013. Groups and facilitators within problem structuring processes. J Oper Res Soc. 64(7):959–972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belton V, Stewart T. 2002. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Berke P, Conroy M. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? J Am Plann Assoc. 66(1):21–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bockstaller C, Guichard L, Makowski D, Aveline A, Girardin P, Plantureux S. 2008. Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems: a review. Agron Sustainable Dev. 28(1):139–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossel B. 1998. Earth at a crossroads: paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brundtland Report. 1987. Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell S. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plann Assoc. 62(3):296–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlucci D, Schiuma G, Gavrilova T, Linzalone R. 2013. A fuzzy cognitive map based approach to disclose value creation dynamics of ABIs. Proceedings of the 8th International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics (IFKAD-2013); Jun 12–14; Zagreb, Croatia. p. 207–219.
   Google Scholar
• Cengiz T, Akbulak C. 2009. Application of analytical hierarchy process and geographic information systems in land-use suitability evaluation: a case study of Dümrek village (Çanakkale, Turkey). Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 16(4):286–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaney D. 2010. Analyzing mental representations: the contribution of cognitive maps. Recherche et Applications en Marketing. 25(2):93–115.
   Google Scholar
• Chauhan K, Shah N, Rao R. 2008. The analytic hierarchy process as a decision-support system in the housing sector: a case study. World Appl Sci J. 3(4):609–613.
   Google Scholar
• Cinelli M, Coles S, Kirwan K. 2014. Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic. 46(1):138–148.
   Google Scholar
• Daly H. 1991. Steady state economics. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Devuyst D. 2000. Linking impact assessment and sustainable development at the local level: the introduction of sustainable assessment systems. Sustainable Dev. 8(2):67–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C. 1988. Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res. 36(1):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C. 2004. Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res. 159(3):673–686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C, Ackerman F. 2004. Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res. 152(3):615–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C, Ackermann F. 2001. SODA – the principles. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J, editors. Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; p. 21–41.
   Google Scholar
• Ensslin L, Dutra A, Ensslin S. 2000. MCDA: a constructivist approach to the management of human resources at a governmental agency. Int Trans Oper Res. 7(1):79–100.
   Google Scholar
• Ernstson H, Van der Leeuw S, Redman C, Meffert D, Davis G, Alfsen C, Elmqvist T. 2010. Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystem. Ambio. 39(8):531–545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F. 2016. Are you pleased with your neighborhood? A fuzzy cognitive mapping-based approach for measuring residential neighborhood satisfaction in urban communities. Int J Strategic Property Manag. 20(2):130–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Jalali M. 2015. Identifying key determinants of housing sales and time-on-the-market (TOM) using fuzzy cognitive mapping. Int J Strategic Property Manag. 19(3):235–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Jalali M, Ferreira J. 2016. Experience-focused thinking and cognitive mapping in ethical banking practices: from practical intuition to theory. J Bus Res. 69(11):4953–4958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Jalali M, Ferreira J, Stankevičienė J, Marques C. 2015. Understanding the dynamics behind bank branch service quality in Portugal: pursuing a holistic view using fuzzy cognitive mapping. Service Business. 19(1):469–487.
   Google Scholar
• Fiedler F. 1965. Engineer the job to fit the manager. Harv Bus Rev. 43(5):115–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedler F. 1967. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Forman E, Gass S. 2001. The analytic hierarchy process – an exposition. Oper Res. 49(4):469–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasparatos A, El-Haram M, Horner M. 2007. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28(4/5):286–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavrilova T, Carlucci D, Schiuma G. 2013. Art of visual thinking for smart business education. Proceedings of the 8th international forum on knowledge asset dynamics (IFKAD-2013); Jun 12–14; Zagreb, Croatia. p. 1754–1761.
   Google Scholar
• Global Footprint Network. 2017. Join us in unleashing data for a sustainable future. [accessed 2017 Apr]. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/
   Google Scholar
• Harvey D. 1985. The urbanization of capital. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henry E, Paris M. 2009. Institutional dynamics and barriers to sustainable construction in France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Sustainable Urban Dev. 4(1):171–196.
   Google Scholar
• Huang L, Wu J, Yan L. 2015. Defining and measuring urban sustainability: a review of indicators. Landsc Ecol. 30(7):1175–1193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jozsa A, Brown B. 2005. Neighborhood sustainability indicators report on a best practice workshop. Montreal: McGill University and the Urban Ecology Center.
   Google Scholar
• Keeney R. 1992. Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kim H, Lee K. 1998. Fuzzy implications of fuzzy cognitive map with emphasis on fuzzy causal relationship and fuzzy partially causal relationship. Fuzzy Sets Sys. 97(3):303–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kourtit K, Macharis C, Nijkamp P. 2014. A multi-actor multi-criteria analysis of the performance of global cities. Appl Geography. 49(1):24–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kourtit K, Nijkamp P. 2013. In praise of megacities in a global world. Regional Sci Policy Pract. 5(2):167–182.
   Google Scholar
• Lafferty W. 2006. Governance for sustainable development: the challenge of adapting form to function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Loorbach D, Rotmans J. 2006. Managing transitions for sustainable development. Environ Policy. 44(1):187–206.
   Google Scholar
• Martins V, Filipe M, Ferreira F, Jalali M, António N. 2015. For sale… but for how long? A methodological proposal for estimating time-on-the-market. Int J Strategic Property Manag. 19(4):309–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGill University. 2017. About urban planning, school of urban planning. [accessed 2017 Mar 28]. https://mcgill.ca/urbanplanning/planning
   Google Scholar
• Munier N. 2011. Methodology to select a set of urban sustainability indicators to measure the state of the city, and performance assessment. Ecol Indic. 11(5):1020–1026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman J, MacLean H, Kennedy C. 2006. Comparing high and low residential density: life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. J Urban Plann Dev. 132(1):10–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oreszczyn S, Lane A. 2000. The meaning of hedgerows in the English landscape: different stakeholder perspectives and the implications for future hedge management. J Environ Manag. 60(1):101–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosales N. 2011. Towards the modeling of sustainability into urban planning: using indicators to build sustainable cities. Procedia Eng. 21(1):641–647.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty T. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty T. 1990. Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty T. 1994. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces. 24(6):19–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty T. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci. 1(1):83–98.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty T, Vargas L. 2001. Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Scipioni A, Mazzi A, Mason M, Manzardo A. 2009. The dashboard of sustainability to measure the local urban sustainable development: the case study of Padua municipality. Ecol Indic. 9(2):364–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seiss R. 2007. Wer baut Wien? Munich: Verlag Anton Pustet Salzburg.
   Google Scholar
• Shen L, Kyllo J, Guo X. 2013. An integrated model based on a hierarchical indices system for monitoring and evaluating urban sustainability. Sustainability. 5(2):524–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva J, Feitosa R. 2007. Factores que influenciam na velocidade de venda dos imóveis: um estudo de caso usando a metodologia AHP. Revista Tecnologia. 28(2):229–237.
   Google Scholar
• Sipahi S, Timor M. 2010. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Manag Decis. 48(5):775–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith R, Wiek A. 2012. Achievements and opportunities in initiating governance for urban sustainability. Environ Planning C Government Policy. 30(3):429–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam C, Zeng S, Tong T. 2009. Conflict analysis in public engagement program of urban planning in Hong Kong. J Urban Plann Dev. 135(2):51–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallbaum H, Krank S, Teloh R. 2011. Prioritizing sustainability criteria in urban planning processes: methodology application. J Urban Plann Dev. 137(1):20–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber M, Borcherding K. 1993. Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. Eur J Oper Res. 67(1):1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams A, Kennedy S, Philipp F, Whiteman G. 2017. Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research. J Clean Prod. 148:866–881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas E, Turskis Z. 2011. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technol Econ Dev Economy. 17(2):397–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas E, Turskis Z, Kildienė S. 2014. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econ Dev Economy. 20(1):165–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Zhou Y, Liu X, Lu Z. 2016. Ecological landscape regulation approaches in Xilingol, Inner Mongolia: an urban ecosystem services perspective. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 1–7. doi:10.1080/13504509.2016.1273263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou J, Shen L, Song X, Zhang X. 2015. Selection and modeling sustainable urbanization indicators: a responsibility-based method. Ecol Indic. 56(1):87–95.
   Google Scholar