Rethinking urban sustainability using fuzzy cognitive mapping and system dynamics

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. 135–190.
   Google Scholar
• ADUPC – Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council. 2010. The pearl rating system for Estidama, community rating system: design & construction; [accessed Sep 2018]. https://www.upc.gov.ae/-/media/files/estidama/docs/pbrs-version-10.ashx?la=ar-ae.
   Google Scholar
• Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Stryamets N, Johansson K. 2011. Sustainable development and sustainability: landscape approach as a practical interpretation of principles and implementation concepts. J Landscape Ecol. 4(3):5–30.
   Google Scholar
• Azevedo A, Ferreira F. 2019. Analyzing the dynamics behind ethical banking practices using fuzzy cognitive mapping. Oper Res. 19(3):679–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbosa J, Mateus R, Bragança L. 2013. Adaptation of SBToolPT to office buildings. Int J Sustainable Build Technol Urban Dev. 4(1):89–97.
   Google Scholar
• Becker N. 2019. How much is the designation of a new biosphere reserve worth? Landsenses ecology valuation evidence from Israel. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 1–9. doi:10.1080/13504509.2019.1707326.
   Web of Science ®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. Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bibri S, Krogstie J. 2017. Smart sustainable cities of the future: an extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities Soc. 31:183–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BRE Global – Building Research Establishment. 2011. BREEAM for communities assessor manual: development planning application stage, technical guidance manual; [accessed Sep 2018]. https://tools.breeam.com/filelibrary/breeam%20communities/breeam_communities_stage_2_version_1_280211v1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brito V, Ferreira F, Pérez-Gladish B, Govindan K, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2019. Developing a green city assessment system using cognitive maps and the Choquet integral. J Clean Prod. 218:486–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlucci D, Ferreira F, Schiuma G, Jalali M, António N. 2018. A holistic conception of sustainable banking: adding value with fuzzy cognitive mapping. Technol Econ Deve Economy. 24(4):1303–1322.
   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); June 12–14; Zagreb (Croatia). p. 207–219.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho J. 2013. On the semantics and the use of fuzzy cognitive maps and dynamic cognitive maps in social sciences. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 214:6–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castanheira G, Bragança L. (2014). The evolution of the sustainability assessment tool SBToolPT: from buildings to the built environment. Scientifc World J. 2014:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Castanho M, Ferreira F, Carayannis E, Ferreira J. 2019. SMART-C: developing a “smart city” assessment system using cognitive mapping and the Choquet integral. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 1–12. doi:10.1109/TEM.2019.2909668.
   Google Scholar
• Castellacci A. 2018. Co-evolutionary growth: A system dynamics model. Econ Model. 70(C):272–287.
   Google Scholar
• Dobrovolskienė N, Tamošiūnienė R, Banaitis A, Ferreira F, Banaitienė N, Taujanskaitė K, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2019. Developing a composite sustainability index for real estate projects using multiple criteria decision making. Oper Res. 19(3):617–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong R, Liu X, Liu M, Feng Q, Su X, Wu G. 2016. Landsenses ecological planning for the Xianghe segment of China’s Grand Canal. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 23(4):298–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C. 1988. Cognitive mapping. Eur J Oper Res. 36(1):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C, Ackermann F. 1992. The analysis of cause maps. J Manage Stud. 29(3):309–324.
   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
• Eden C, Ackermann 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
• Estêvão R, Ferreira F, Rosa Á, Govindan K, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2019. A socio-technical approach to the assessment of sustainable tourism: adding value with a comprehensive process-oriented framework. J Clean Prod. 236:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faria P, Ferreira F, Jalali M, Bento P, António N. 2018. Combining cognitive mapping and MCDA for improving quality of life in urban areas. Cities. 78:116–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes I, Ferreira F, Bento P, Jalali M, António N. 2018. Assessing sustainable development in urban areas using cognitive mapping and MCDA. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 25(3):216–226.
   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 Manage. 20(2):130–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Jalali M, Zavadskas E, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2017. Assessing payment instrument alternatives using cognitive mapping and the Choquet integral. Transformations Bus Econ. 16(2):170–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Spahr R, Santos S, Rodrigues P. 2012. A multiple criteria framework to evaluate bank branch potential attractiveness. Int J Strategic Property Manage. 16(3):254–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Spahr R, Sunderman M, Jalali M. 2018. A prioritisation index for blight intervention strategies in residential real estate. J Oper Res Soc. 69(8):1269–1285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira J, Fernandes C, Ferreira F. 2020. Technology transfer, climate change mitigation, and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: A comparison of European countries. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 150:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer A, Thomé A, Scavarda A. 2018. Sustainable urban infrastructure: A review. Resour Conserv Recycl. 128:360–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonseca M, Ferreira F, Fang W, Jalali M. 2018. Classification and selection of tenants in residential real estate: A constructivist approach. Int J Strategic Property Manage. 22(1):1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester J. 1961. Industry dynamics. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gray S, Gray S, Cox L, Henly-Shepard S. 2013. Mental modeler: A fuzzy-logic cognitive mapping modeling tool for adaptive environmental management. Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Systems Sciences; 7–10 Jan; Hawaii (USA). p. 963–973.
   Google Scholar
• Guarnieri P, Silva L, Levino N. 2016. Analysis of electronic waste reverse logistics decisions using strategic options development analysis methodology: a Brazilian case. J Clean Prod. 133:1105–1117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiremath R, Balachandra P, Kumar B, Bansode S, Murali J. 2013. Indicator-based urban sustainability: a review. Energy Sustainable Dev. 17(6):555–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HKSARG – Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. 2006. Comprehensive environmental performance assessment scheme for buildings CEPAS application guidelines; [accessed Sep 2018]. https://www.bd.gov.hk/doc/en/resources/codes-and-references/notices-and-reports/cepas/ApplicationGuidelineE.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• IBEC – Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation. 2014. CASBEE for urban development, technical manual; [accessed Sep 2018]. www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/downloadE.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Kaur H, Garg P. 2019. Urban sustainability assessment tools: a review. J Clean Prod. 210:146–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kok K. 2009. The potential of fuzzy cognitive maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil. Global Environ Change. 19(1):122–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosko B. 1986. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man Mach Stud. 24(1):65–75.
   Google Scholar
• Lee K, Lee H, Lee N, Lim J. 2013. An agent-based fuzzy cognitive map approach to the strategic marketing planning for industrial firms. Ind Marketing Manage. 42(4):552–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques S, Ferreira F, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I, Banaitis A. 2018. Classifying urban residential areas based on their exposure to crime: a constructivist approach. Sustainable Cities Soc. 39:418–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-Bravo M, Martínez-del-Río J, Antolín-López R. 2019. Trade-offs among urban sustainability, pollution and livability in European cities. J Clean Prod. 224:651–660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazlack L. 2009. Representing causality using fuzzy cognitive maps. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS-2009); Jun 14–17; Cincinnati (OH). p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Miguel B, Ferreira F, Banaitis A, Banaitienė N, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I, Falcão P. 2019. An expanded conceptualization of “smart” cities: adding value with fuzzy cognitive maps. E+M Econ Manage. 22(1):4–21.
   Google Scholar
• Mingers J, Rosenhead J. 2004. Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res. 152(3):530–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mori K, Christodoulou A. 2012. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: towards a new city sustainability index (CSI). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 32(1):94–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochoa J, Tan Y, Qian Q, Shen L, Moreno L. 2018. Learning from best practices in sustainable urbanization. Habitat Int. 78:83–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olawumi T, Chan D. 2018. A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. J Clean Prod. 183:231–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira I, Carayannis E, Ferreira F, Jalali M, Carlucci D, Ferreira J. 2018. Constructing home safety indices for strategic planning in residential real estate: a socio-technical approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 131:67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oriola A. 2014. System dynamics modelling of waste management system. Proceedings of 1st Asian-Pacific System Dynamics Conference; Feb 22–24; Tokyo (Japan). p. 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Papachristos G. 2019. System dynamics modelling and simulation for sociotechnical transitions research. Environ Innovation Societal Transitions. 31:248–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pires A, Ferreira F, Jalali M, Chang H. 2018. Barriers to real estate investments for residential rental purposes: mapping out the problem. Int J Strategic Property Manage. 22(3):168–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pizzitutti F, Walsh S, Rindfuss R, Gunter R, Quiroga D, Tippett R, Mena C. 2016. Scenario planning for tourism management: A participatory and system dynamics model applied to the Galapagos islands of Ecuador. J Sustainable Tourism. 25(8):1117–1137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis I, Ferreira F, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I, Govindan K, Fang W, Falcão P. 2019. An evaluation thermometer for assessing city sustainability and livability. Sustainable Cities Soc. 47:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren Y, Zhang C, Zuo S, Li Z. 2017. Scaling up of biomass simulation for Eucalyptus plantations based on landsenses ecology. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 23(2):135–148.
   Google Scholar
• Ribeiro M, Ferreira F, Jalali M, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2017. A fuzzy knowledge-based framework for risk assessment of residential real estate investments. Technol Econ Deve Economy. 23(1):140–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson G. 2011. Reflections on the foundations of system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev. 27(3):219–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmeron J. 2012. Fuzzy cognitive maps for artificial emotions forecasting. Appl Soft Comput. 12(12):3704–3710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmeron J, Mansouri T, Moghadam M, Mardani A. 2019. Learning fuzzy cognitive maps with modified asexual reproduction optimization algorithm. Knowledge-Based Syst. 163:723–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedarati P, Santos S, Pintassilgo P. 2018. System dynamics in tourism planning and development. Tourism Plann Dev. 16(3):256–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith C, Shaw D. 2018. The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 274(2):403–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterman J. 2001. System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world. Calif Manage Rev. 43(4):8–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterman J (2002), System dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world, Working Paper ESD-WP-2003-01.13, MIT Sloan School of Management.
   Google Scholar
• Sterman J, Oliva R, Linderman K, Bendoly E. 2015. System dynamics perspectives and modeling opportunities for research in operations management. J Oper Manage. 39/40:1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNDESAPD – United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. 2018. Key facts, world urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision; [accessed Sep 2018]. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-KeyFacts.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• UN-Habitat. 2015The role of ICT in the proposed urban sustainable development goal and the new urban Agenda; [accessed Sep 2018]. https://unhabitat.org/the-role-of-ict-in-the-proposed-urban-sustainable-development-goal-and-the-new-urban-agenda/#.
   Google Scholar
• USGBC – United States Green Building Council. 2009. LEED 2009 for neighborhood development rating system; [accessed Sep 2018]. https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-2009-neighborhood-development-current-version.
   Google Scholar
• Verma P, Raghubanshi A. 2018. Urban sustainability indicators: challenges and opportunities. Ecol Indic. 93(C):282–291.
   Google Scholar
• WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future; [accessed Sep 2018]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Yaman D, Polat S. 2009. A fuzzy cognitive map approach for effect-based operations: an illustrative case. Inf Sci (Ny). 179(4):382–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan Y, Wang C, Quan Y, Wu G, Zhao J. 2018. Urban sustainable development efficiency towards the balance between nature and human well-being: connotation, measurement and assessment. J Clean Prod. 178:67–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Zhou Y, Liu X, Lu Z. 2017. Ecological landscape regulation approaches in Xilingol, Inner Mongolia: an urban ecosystem services perspective. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 24(5):401–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Liu X, Dong R, Shao G. 2016. Landsenses ecology and ecological planning toward sustainable Development. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 23(4):293–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng S, Yu B. 2017. Landsenses pattern design to mitigate gale conditions in the coastal city: A case study of Pingtan, China. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 24(4):352–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar