Case study: Urban sustainability

assessment13th EURO PhD Summer School on

MCDA/MCDM

Chania, Greece

Case study group #2

2

Agenda

1. Characterisation of the decision situation

3

2. Model selection and implementation

3. Results and discussion

4. Conclusions

WHATTHISIS ALLABOUT

The decision aiding context• OPA! is the owner of a Greek real estate

investment trust• Expansion of their portfolio for further growth • Allocation of investments to real estate in

multiple cities for risk diversification• Long-term prospects of the cities are

important for successful investments

5

OPA!

Actors

6OPA!

CRG

Cities under assessment

7

New York, a6

Beijing, a1

Copenhagen, a3

Berlin, a2

Hong Kong, a4

London, a5

Paris, a7

Prague, a8

Seoul, a9

Shanghai, a10

Tokyo, a12

Stockholm, a11

HOWCAN WEMODEL

IT?

Consistent family of criteria

9

Urban sustainability

Economic EnvironmentalSocial

EmploymentDisposable

incomeHealth system

Pension security

Green space

Air quality

Resource management

g1

g3

g4

g6

g6

g7

g2

Overall objective

Perspectives

Criteria

Data 23 sustainability indicators

Air

qu

ality

ind

ex

Aggregation of sustainability indicators to criteriaExample 1 Computation of an aggregate index

10

NO2 PM10 ...SO2

Example 2 Aggregation using ordinal scales

g6: Air quality index

NO2

PM10

SO2

Pollutant concentration in air

g3: Health index

BAD MEDIUM GOOD

Doctors per capita

Healthcare security coverage

BAD MEDIUM GOOD

lMED0 lGOOD

BAD MEDIUM GOOD

lMED0 lGOOD

1

Cheng et al. (2007)

Type of decision problem

11

Pβ - Sorting of alternatives (cities) into pre-defined ordered classes

Ci: Ordered classes C

3: GOLDC

2: SILVERC

1: BRONZE

A: Set of alternatives

≺ ≺

a1

a12

a2

g1

g2

g3

g7

...

gi: Criteria

Choice of an appropriate method

Possible approaches to sorting problems

• Value-based, e.g. UTADIS• Outranking, e.g. ELECTRE TRI• Rule-based, e.g. Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA)

Proposed method: ELECTRE TRI-C

• Characteristic profiles to describe representative criteria values

12

Categories and thresholds

13

qi Indifferencepi Preferencevi Veto

ThresholdsCharacteristic profilesCriteria

Normalized scales:

*DRUMROLLINTEN-SIFIES*

Simos’ revised procedure

15

Ranks and blank cards

R1

Employment, Overall economical state

e1

2

R2

Healthcare services’ availability

e2

0

R3

Natural resources’ dependence

e3

0

R4

Retirement endurance

e4

0

R5

Urban green-friendliness

e5

0

R6

Pollution

Ratio-z 7

Weights

16

Criteria Weights

g1

0.2390

g2

0.2390

g3

0.1806

g4

0.0925

g5

0.0635

g6

0.0341

g7

0.1513

TOTAL 1

Model implementation in diviz

17

Categorisation

18

WHATCAN WEWITHDRAW

FROMTHIS?

Conclusions

• ELECTRE TRI-C was a suitable approach to tackle this case.

• Other methods (e.g. UTADIS and DRSA) and criteria could have been used to solve the problem.

• London, New York, and Paris are the most sustainable cities from the set.

• Opa!’s real estate investment trust should invest more in immovables in these locations.

20

Thank you, guys!

And thank you, Chania!