Multi-criteria Decision-Making methods to evaluate urban environmental quality: a scoping review
Métodos de tomada de decisão multicritério para avaliar a qualidade ambiental urbana: uma revisão abrangente
Palavras-chave:
EUQoL Assessment, MCDM, Enviromnment, GISResumo
Urban quality of life is crucial for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As cities worldwide strive to enhance this, it becomes essential to track their progress in Environmental Urban Quality of Life (EUQoL). This review examines the key performance criteria and indicators from 47 articles on the Science Direct Platform between 2019 and 2022. We explore nine decision-making techniques integrated with Geographic Information System (GIS) to assess EUQoL. These methods include Analytic Hierarchy Process, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Combined Compromise Solution, Best Worst Method, Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment, Preference Ranking Method for Enrichment Evaluation, VIsekriterijumsko Kompromisno Rangiranje, Elimination and Choice Translating Reality, and Multiattribute Value Theory. Our findings provide a rich insight into EUQoL assessment tools, offering a robust guide for policymakers and urban planners to elevate city living standards.
Downloads
Referências
ABU-ELEZZ, I.; HASSAN, A.; NAZEEMUDEEN, A.; HOUSEH, M.; ABD-ALRAZAQ, A. The benefits and threats of blockchain technology in healthcare: A scoping review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, v. 142, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104246.
ADENLE, Y. A.; CHAN, E. H. W.; SUN, Y.; CHAU, C. K. Assessing the relative importance of sustainability indicators for smart campuses: A case of higher education institutions in Nigeria. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. v. 9, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100092.
AIDINIDOU, M. T.; KAPARIS, K.; GEORGIOU, A. C. Analysis, prioritization and strategic planning of flood mitigation projects based on sustainability dimensions and a spatial/value AHP-GIS system. Expert Systems with Applications. v. 211, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118566.
ARKSEY, H.; O'MALLEY, L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, v. 8, n. 1, p. 19-32, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.
AWAD, J.; JUNG, C. Extracting the Planning Elements for Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Dubai with AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process). Sustainable Cities and Society. v. 76, 2022, 103496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103496.
AYDIN, N.; SEKER, S.; ÖZKAN, B. Planning Location of Mobility Hub for Sustainable Urban Mobility. Sustainable Cities and Society. v. 81, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103843.
BADI, I.; PAMUˇCAR, D.; STEVIC, Ž; MUHAMMAD, L. J. Wind farm site selection using BWM-AHP-MARCOS method: A case study of Libya. Scientific African, v. 19, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01511.
BELTON, V.; STEWART, T. J. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4.
BIENSALVADOR, C.; ARZAGHI, E.; YAZDI, M.; JAHROMI, H. A. F.; ABBASSI, R. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for site selection of offshore wind farms in Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management. v. 224, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106196.
BOEKER, M.; VACH, W.; MOTSCHALL, E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: Good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Medical Research Methodology, v. 13, n. 131, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-131.
BORGES, D. A. B., LIMA, E. R. V., SANTOS, J. S., CUNHA, C. L., CASTRO, A. A. B. C. Análise da Arborização urbana na cidade de Patos/PB. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física, v. 11, p. 1343- 1359, 2018. https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v11.4.p1343-1359.
BOTTERO, M.; ASSUMMA, V.; CAPRIOLI, C.; DELL’OVO, M. Decision making in urban development: The application of a hybrid evaluation method for a critical area in the city of Turin (Italy). Sustainable Cities and Society. v. 72, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103028.
BOYACI, A. Ç. Selection of eco-friendly cities in Turkey via a hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision making approach. Applied Soft Computing. v. 89, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106090.
BRANS, J. P.; VINCKE, P.H. A Preference Ranking Organization Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management Science, v. 31, p. 647-784, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647.
BRANS, J. P.; VINCKE, P. H.; MARESCHAL, B. How to select and how to rank project The PROMETHEE method. European Journal Operational Research, v. 24, p. 228-238, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5.
CASCAJARES, M.; ALCAYDE, A.; SALMERÓN-MANZANO, E.; MANZANO-AGUGLIARO, F. The Bibliometric Literature on Scopus and WoS: The Medicine and Environmental Sciences Categories as Case of Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, v. 18, n. 11, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115851.
CHEN, Y.; CHEN, A.; ZHANG, D. Evaluation of resources and environmental carrying capacity and its spatial-temporal dynamic evolution: A case study in Shandong Province, China. Sustainable Cities and Society. v. 82, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103916.
DAUDT, H. M., VAN MOSSEL, C., & SCOTT, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, v. 13, p. 48-56, 2013. 10.1186/1471-2288-13-48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-48.
D'ALPAOS, C.; ANDREOLLI, F. Urban quality in the city of the future: A bibliometric multicriteria assessment model. Ecological Indicators. v. 117, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106575.
DEBRAH, C; CHUENCHAN, A. P.; DARKO, A. Green finance gap in green buildings: A scoping review and future research needs. Building and Environment. v. 207, part A, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108443.
DWIVEDI, P. P.; SHARMA, D. K. Application of Shannon Entropy and COCOSO techniques to analyze performance of sustainable development goals: The case of the Indian Union Territories. Results in Engineering. v. 14, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100416.
ELKINGTON, J. Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. California Management Review, v. 36, p. 90-100, 1994. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165746.
EL KARIM, A. A.; AWADEH, M. M. Integrating GIS Accessibility and Location-Allocation Models with Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Evaluating Quality of Life in Buraidah City, KSA. Sustainability, v. 12, n. 4, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041412.
ERSOY, N. Normalization procedures for Cocoso method: a comparative analysis under different scenarios. University Journal of the Faculty of Business, v. 22, n. 2, p. 217-234, 2021. https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.974252.
FALAGAS, M. E.; PITSOUNI, E. I.; MALIETZIS, G. A.; PAPPAS, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J., v. 22, p. 338-342, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf
FANCELLO, G.; TSOUKIÀS, A. Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. v. 76, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100969.
GEBRE, S.L.; CATTRYSSE, D.; VAN ORSHOVEN, J. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Address Water Allocation Problems: A Systematic Review. Water, v. 13, n. 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020125.
GHASEMI, K.; BEHZADFAR, M.; BORHANI, K.; NOURI, Z. Geographic information system based combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for exploring the spatial justice of accessing urban green spaces, a comparative study of district 22 of Tehran. Ecological Indicators. v. 144, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109455.
HWANG, C L., YOON, K. Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, v. 186, 58-191, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.
International Organization For Standardization - ISO. Sustainable Development Goals. Available: https://www.iso.org/sdgs.html.
International Organization For Standardization - ISO. ISO 37120:2018 Sustainable cities and communities - Indicators for city services and quality of life. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/68498.html.
International Organization For Standardization - ISO. ISO 37.122:2019. Sustainable cities and communities - Indicators for smart cities. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/69050.html.
International Organization For Standardization - ISO. ISO 37123:2019 Sustainable cities and communities - Indicators for resilient cities. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/70428.html.
KAMDAR, I.; ALI, S.; BENNUI, A.; TECHATO, K.; JUTIDAMRONGPHAN, W. Municipal solid waste landfill siting using an integrated GIS-AHP approach: A case study from Songkhla, Thailand. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Volume 149, October 2019, Pages 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.027.
KAYKHOSRAVI, S.; KHAN, U. T.; JADIDI, M. A. A simplified geospatial model to rank LID solutions for urban runoff management. Science of The Total Environment, v. 831, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154937.
KAZEMZADEH-ZOW, A.; BOLOORANI, A. D.; SAMANY, N. N.; TOOMANIAN, A.; POURAHMAD, A. Spatiotemporal modelling of urban quality of life (UQoL) using satellite images and GIS. International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 39, n. 19, p. 6095-6116, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1447160.
KE, L.; FURUYA, K.; LUO, S. Case comparison of typical transit-oriented-development stations in Tokyo district in the context of sustainability: Spatial visualization analysis based on FAHP and GIS. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 68, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102788.
KRISHNAN, V. S.; FIROZ, C. M. Regional urban environmental quality assessment and spatial analysis. Journal of Urban Management, v. 9, n. 2, p. 191-204, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2020.03.001.
KUSAKCI, S.; YILMAZ, M. K.; ALI KUSAKCI, A. O.; SOWE, S.; NANTEMBELELE, F. A. Towards sustainable cities: A sustainability assessment study for metropolitan cities in Turkey via a hybridized IT2F-AHP and COPRAS approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 78, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103655.
LEVAC, D.; COLQUHOUN, H.; O’BRIEN, K. K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, v. 5, n. 1, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.
LI, F.; LIU, X.; HU, D.; WANG, R.; YANG, W.; LI, D.; ZHAO, D. Measurement indicators and an evaluation approach for assessing urban sustainable development: a case study for China’s Jining City. Landsc. Urban Plann., v. 90, p. 134-142, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.022
LIANG, Y.; YI, P.; LI, W.; LIU, J.; DONG, Q. Evaluation of urban sustainability based on GO-SRA: Case study of Ha-Chang and Mid-southern Liaoning urban agglomerations in northeastern China. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 87, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104234.
LIU, R.; QIU, Z. Urban Sustainable Development Empowered by Cultural and Tourism Industries: Using Zhenjiang as an Example. Sustainability, v. 14, n. 19, 2022. 12884. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912884.
ŁUCZAK, A.; JUST, M. Sustainable development of territorial units: MCDM approach with optimal tail Selection. Ecological Modelling, v. 457, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109674.
MAHDI, A.; HOSSEIN, H.; HATAMINEJAD, H. Analysis of effective environmental factors an urban health, a case study of Qom, Iran. Habitat International, v. 55, p. 89-99, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.03.001.
MARSOV, A.; OLSSONA, N. O. E.; LÆDREB, O. Research approaches in opportunity management: scoping review. Procedia Computer Science, v. 196, p. 872-879, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.087.
MARTÍN-MARTÍN, A.; ORDUÑA-MALEA, E.; THELWALL, M.; LÓPEZ-CÓZAR, E.D. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, v. 12, p. 1160-1177, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002.
MARU, M.; WORKU, H.; BIRKMANN, J. Factors affecting the spatial resilience of Ethiopia's secondary cities to urban uncertainties: A study of household perceptions of Kombolcha city. Heliyon, v. 7, n. 12, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08472.
MENGIST, W; SOROMESSA, T.; LEGESE, G. Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. Science of The Total Environment, v. 7, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.100777.
MOKARRARI, K. R.; S. TORABI, S. A. Ranking cities based on their smartness level using MADM methods. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 72, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103030.
MONGEON, P.; PAUL-HUS, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, v. 106, p. 213-228, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
MOTLAGH, S. H. B.; PONS, O.; HOSSEINI, S. M. A. Sustainability model to assess the suitability of green roof alternatives for urban air pollution reduction applied in Tehran. Building and Environment, v. 194, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107683.
MUSHTAHA, E.; ALSYOUF, I.; LABADI, L.; HAMAD, R.; KHATIB, N.; MUTAWA, M. Application of AHP and a mathematical index to estimate livability in tourist districts: The case of Al Qasba in Sharjah. Frontiers of Architectural Research, v. 9, n. 4, p. 872-889, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2020.04.001.
NAE, M.; DUMITRACHE, L.; SUDITU, B.; MATEI, E. Housing Activism Initiatives and Land-Use Conflicts: Pathways for Participatory Planning and Urban Sustainable Development in Bucharest City, Romania. Sustainability, v. 11, n. 22, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226211.
NARAYANAN, A.; JENAMANI, M.; MAHANTY, B. Determinants of sustainability and prosperity in Indian cities. Habitat International, v. 118, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102456.
NESTICÒ, A.; PASSARO, R.; MASELLI, G.; SOMMA, P. Multi-criteria methods for the optimal localization of urban green áreas. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 374, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133690.
NIKOLOUDIS, C.; ARAVOSSIS, K.; STRANTZALI, E.; CHRYSANTHOPOULOS, N. A novel multicriteria methodology for evaluating urban development proposals. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 263, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120796.
NOORI, A.; BONAKDARI, H.; HASSANINIA, M.; MOROVATI, K.; KHORSHIDI, I.; NOORI, A.; GHARABAGHI, B. A reliable GIS-based FAHP-FTOPSIS model to prioritize urban water supply management scenarios: A case study in semi-arid climate. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 81, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103846.
NUHU, S. K.; MANAN, Z. A.; ALWI, S. R. W.; REBA, M. N. M. Roles of geospatial technology in eco-industrial park site selection: State–of–the-art review. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 309, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.12736.
OMIDIPOOR, M.; JELOKHANI-NIARAKI, M.; MOEINMEHR, A.; SADEGHI-NIARAKI, A.; CHOI, S. A GIS-based decision support system for facilitating participatory urban renewal process. Land Use Policy, v. 88, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104150.
OPRICOVIC, S. (1998) Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 302 p.
OPRICOVIC, S.; TZENG, G-H. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, v. 156, n. 2, p. 445-455, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
OZKAYA, G.; ERDIN, C. Evaluation of smart and sustainable cities through a hybrid MCDM approach based on ANP and TOPSIS technique. Heliyon, v. 6, n. 10, 2020, e05052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05052.
PALIT, T.; MAINULBARI, A. B. M.; KARMAKER, C. L. An integrated Principal Component Analysis and Interpretive Structural Modeling approach for electric vehicle adoption decisions in sustainable transportation systems. Decision Analytics Journal, v. 4, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100119.
PAMUCAR, D.; DEVECI, M.; STEVIĆ, Z.; GOKASAR, I.; ISIK, M.; COFFMAN, D. Green Strategies in Mobility Planning Towards Climate Change Adaption of Urban Areas Using Fuzzy 2D Algorithm. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 87, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104159.
PAMUCAR, D.; DEVECI, M.; GOKASAR, I.; IŞIK, M.; ZIZOVIC, M. Circular economy concepts in urban mobility alternatives using integrated DIBR method and fuzzy Dombi CoCoSo model. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 323, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129096.
PARDO-BOSCH, F.; AGUADO, A.; PINO, M. Holistic model to analyze and prioritize urban sustainable buildings for public services. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 44, p. 227-236, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.028.
PAZ; T. S. R; CAIADO, R. G. G.; QUELHAS; O. L. G.; GAVIÃO, L. O.; LIMA, G. B. A. Assessment of sustainable development through a multi-criteria approach: Application in brazilian municipalities. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 282, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111954.
PETERSON, J; FEARCE, P. F.; FERGUSON, L. A.; LANGFORD, C. A. Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose and process. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practionres, v. 29, n. 1, p. 12-16, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12380.
PHAM, M. T., RAJIC, A., GREIG, J. D., SARGEANT, J. M., PAPADOPOULOS, A., & MCEWEN, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, v. 5, n. 4, p. 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123.
RAHEJA, S.; OBAIDAT, M. S.; KUMAR, M.; SADOUN, B.; BHUSHAN, S. A hybrid MCDM framework and simulation analysis for the assessment of worst polluted cities. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, v. 118, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102540.
RAHIMI, S.; HAFEZALKOTOB, A.; MONAVARI, S. M.; HAFEZALKOTOB, A.; RAHIMI, R. Sustainable landfill site selection for municipal solid waste based on a hybrid decision-making approach: Fuzzy group BWM-MULTIMOORA-GIS. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 248, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119186.
RAHMAN, M. H.; ASHIK, F. R.; MOULI, M. J. Investigating spatial accessibility to urban facility outcome of transit-oriented development in Dhaka. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, v. 14, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100607.
REZAEI, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, v. 53, p. 49-57, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
RODRIGUES, M.; FRANCO, M. Measuring the urban sustainable development in cities through a Composite Index: The case of Portugal. Sustainable Development, v. 28, n. 4, p. 507-520, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2005.
ROY, B. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiplex. Revue Française d’automatique, d’informatique et de Recherche Opérationnelle, v. 2, n. V1, p. 57-75, 1968.
ROY, B; BERTIER, P. M. La methode ELECTRE II: Une methode de classement en presence de criteres multiples. Paris: SEMA (Metra International), Paris, 1971.
SAATY, T. L. WHAT IS THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS?. NATO ASI Series, Vol. F48 Mathematical Models for Decision Support. Edited by G. Mitra © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 1988. https://www.springer.com/series/2255.
SAATY, T. L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, v. 1 n. 1, p. 83-98, 2008. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
SAATY, R. W. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, v. 9, n. 3-5, p. 161-176, 1987.
SANTOS, R. L; NUNES, F. G.; SANTOS, A. M. Qualidade ambiental do município de Imperatriz-MA: uma análise multicritério de indicadores intra-urbanos. Revista Caminhos de Geografia, v. 21, n. 78, p. 1-20, 2020. http://doi.org/10.14393/RCG217850883.
São José Dos Campos - Prefeitura (SJC-Pref). São José é certificada como a 1ª Cidade Inteligente do Brasil. (2022). Available: https://www.sjc.sp.gov.br/noticias/2022/dezembro/30/sao-jose-e-certificada-como-a-1%C2%AA-cidade-inteligente-do-brasil/.
SILVA, R. R.; SANTOS, G. D.; SETTI, D. A multi-criteria approach for urban mobility project selection in medium-sized cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 86, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104096.
SCIENCE DIRECT (SD). Website. Available: www.sciencedirect.com.
TOBER, M. PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus or Google Scholar-Which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine? Med Laser Appl., v. 26, n. 3, p. 139-144, 2011. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mla.2011.05.006.
United Nations Development Programme – UNDP. Sustainable Development Goals. (2023). Available: https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals.
United Nations – UN. Sustainable Development Goals - Cites. (2023). Available: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/.
VALENCIA, A.; QIU, J.; CHANG, N. Integrating sustainability indicators and governance structures via clustering analysis and multicriteria decision making for an urban agriculture network. Ecological Indicators, v. 142, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109237.
VAVREK, R.; CHOVANCOVÁ, J. Assessment of economic and environmental energy performance of EU countries using CV-TOPSIS technique. Ecological Indicators, v. 106, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105519.
WALTMAN, L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, v. 10, n. 2, 365-391, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.
World Concil On City Open Data Portal. WCCD. (2023). Available: https://www.dataforcities.org/.
XU, X.; ZHANG, Z.; LONG, L.; SUN, S.; GAO, J. Mega-city region sustainability assessment and obstacles identification with GIS–entropy–TOPSIS model: A case in Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 294, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126147.
YANG, W.; ZHANG, J. Assessing the performance of gray and green strategies for sustainable urban drainage system development: A multi-criteria decision-making analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 293, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126191.
YANNIS, G.; KOPSACHEILI, A.; DRAGOMANOVITS, A.; PETRAKI, V. State-of-the-art review on multi-criteria decision-making in the transport sector. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), v. 7, n. 4, p. 413-431, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2020.05.005.
YE, Y.; QUIU, H. Environmental and social benefits, and their coupling coordination in urban wetland park. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, v. 60, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127043.
YAZDANI, M., ZARATE, P., KAZIMIERAS ZAVADSKAS, E. AND TURSKIS, Z. (2019), "A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for Multi-criteria decision-making problems", Management Decision, v. 57 n. 9, p. 2501-2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458.
YI, P.; LI, W.; ZHANG, D. Analysis, prioritization and strategic planning of flood mitigation projects based on sustainability dimensions and a spatial/value AHP-GIS system. Expert Systems with Applications, v. 211, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125369.
YI, P.; LI, W.; ZHANG, D. Sustainability assessment and key factors identification of first-tier cities in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 281, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125369.
YI, P.; DONG, Q.; LI, W. Evaluation of city sustainability using the deviation maximization method. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 50, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101529.
YOON, K.P.; HWANG C. L. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction, v. 104, Sage publications, 1995. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985161.
ZABIHI, H.; ALIZADEH, M.; WOLF, I. D.; KARAMI, M.; AHMAD, A.; SALAMIAN, H. A GIS-based fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) for ecotourism suitability decision making: A case study of Babol in Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives, v. 36, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100726.
ZAVADSKAS, E. K.; ANTUCHEVICIENE, J.; HAJIAGHA, S. H. R.; HASHEMI, S.S. Extension of weighted aggregated sum product assessment with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (WASPAS-IVIF). Applied Soft Computing, v. 24, p. 1013-1021, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.08.031.
ZAVADSKAS, E. K.; Turskis, Z; Antucheviciene, J.; Zakarevicius, A. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, v. 122, n. 6, p. 3-6, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810.
ZHAO, K.; JIANG, Z.; LI, D.; GE, J. Outdoor environment assessment tool for existing neighbourhoods based on the multi-criteria decision-making method. Building and Environment, v. 209, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108687.
ZHOU, G.; GU, Y.; YUAN, H.; GONG, Y.; WU, Y. Selecting sustainable technologies for disposal of municipal sewage sludge using a multi-criterion decision-making method: A case study from China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 161, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104881.
ZHU, S.; LI, D.; FENG, H. Is smart city resilient? Evidence from China. Sustainable Cities and Society. v. 50, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101636.
