AKILLI MEGA ŞEHİRLERİ SIRALAMAK VE TEMEL PERFORMANS GÖSTERGELERİNİ TANIMLAMAK İÇİN BİR ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME MODELİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, akıllı mega şehirlerin (AMŞ) karşılaştırılmasını ve değerlendirme kriterlerinin sıralanmasını kolaylaştırmak için entegre ve yenilikçi bir yaklaşım geliştirmektir. Yaklaşımı tasarlamak için kullanılan metodoloji, CRITIC ve CODAS tekniklerine dayanmaktadır. Bu yöntemde akıllı şehir kavramını etkileyen kriterlerin her bir maddesinin önem derecesi objektif bir ağırlıklandırma yöntemi olan CRITIC ile belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra, akıllı şehir kavramlarını ne ölçüde benimsediklerini belirlemek için CODAS tekniği kullanılarak mega şehirler karşılaştırılmıştır. Mevcut çalışmada, 32 AMŞ 4 ana alanda ve 20 alt kategoride karşılaştırıldı. Analize göre önem sırasısı en yüksek kriter mobilite ve aktivite (0.32) iken, onu sağlık ve güvenlik (0.313), fırsatlar (0.198) ve yönetişim (0.168) takip etmektedir. En fazla ağırlığa sahip alt kategoriler, vatandaşların fazla eşyalarını kolayca bağışlayabilmelerini sağlayan bir web sitesi/uygulaması (0.076), trafik durumu hakkında çevrimiçi bilgi (0,073) ve iş fırsatlarına çevrimiçi erişim (0.062) olmuştur. Ayrıca akıllı şehir konseptini uygulayan en başarılı mega şehirlerin Pekin ve Hangzhou olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışma, akıllı şehir planlamasını desteklemek için önerilen ampirik bir değerlendirme metodolojisi olması açısından literatürde öncü sayılma potansiyeline sahiptir. Bulgular, akıllı şehir konseptinin benimsenmesine rehberlik edebilecek doğru, objektif ve güvenilir veriler sağlar. Ek olarak, mega şehirlerin akıllı özellikleri keşfedilecek ve mevcut durum gözden geçirilerek kalkınma yoluna genel bir bakış sağlanacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akıllı Şehir
• Çok Kriterli Analiz
• Temel Göstergeler
• Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri
• Sürdürülebilirlik

A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR RANKING SMART MEGACITIES AND DEFINING THEIR KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Öz

The aim of this study was to develop an integrated and innovative approach to facilitate the ranking of evaluation criteria used to assess and compare smart megacities (SMCs). The methodology used to design the approach was based on Criteria Importance through CRITIC and CODAS. In this method, the degree of importance of each item of the criteria affecting the concept of a smart city was determined by CRITIC, an objective weighting method. Then, megacities can be compared using the CODAS technique to determine the extent to which they have adopted smart city concepts. In the current study, 32 SMCs were compared in four main areas and 20 subcategories. An analysis of the order of importance given to each area found that mobility and activities (0.32) was highest, followed closely by health and safety (0.313), opportunities (0.198), and governance (0.168). The subcategories with the greatest weight were the availability of a website/application that enables citizens to easily donate surplus items (0.076), online information about traffic conditions (0.073), and online access to job opportunities (0.062). In addition, it was determined that the most successful megacities applying the smart city concept are Beijing and Hangzhou. This study has the potential to be considered a pioneer in the literature in terms of the proposed methodology for an empirical evaluation to support smart megacity planning. Its findings provide accurate, objective, and reliable data that can guide the adoption of the smart city concept. In addition, the smart features of megacities will be explored and the current situation reviewed to provide an overview of the development path.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Smart City
• Multi-Criteria Analysis
• Key Indicators
• Information and Communication Technology
• Sustainability

Kaynakça

1. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3-21.
2. Akiyode, O. O. (2010). Urban Environmental Security in Developing Economy Mega-City: A Case Study of Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12(5), 294-304.
3. Barrionuevo, J. M., Berrone, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2012). Smart Cities, Sustainable Progress: Opportunities for Urban Development. IESE Insight, 14, 50-57.
4. Büyüközkan, G., & Mukul, E. (2019). Evaluation of smart city logistics solutions with fuzzy MCDM methods. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 25(9), 1033-1040.
5. Camero, A., & Alba, E. (2019). Smart City and information technology: A review. Cities, 93, 84-94.
6. Charalabidis, Y., & Theocharopoulou, C. (2019). A participative method for prioritizing smart city interventions in medium-sized municipalities. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA), 6(1), 41-63.
7. Chiroli, D. M. D. G., Solek, É. A., Oliveira, R. S., Barboza, B. M., Campos, R. P. D., Kovaleski, J. L., ... & Trojan, F. (2022). Using multi-criteria analysis for smart city assessment. Cidades. Comunidades e Territórios, (44).
8. Cui, H. Y., & Cao, Y. Q. (2022). Do smart cities have lower particulate matter 2.5 (PM2. 5)? Evidence from China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 86, 104082.

9. Cui, Q., Chen, R., Wei, R., Hu, X., & Wang, G. (2023). Smart Mega-City Development in Practice: A Case of Shanghai, China. Sustainability, 15(2), 1591.
10. Gouveia, J. P., Seixas, J., & Giannakidis, G. (2016, April). Smart city energy planning: integrating data and tools. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, 345-350.
11. Hajduk, S. (2021). Multi-criteria analysis of smart cities on the example of the Polish cities. Resources, 10(5), 44.
12. Hoang, G., Dupont, L., & Camargo, M. (2019). Application of decision-making methods in smart city projects: a systematic literature review. Smart Cities, 2(3), 433-452.
13. Lim, Y., Edelenbos, J., & Gianoli, A. (2019). Identifying the results of smart city development: Findings from systematic literature review. Cities, 95, 102397.
14. Lundqvist, J., Appasamy, P., & Nelliyat, P. (2003). Dimensions and approaches for Third World city water security. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1440), 1985-1996.
15. Mallapuram, S., Ngwum, N., Yuan, F., Lu, C., & Yu, W. (2017, May). Smart city: The state of the art, datasets, and evaluation platforms. In 2017 IEEE/ACIS 16th International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS), 447-452.
16. Milošević, M. R., Milošević, D. M., Stević, D. M., & Stanojević, A. D. (2019). Smart city: Modeling key indicators in Serbia using IT2FS. Sustainability, 11(13), 3536.
17. Ozkaya, G., & Erdin, C. (2020). Evaluation of smart and sustainable cities through a hybrid MCDM approach based on ANP and TOPSIS technique. Heliyon, 6(10), e05052.
18. Pellicer, S., Santa, G., Bleda, A. L., Maestre, R., Jara, A. J., & Skarmeta, A. G. (2013, July). A global perspective of smart cities: A survey. In 2013 Seventh International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing, 439-444.
19. Picioroagă, I. I., Eremia, M., & Sănduleac, M. (2018, October). SMART CITY: Definition and evaluation of key performance indicators. In 2018 Iinternational Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE), 217-222.
20. Rani, R. (2021). Wildfire Risk Prediction for a Smart City. Master’s Theses. Department Of Computer Science, San José State University.
21. Rondini, A., Lagorio, A., Pinto, R., & Pezzotta, G. (2018). A multi-criteria decision making approach for prioritising product-service systems implementation in smart cities. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 17(4), 415-446.
22. Sisman, S., & Aydinoglu, A. C. (2020). Using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis techniques in the smart cities. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences 382-389.
23. Tadić, S., Krstić, M., Kovač, M., & Brnjac, N. (2022). Evaluation of Smart City Logistics Solutions. Promet-Traffic&Transportation, 34(5), 725-738.
24. Urfalı, T., & Eymen, A. (2020). Determining smart intersections for smart city applications using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 44, 405-412.
25. Wu, Y. J., & Chen, J. C. (2021). A structured method for smart city project selection. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 101981.
26. Wu, H. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Chen, Y. H. (2009). A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 10135-10147.
27. Yeh, A. G., Yang, F. F., & Wang, J. (2015). Producer service linkages and city connectivity in the mega-city region of China: A case study of the Pearl River Delta. Urban Studies, 52(13), 2458-2482.
28. Zapolskytė, S., Burinskienė, M., & Trépanier, M. (2020). Evaluation criteria of smart city mobility system using MCDM method. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 15(4), 196-224.