Evaluation of Sustainability Performance of Cities with A Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making Method

Öz

Cities, where humans generally live together with economic, social and environmental activities, have lots of damages to nature. To be able to prevent these damages it is needed to make cities more sustainable. In this research, it is aimed to evaluating sustainability performances of 9 cities of Turkey using with one of the multi-criteria decision making techniques. 11 criterias which are chosen from environment, energy and socio-economy branches are weightened based on expert judgements. These weight values with values of cities among the criterias have been used in the FAHP (Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process)  method which be able to getting rid of uncertainties easier than multi criteria decision making methods and it is provided that the result found out. Between the criterias based on expert judgements Unhappines have been calculated as the most determinative criteria. Between the cities had been evaluated Afyonkarahisar have been calculated as the city having the best score of sustainability performance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• FAHP,Multi-Criteria Decision Making(MCDM),Sustainability Performance,Socio-economy

ŞEHİRLERİN SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSLARININ BİR BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME TEKNİĞİ İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Ekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel aktiviteleri ile insanların genel olarak birlikte yaşadıkları alanlar olan şehirlerin doğaya çok sayıda zararı bulunmaktadır. Bu zararların önlenebilmesi için şehirlerin daha sürdürülebilir hale getirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin 9 şehrinin sürdürülebilirlik performanslarının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden birinin kullanılarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çevre, enerji ve sosyoekonomi alanlarından seçilen 11 kriter, uzman görüşlerine bağlı olarak ağırlıklandırılmıştır. Bu ağırlık değerleri illerin kriterlere göre verileri ile çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerine göre aralık değerlendirme yapılarak belirsizliklerin daha kolay ortadan kaldırılabildiği BAHP (Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi) yönteminde kullanılmış ve sonucun bulunması sağlanmıştır. Uzman görüşlerine bağlı olarak kriterler arasından en belirleyici öneme sahip olan kriter “mutsuzluk” olarak hesaplanmıştır. Değerlendirilen iller arasından en iyi sürdürülebilirlik performansına sahip olan il Afyonkarahisar olarak hesaplanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• BAHP,Çok Kriterli Karar Verme(ÇKKV),Sürdürülebilirlik Performansı,Sosyoekonomi

Kaynakça

1. Achillas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Karagiannidis, A., Banias, G., Perkoulidis, G., 2013, The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: a literature review, Waste Management & Research, 31 (2): 115-129.
2. Arslan, T., Khisty, C.J., 2005, A rational reasoning method from fuzzy perceptions in route choise, Fuzzy Sets And Systems, 150 (3): 419-435.
3. Baky, I.A., 2009, Fuzzy goal programming algorithm for solving decentralized bi-level multi-objective programming problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 160 (18): 2701-2713.
4. Baycan-Levent, T., Vreeker, R., Nijkamp, P., 2009, A multi-criteria evaluation of green spaces in European cities, European Urban and Regional Studies, 16(2): 193-213.
5. Baykal, N., Beyan, T., 2004, Bulanık mantık: ilke ve temelleri, Bıçaklar Kitabevi, Ankara.
6. Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A., 1970, Decision making in a fuzzy invoronment, Management Science, 17 (4): 141-164.
7. Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F. E., & Giacchetta, G. (2012). Design for environment as a tool for the development of a sustainable supply chain (p. 383). New York: Springer.
8. Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Cañal-Fernández, V., 2012, A fuzzy multi-objective approach for sustainable investments, Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (12): 10904-10915.

9. Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C.M.T., Campos, L.M.S., 2016, Identification and analysis of reverse logistics barriers using fuzzy Delphi method and AHP, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 108 (2016): 182–197.
10. Buckley, J.J., 1985, Ranking alternatives using fuzzy members, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 15 (1): 21–31.
11. Byun, D.H., The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model, Information & Management, 38 (5): 289-297.
12. Chandran, B., Golden, B., Wasil, E., 2005, Linear programming models for estimating weights in the analytic hierarchy process, Computers & Operations Research, 32 (9): 2235–2254.
13. Chang, D.S., Chen, S.H., Hsu, C.W., Hu, A.H., Tzeng, G.H., 2015, Evaluation framework for alternative fuel vehicles: sustainable development perpective, MDPI Journals of Sustainability 2015, 7, 11570-11594.
14. Chang, D.Y., 1996, Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 95 (3): 649-655.
15. Cilliers, E.J., Timmermans, W., Van den Goorbergh, F., Slijkhuis, J., 2015, Green place-making in practice: from temporary spaces to permanent places, Journal of Urban Design, 20 (3): 349-366.
16. Çitli, N., 2006, Bulanık çok kriterli karar verme, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
17. Deng, H., 1999, “Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison”, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21(3), 215-231.
18. Ecer, F., Küçük, O., Tedarikçi seçiminde analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi ve bir uygulama, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11 (1): 355-369.
19. Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2011). A dynamic modeling approach to highway sustainability: Strategies to reduce overall impact. Transportation Research Part A, 46(7), 1086–1096.
20. Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2013). Sustainability assessment of U.S. manufacturing sectors: An economic input output-based frontier approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 53, 91–102.
21. Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., & Bhutta, M. K. S (2014). Supply chain sustainability assessment of the U.S. food manufacturing sectors: A life cyclebased frontier approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 82, 8–20.
22. Egilmez, G., & Park, Y. S. (2014). Transportation related carbon, energy and water footprint analysis of U.S. manufacturing: An eco-efficiency assessment. Transportation Research Part D, 32(October), 143–159.
23. Egilmez, G., Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., 2015, Environmental sustainability benchmarking of the U.S. and Canada metropoles: An expert judgment-based multi-criteria decision making approach, Cities 42, 31-41.
24. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2013). Environmental indicators. Green communities. http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/indicator.htm.
25. Evren, R., Ülengin, F. (1992), Yönetimde Çok Amaçlı Karar Verme, İTÜ Yayınlan, İstanbul.
26. Güngör, İ., Büyüker İşler, D., 2005, Analitik hiyerarşi yaklaşımı ile otomobil seçimi, Zonguldak Karaelmas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1 (2): 21-33.
27. Hsu, C.W., Kuo, T.C., Shyu, G.S., Chen, P.S., 2014, Low carbon supplier selection in hotel industry, MDPI Journals of Sustainability 2014, 6, 2658-2684.
28. Hu, K.H., Chen, F.H., Tzeng, G.H., 2016, Evaluating the improvement of sustainability of sports industry policy based on MADM, MDPI Journals of Sustainability 2016, 8, 606.
29. Ignatius, J., Rahman, A., Yazdani, M., Šaparauskas, J., Haron, S.H., 2016, An integrated fuzzy ANP-QFD approach for green building assessment, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 22 (4): 551-563.
30. IPCC (2007a). Climate change 2007: synthesis report, intergovernmental panel on climate change, IPCC (2007b). Third Assessment Report Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Annex I, Glossary, 941-953.
31. Kahn, M.E. Green Cities: Urban Growth and the Environment; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
32. Kahraman, C., Ulukan, Z., Tolga, E., 1998, “A fuzzy weighted evaluation method using objective and subjective measures”, Proceedings of the International ICSC Symposium on Engineering of Intelligent Systems, 1, 57-63.
33. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., Ulukan, Z., 2003, Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP, Logistics Information Management, 16 (6): 382-394.
34. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., Ruan, D., 2004, Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey, International Journal of Production Economics, 87 (2): 171-184.
35. Kaplan, S., 2007, Hava savunma sektörü tezgah yatırım projelerinin bulanık AHP ile değerlendirilmesi, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
36. Karakaşoğlu, N., 2008, Bulanık çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve uygulama, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.
37. Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2013). Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(5), 958–972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0545-9 .
38. Kucukvar, M., Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2014, Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method, Automation in Construction, 40 (2014) 33-43.
39. Kumar, D., Katoch, S.S., 2015, Sustainability assessment and ranking of run of the river (RoR) hydropower projects using analytical hierarchy process (AHP): a study from Western Himalayan Region of India, Journal of Mountain Science 12 (5): 1315-1333.
40. Kuo, R.J., Chi, S.C., Kao, S.S., 2002, “A decision support system for selecting convenience store location through integration of fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network”, Computers in Industry, 47(2), 199-214.
41. Kuo, T.C., Chia, W.H., Li, J.Y., 2015, Developing a green supplier selection model by using the DANP with VIKOR, MDPI Journals of Sustainability 2015, 7, 1661-1689.
42. Kwiesielewicz, M., Uden, E.V., 2004, Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in the AHP, Computers & Operations Research, 31 (5): 713-719.
43. Laininen, P., Hamalainen, R.P., 2003, Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression. European Journal of Operational Research, 148, 514-524.
44. Lu, I.Y., Kuo, T., Lin, T.S., Tzeng, G.H., Huang, S.L., 2016, Multicriteria decision analysis to develop effective sustainable development strategies for enhancing competitive advantages: case of the TFT-LCD industry in Taiwan, MDPI Journals of Sustainability 2016, 8, 646.
45. McNeill, F.M., Thro, E., 1994, Fuzzy logic: a practical approach, Academic Press, London.
46. Moreno Pires, S., Fidélis, T., & Ramos, T. B. (2014). Measuring and comparing local sustainable development through common indicators: Constraints and achievements in practice. Cities, 39, 1–9.
47. 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.
48. Olewiler, N. (2006). Environmental sustainability for urban areas: The role of natural capital indicators. Cities, 23(3), 184–195.
49. O’neil, J.A., Gallagher, C.E., 2014, Determining what is important in terms of the quality of an urban green network: a study of urban planning in England and Scotland, Planning, Practice & Research, 29 (2): 202-216.
50. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü, İllere Göre Orman Varlığı, https://www.ogm.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Ormanlarimiz/Illere-Gore-Orman-Varligi.aspx, [Ziyaret Tarihi: 1 Aralık 2017].
51. Paksoy, T., Yapıcı Pehlivan, N., Özceylan, E. 2013, Bulanık Küme Teorisi, Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara, 195-296.
52. Roy, B., 1996, Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
53. Saaty, T.L., 1980, The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
54. Saaty, T. L., 2001, Decision making with dependence and feedback-the analytic network process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA.
55. Saaty, T.L., Özdemir M.S., 2003, Why the magic number seven plus or minus two, Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 38 (3-4): 233–244.
56. Scholl, A., Laura, M., Roland, H., Michael, S., 2005, Solving multi attribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: an empirical comparison, European Journal of Operational Research, 164 (3): 760-777.
57. Shen, L., Peng, Y., Zhang, X., Wu, Y., 2012, An alternative model for evaluating sustainable urbanization, Cities29(1): 32-39.
58. Triantaphyllou, E., Lin, C.-T., 1996, Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning,14: 281-310.
59. Tsai, W.H., Lin, S.J., Lee, Y.F., Chang, Y.C., Hsu, J.L., 2013, Construction method selection for green building projects to improve environmental sustainability by using an MCDM approach, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56 (10): 1487-1510.
60. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Temel İstatistikler, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temellist, [Ziyaret Tarihi: 1 Aralık 2017].
61. Türk Toraks Derneği Güz Sempozyumu, Hava Kirliliği ve Akciğer Sağlığı, http://www.ttdhavakirliligi.org/, [Ziyaret Tarihi: 24 Kasım 2017].
62. United Nations, 2007, Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, third ed. United Nations Publication, New York.
63. Van Laarhoven, P.J.M., Pedrcyz, W.A., 1983, Fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11 (1-3): 229–241.
64. Wątróbski, J., Ziemba, P., Jankowski, J., Zioło, M., 2016, Green energy for a green city-a multi-perspective model approach, MDPI Journals of Sustainability 2016, 8,702.
65. Weck, M., Klocke, F., Schell, H., Rüenauver, E., 1997, “Evaluating alternative production cycles using the extended fuzzy AHP method”, European Journal of Operational Research, 100(2), 351- 366.
66. Yan, A.T., Lai, M.J., Lin, C.Y., 2014, An evaluation model for improving green building by integrating DEMATEL based ANP and VIKOR, 2014 International Symposium on Computer, Consumer and Control.
67. Zahedi, F., 1987, A utility approach to the with analytic hierarchy process, Mathematical Modeling, 9 (3-5): 387-395.
68. Zanakis, S.H. , Solomon, A. ,Wishart, N., Dublish, S., 1998, Multi-attribute decision making: Asimulation comparison of select methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 107: 507–529.
69. Zhang, L., Xu, Y., Yeh, C.H., Liu, Y., Zhou, D., 2016, City sustainability evaluation using multi-criteria decision making with objective weights of interdependent criteria, Journal of Cleaner Production, 131 (2016): 491-499.
70. Zhang, X., Xu, Z., Liu, M., 2016, Hesitant trapezoidal fuzzy QUALIFLEX method and its application in the evaluation of green supply chain initiatives, MDPI Journals of Sustainability 2016, 8, 952.
71. Zhao, H., Li, N., 2016, Optimal siting of charging stations for electric vehicles based on fuzzy delphi and hybrid multi-criteria decision making approaches from an extended sustainability perspective, MDPI Journals of Energy 2016, 9,270.