IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v4y2019i2p83-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Liveable Cities for Older People in an Urban District in Turkey Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process

Author

Listed:
  • Ercüment Aksoy

    (Department of Geographical Information System, Akdeniz University, Turkey)

  • Nilufer Korkmaz-Yaylagul

    (Department of Gerontology, Akdeniz University, Turkey)

Abstract

The key concepts availability and accessibility have been taken into consideration in urban studies as well as the health and social aspects of ageing. These terms are in close relation with the “active ageing”, “age-friendly city” and “liveable city” concepts. These concepts were created by the UN, the World Health Organization, and other institutions aiming to increase the quality of life of older individuals and to regulate their living environments in an optimal way for an active and independent life. Improving accessibility and availability of facilities for older people in urban areas is crucial to ensure that older people are able to meet their own needs as well as prevent their exclusion from society. The planning of cities that prevents the social exclusion of older people and provides an independent way of living is the main objective of the concept of liveable cities. From this point of view, this study aims to evaluate the existing opportunities in an urban area in the context of liveability. Out of the multi-criteria decision-making models, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and geographic information systems (GIS) were therefore used in this research. Three main districts of Kepez, with the highest population of older individuals, have been chosen. According to the findings of the study, the weight of health services has the highest score compared to other criteria. The liveability scores and grading of the districts were obtained using the AHP matrix. In the study, it was concluded that a multi-criteria analysis could be carried out with quantitative data. The real land use and the close environment of the research area should also be considered in the evaluation process.

Suggested Citation

  • Ercüment Aksoy & Nilufer Korkmaz-Yaylagul, 2019. "Assessing Liveable Cities for Older People in an Urban District in Turkey Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 83-95.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:4:y:2019:i:2:p:83-95
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/1943
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Szell, 2018. "Crowdsourced Quantification and Visualization of Urban Mobility Space Inequality," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-20.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    3. Szell, Michael, 2018. "Crowdsourced Quantification and Visualization of Urban Mobility Space Inequality," SocArXiv je5r4, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olga Tzanni & Paraskevas Nikolaou & Stella Giannakopoulou & Apostolos Arvanitis & Socrates Basbas, 2022. "Social Dimensions of Spatial Justice in the Use of the Public Transport System in Thessaloniki, Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Johannes Wachs & Mih'aly Fazekas & J'anos Kert'esz, 2019. "Corruption Risk in Contracting Markets: A Network Science Perspective," Papers 1909.08664, arXiv.org.
    3. Sebastian Weise & Alexander Wilson & Geoff Vigar, 2020. "Reflections on Deploying Community-Driven Visualisations for Public Engagement in Urban Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 59-70.
    4. Giulia Reggiani & Trivik Verma & Winnie Daamen & Serge Hoogendoorn, 2023. "A multi-city study on structural characteristics of bicycle networks," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(8), pages 2017-2037, October.
    5. Kassens-Noor, Eva & Dake, Dana & Decaminada, Travis & Kotval-K, Zeenat & Qu, Teresa & Wilson, Mark & Pentland, Brian, 2020. "Sociomobility of the 21st century: Autonomous vehicles, planning, and the future city," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 329-335.
    6. Montaña Jiménez-Espada & Francisco Manuel Martínez García & Rafael González-Escobar, 2022. "Urban Equity as a Challenge for the Southern Europe Historic Cities: Sustainability-Urban Morphology Interrelation through GIS Tools," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Ajit Singh & Gabriela Christmann, 2020. "Citizen Participation in Digitised Environments in Berlin: Visualising Spatial Knowledge in Urban Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 71-83.
    8. De Gruyter, Chris & Zahraee, Seyed Mojib & Young, William, 2022. "Understanding the allocation and use of street space in areas of high people activity," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Gössling, Stefan & Humpe, Andreas & Hologa, Rafael & Riach, Nils & Freytag, Tim, 2022. "Parking violations as an economic gamble for public space," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 248-257.
    10. Nicolas Palominos & Duncan A Smith, 2023. "Examining the geometry of streets through accessibility: new insights from streetspace allocation analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(8), pages 2203-2219, October.
    11. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    12. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    13. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    14. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    15. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    16. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    17. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    18. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    19. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    20. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:4:y:2019:i:2:p:83-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.