IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i8p1489-d1203999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Evaluation of Land Use Planning Alternatives Based on GIS-ANP

Author

Listed:
  • Zizhan Jiang

    (Big Data and Artificial Intelligence School, Anhui Institute of Information Technology, Wuhu 241199, China)

  • Burrell Montz

    (Department of Geography, Planning, & Environment, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA)

  • Thomas Vogel

    (Department of Coastal Studies, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA)

Abstract

Planning alternatives evaluation is often influenced by the evaluator’s background knowledge and preferences, and its objectivity is hard to guarantee. A comprehensive evaluation method combining Geographic Information System (GIS) with system analysis technology is proposed in this paper. Using a land use issue in America as an example, GIS was combined with Fuzzy Logic, and the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method was used to evaluate three planning alternatives. The evaluation value of each qualitative index was obtained by Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation, and the quantitative index value was calculated by GIS algorithms. A weighted hypermatrix of ANP network was constructed to reveal the overall relative importance weight of alternatives. The results indicate that, in this case study, the factor weight rankings that influenced the selection of the land use alternative are Ecological factors (above 40%), socioeconomic factors (30%), Physical and Chemical factors (10–17%), and cumulative related factors (10%). In the long run, choices of planning alternatives will greatly affect the natural environment, the physical and chemical environment, and the social economy. The results indicate planners have to pay attention to a wide range of both qualitative and quantitative factors as much as possible in land use decisions. This study illustrates how the GIS-ANP method combine qualitative and quantitative factors in planning for a comprehensive analysis, thus improving the objectivity of evaluating land use planning alternatives and determining the importance of influencing factors. Future work aims to optimize the evaluation index system of planning, and measure index values in a more precise way.

Suggested Citation

  • Zizhan Jiang & Burrell Montz & Thomas Vogel, 2023. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Land Use Planning Alternatives Based on GIS-ANP," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:8:p:1489-:d:1203999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/8/1489/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/8/1489/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Van de Kerk, Geurt & Manuel, Arthur R., 2008. "A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The SSI -- the Sustainable Society Index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 228-242, June.
    2. Xinghua Feng & Chunliang Xiu & Jianxin Li & Yexi Zhong, 2021. "Measuring the Evolution of Urban Resilience Based on the Exposure–Connectedness–Potential (ECP) Approach: A Case Study of Shenyang City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Hannah Kosow & Sandra Wassermann & Stephan Bartke & Paul Goede & Detlef Grimski & Ines Imbert & Till Jenssen & Oliver Laukel & Matthias Proske & Jochen Protzer & Kim Philip Schumacher & Stefan Siedent, 2022. "Addressing Goal Conflicts: New Policy Mixes for Commercial Land Use Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-26, May.
    4. Harald Zepp & Luis Inostroza, 2021. "Who Pays the Bill? Assessing Ecosystem Services Losses in an Urban Planning Context," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Marull, Joan & Padró, Roc & La Rota-Aguilera, María José & Pino, Joan & Giocoli, Annalisa & Cirera, Jacob & Ruiz-Forés, Núria & Coll, Francesc & Serrano-Tovar, Tarik & Velasco-Fernández, Raúl, 2023. "Modelling land use planning: Socioecological integrated analysis of metropolitan green infrastructures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    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. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Anna Murawska & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Małgorzata Zajdel & Małgorzata Michalcewicz-Kaniowska, 2020. "Multidimensional Analysis of the Relationship between Sustainable Living Conditions and Long and Good Health in the European Union Countries," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 716-735.
    3. Mihaela Muresan & Emilia Gogu, 2013. "Factors to Overcome the Economic Crisis and to Support the Sustainable Development from the Citizens’ Perspective," Knowledge Horizons - Economics, Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy Bucharest,"Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University Bucharest, vol. 5(4), pages 25-35, December.
    4. Kılıç, Merve & Kuzey, Cemil & Uyar, Ali, 2021. "An international investigation on assurance of integrated reports: Institutions, assurance quality, and assurers," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    5. Hui Xu & Shuxiu Li & Yongtao Tan & Bin Xing, 2022. "Comprehensive Resilience Assessment of Complex Urban Public Spaces: A Perspective of Promoting Sustainability," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    6. Ravishankar Sharma & Aijaz A. Shaikh & Stephen Bekoe & Gautam Ramasubramanian, 2021. "Information, Communications and Media Technologies for Sustainability: Constructing Data-Driven Policy Narratives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Jason Phillips, 2024. "Quantifying the levels, nature, and dynamics of sustainability for the UK 2000–2018 from a Brundtland perspective," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17905-17939, July.
    8. Ahmad Mohd Khalid & Seema Sharma & Amlendu Kumar Dubey, 2020. "Data Gap Analysis, Indicator Selection and Index Development: A Case for Developing Economies," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 893-960, April.
    9. Giannetti, B.F. & Almeida, C.M.V.B. & Bonilla, S.H., 2010. "Comparing emergy accounting with well-known sustainability metrics: The case of Southern Cone Common Market, Mercosur," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3518-3526, July.
    10. Pingtao Yi & Weiwei Li & Lingyu Li, 2018. "Evaluation and Prediction of City Sustainability Using MCDM and Stochastic Simulation Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Haya Al-Ajlani & Luc Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2020. "Does Well-Being Vary with an Individual-Specific Weighting Scheme?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(5), pages 1285-1302, November.
    12. O'Neill, Daniel W., 2012. "Measuring progress in the degrowth transition to a steady state economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 221-231.
    13. Isabel Gallego-Álvarez & Mª Galindo-Villardón & Miguel Rodríguez-Rosa, 2015. "Analysis of the Sustainable Society Index Worldwide: A Study from the Biplot Perspective," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 29-65, January.
    14. Janina Jędrzejczak-Gas & Anetta Barska & Joanna Wyrwa, 2021. "Economic Development of the European Union in the Relation of Sustainable Development—Taxonomic Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.
    15. Fusco, Elisa & Maggi, Bernardo & Rizzuto, Livia, 2022. "Alternative indicators for the evaluation of renewables in Europe: An efficiency approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 48-65.
    16. J. Kevin Summers & Lisa M. Smith & Linda C. Harwell & Jason L. Case & Christina M. Wade & Kendra R. Straub & Heather M. Smith, 2014. "An Index of Human Well-Being for the U.S.: A TRIO Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-21, June.
    17. Jones, Michael John, 2010. "Accounting for the environment: Towards a theoretical perspective for environmental accounting and reporting," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 123-138.
    18. Umberto Lucia & Debora Fino & Giulia Grisolia, 2022. "A thermoeconomic indicator for the sustainable development with social considerations," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2022-2036, February.
    19. Ahmad M. Khalid & Seema Sharma & Amlendu K. Dubey, 2018. "Developing an indicator set for measuring sustainable development in India," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(3), pages 185-200, August.
    20. Keihan Hassanzadehkermanshahi & Sara Shirowzhan, 2022. "Measuring Urban Sustainability over Time at National and Regional Scale for Addressing United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11: Iran and Tehran as Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-25, June.

    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:8:p:1489-:d:1203999. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.