IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i5p601-d1386360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Evaluation of Sustainable Development Projects in Marginal Areas: An A’WOT Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Rubina Canesi

    (Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering (ICEA), University of Padova, Via Venezia 1, 35131 Padova, Italy)

  • Chiara D’Alpaos

    (Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering (ICEA), University of Padova, Via Venezia 1, 35131 Padova, Italy)

Abstract

The increasing urbanization trend, projected to reach 70% of the global population residing in cities by 2050, underscores the pivotal role of cities in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015) and combating climate change. Nonetheless, the 2023 report by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN Habitat) reveals an alarming gap in achieving SDG 11 “Sustainable cities and communities” by 2030. This gap highlights the urgent need for transformative shifts in urban policies and investments to prevent cities from becoming centers of global disparities, including socio-economic inequalities, digital divide, and spatial fragmentation, particularly in marginal areas. Marginal areas suffer indeed from conditions of sub-optimality in planning capacity, valuable decision-making, and project implementation. The inadequate planning, management, and governance of marginal areas, coupled with suboptimal investments, can severely compromise their socioeconomic condition. Planning efforts frequently fall short in achieving long-term sustainability goals due to localized and short-sighted decision-making processes, particularly evident in marginal areas. It is crucial, though, to support their public administrations in the achievement of the SDG 11 targets and in their responsive participation in the calls for the allocation of public funding. In this paper, we provide a theoretical and methodological approach to evaluate urban regeneration projects in marginal areas. In detail, we develop an A’WOT approach, which combines a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to rank alternative urban development projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Rubina Canesi & Chiara D’Alpaos, 2024. "The Evaluation of Sustainable Development Projects in Marginal Areas: An A’WOT Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:601-:d:1386360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/601/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/601/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    2. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    3. Kurttila, Mikko & Pesonen, Mauno & Kangas, Jyrki & Kajanus, Miika, 2000. "Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis -- a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 41-52, May.
    4. Xu, Z., 2000. "On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 683-687, November.
    5. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2004. "Preferences for multi-attributed alternatives: Traces, Dominance, and Numerical Representations," Post-Print hal-00004104, HAL.
    6. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2004. "Preferences for multi-attributed alternatives: Traces, Dominance, and Numerical Representations," Post-Print hal-00004104, HAL.
    7. Grošelj, Petra & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2012. "Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 417-420.
    8. Maria Rosa Trovato & Salvatore Giuffrida & Giuseppe Collesano & Ludovica Nasca & Filippo Gagliano, 2023. "People, Property and Territory: Valuation Perspectives and Economic Prospects for the Trazzera Regional Property Reuse in Sicily," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-38, March.
    9. Andrea Sarcina & Rubina Canesi, 2023. "Renewable Energy Community: Opportunities and Threats towards Green Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    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. Chiara D’Alpaos & Maria Rosa Valluzzi, 2020. "Protection of Cultural Heritage Buildings and Artistic Assets from Seismic Hazard: A Hierarchical Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    3. Grabisch, Michel & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Meyer, Patrick, 2008. "A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 766-785, April.
    4. Grabisch, Michel, 2006. "Representation of preferences over a finite scale by a mean operator," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 131-151, September.
    5. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    6. Baffoe, Gideon, 2019. "Exploring the utility of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in ranking livelihood activities for effective and sustainable rural development interventions in developing countries," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 197-204.
    7. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    8. B. Domenech & L. Ferrer-Martí & R. Pastor, 2022. "Multicriteria analysis of renewable-based electrification projects in developing countries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(2), pages 1375-1401, May.
    9. Michel Grabisch & Salvatore Greco & Marc Pirlot, 2008. "Bipolar and bivariate models in multi-criteria decision analysis: descriptive and constructive approaches," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00340374, HAL.
    10. Virgilio López-Morales & Joel Suárez-Cansino, 2017. "Reliable Intervals Method in Decision-Based Support Models for Group Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 183-204, January.
    11. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Pelegrina, Guilherme Dean & Duarte, Leonardo Tomazeli & Grabisch, Michel & Romano, João Marcos Travassos, 2020. "The multilinear model in multicriteria decision making: The case of 2-additive capacities and contributions to parameter identification," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(3), pages 945-956.
    13. Patrick Meyer & Grégory Ponthière, 2011. "Eliciting Preferences on Multiattribute Societies with a Choquet Integral," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 133-168, February.
    14. Rico, Margarita & González, Andrés, 2015. "Social participation into regional forest planning attending to multifunctional objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 27-34.
    15. Mikhail Timonin, 2015. "Axiomatization of the Choquet integral for 2-dimensional heterogeneous product sets," Papers 1507.04167, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2016.
    16. Ali Azarnivand & Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib, 2017. "A Multi-level Strategic Group Decision Making for Understanding and Analysis of Sustainable Watershed Planning in Response to Environmental Perplexities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 629-648, May.
    17. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    18. L. N. Pradeep Kumar Rallabandi & Ravindranath Vandrangi & Subba Rao Rachakonda, 2016. "Improved Consistency Ratio for Pairwise Comparison Matrix in Analytic Hierarchy Processes," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 33(03), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Marta Bottero & Chiara D’Alpaos & Alessia Marello, 2020. "An Application of the A’WOT Analysis for the Management of Cultural Heritage Assets: The Case of the Historical Farmhouses in the Aglié Castle (Turin)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Virgilio López-Morales, 2018. "A Reliable Method for Consistency Improving of Interval Multiplicative Preference Relations Expressed under Uncertainty," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1561-1585, 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:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:601-:d:1386360. 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.