Designing streets for people: a multicriteria decision-making study
Abstract
Designing Streets for People involves selecting appropriate materials, determining the optimal configuration, and finding the best solution based on technical criteria for urban structures. This paper aims to identify the best solution by comparing two multicriteria decision-making methods: the WISP (Weighted Sum-Product) and AHP-Gaussian, which represents a recent algorithm for the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) decision- making. We created a matrix with eight factors (cost, braking distance, lifetime, sidewalk width, carbon footprint, electricity consumption, and pavement temperature) to choose between four pavement options (concrete and asphalt with different sidewalk widths). The WISP recommended a concrete pavement and 2.0-meter sidewalk. The least viable option was asphalt pavement with a 1.2-meter sidewalk, due to its higher carbon footprint (12%), increased air temperatures (10%), and greater public lighting expenses (11%). WISP allows for assigning weights to criteria with robustness, computational effectiveness, and transparency. Conversely, AHP-Gaussian incorporates a sensitivity feature that lets decision-makers assign weights based on statistical analysis. Despite each method's limitations, both are suitable for urban projects, estimating decisions based on multiple technical aspects, thereby promoting more integrated and efficient choices.
References
Aboelata, A. (2021). Reducing Outdoor Air Temperature, Improving Thermal Comfort, and Saving Buildings’ Cooling Energy Demand in Arid Cities-Cool Paving Utilization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 68, 102762.
ADB – Asian Development Bank (2010). Methodology for estimating carbon footprint of road projects-case study: India. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines.
Apolinário, B.S., & Kowalski, L.F. (2023). Evaluation of the thermal performance of EPS core panels: A multicriteria approach. Journal of Building Engineering, 76, 107157.
Bellman, R.E., & Zadeh, L.A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17 (4), 141-164.
Boix-Cots, D., Pardo-Bosch, F., Blanco, A., Aguado, A., & Pujadas, P. (2022). A systematic review on MIVES: A sustainability-oriented multi-criteria decision-making method. Building and Environment, 223, 109515.
Carli, R., Dotoli, M., & Pellegrino, R. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable metropolitan cities assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 226, 46-61.
Da Silva, R.R., Santos, G.D., & Setti, D. (2022). A multi-criteria approach for urban mobility project selection in medium-sized cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 86, 104096.
Demircan, B.G., & Yetilmezsoy, K. (2023). A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies. Sustainability, 15 (8) 6526.
Gilani, G., Hosseini, S.A., Pons-Valladares, O., & De La Fuente, A. (2022). An enhanced multi-criteria decision-making approach oriented to sustainability analysis of building facades: A case study of Barcelona. Journal of Building Engineering, 54, 104630.
Gupta, A., Castro-Fresno, D., Lastra-Gonzalez, P., & Rodriguez-Hernandez, J. (2021). Selection of fibers to improve porous asphalt mixtures using multi-criteria analysis. Construction and Building Materials, 266, 121198.
Jato-Espino, D., Rodriguez-Hernandez, J., Andrés-Valeri, V.C., & Ballester-Muñoz, F. (2014). A fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria model for the selection of urban pervious pavements. Expert Systems with Application, 41 (15), 6807–6817.
Kutty, A.A., Kucukvar, M., Onat, N.C., Ayvaz, B., & Abdella, G.M. (2023). Measuring sustainability, resilience and livability performance of European smart cities: A novel fuzzy expert-based multi-criteria decision support model. Cities, 137, 104293.
Li, H. (2016). Pavement materials for heat island mitigation: design and management strategies (1. ed). Elsevier Inc.
Loss, C.F. (2018). Application of the multi-criteria decision support method when choosing urban pavements: case study in São Carlos/SP (Doctoral dissertation) (in Portuguese). Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil.
Moreira, M.Â.L., Santos, M., & Gomes, C.F.S. (2021). Gaussian AHP Software Web (v.1). 2021. Retrieved from: https://decision-making.shinyapps.io/gaussian_ahp/.
Nesticò, A., & De Mare, G. (2018). A multi-criteria analysis model for investment projects in smart cities. Environments, 5 (4), 50.
Pamučar, D.S., Božanić, D., & Ranđelović, A. (2017). Multi-criteria decision making: An example of sensitivity analysis. Serbian journal of management, 12 (1), 1-27.
Pomerantz, M., Akbari, H., & Harvey J. (2000). Cooler reflective pavements give benefits beyond energy savings: durability and illumination. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
Pujadas, P., Cavalaro, S.H.P., & Aguado, A. (2018). MIVES multi-criteria assessment of urban-pavement conditions: application to a case study in Barcelona. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 20 (8), 1827-1843.
Puška, A., Beganović, A.I., & Šadić, S. (2018). Model for investment decision making by applying the multi-criteria analysis method. Serbian Journal of Management, 13 (1), 7-28.
Rodrigues, M., Ferreira, F., & Ferreira, N. (2023). Constructing smarter and more sustainable urban ecosystems: a dynamic analysis of challenges and initiatives. Annals of Operations Research, 1-41.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). Multicriteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting resource allocationMcGraw-Hill, New York.
Santos, M. d., Araujo Costa, I.P., & Gomes, C.F.S. (2021). Multicriteria decision-making in the selection of warships: a new approach to the AHP method. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 13 (1), 147-169.
Silva, B. (2023). WISP Calculator. shinyapps.io. Retrieved from: https://bernardosilva.shinyapps.io/rwisp/.
Simjanović, D.J., Vesić, N.O., Zdravković, N., & Šibalija, T. (2023). Applying AHP to Smart City Development: Mobility, Healthcare, and Education. In Advanced Engineering Optimization Through Intelligent Techniques: Select Proceedings of AEOTIT 2022. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore. 369-376.
Singh, M., & Pant, M. (2021). A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 12, 126-144.
Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., Karabasevic, D., Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I., & Ulutaş, A. (2023). An Integrated Simple Weighted Sum Product Method - WISP. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70 (5), 1933-1944.
Stanujkić, D., Karabašević, D., Popović, G., Zavadskas, E. K., Saračević, M., Stanimirović, P. S., Ulutaş, A., Katsikis, V.N., & Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I. (2021). Comparative analysis of the simple WISP and some prominent MCDM methods: A python approach. Axioms, 10 (4), 347.
Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., Karabašević, D., & Popović, G. (2022). A new integrated multi-criteria decision-making model for sustainable supplier selection based on a novel grey WISP and grey BWM methods. Sustainability, 14 (24), 16921.
Zhu, S., & Mai, X. (2019). A review of using reflective pavement materials as mitigation tactics to counter the effects of urban heat island. Advanced Composites and Hybrid Materials, 2 (3), 381-388.
The Author wishes to submit the Work to SJM for publication. To enable SJM to publish the Work and to give effect to the parties’ intention set forth herein, they have agreed to cede the first right to publication and republication in the SJM Journal.
Cession
The Author hereby cedes to SJM, who accepts the cession, to the copyright in and to the paper.
The purpose of the cession is to enable SJM to publish the Work, as first publisher world-wide, and for republication in the SJM Journal, and to grant the right to others to publish the Work world-wide, for so long as such copyright subsists;
SJM shall be entitled to edit the work before publication, as it deems fit, subject to the Authors approval
The Author warrants to SJM that:
- the Author is the owner of the copyright in the Work, whether as author or as reassigned from the Author’s employee and that the Author is entitled to cede the copyright to SJM;
- the paper (or any of its part) is not submitted or accepted for publication in any other Journal;
- the Work is an original work created by the Author;
- the Author has not transferred, ceded, or assigned the copyright, or any part thereof, to any third party; or granted any third party a licence or other right to the copyright, which may affect or detract from the rights granted to SJM in terms of this agreement.
The Author hereby indemnifies the SJM as a body and its individual members, to the fullest extent permitted in law, against all or any claims which may arise consequent to the warranties set forth.
No monetary consideration shall be payable by SJM to the Author for the cession, but SJM shall clearly identify the Author as having produced the Work and ensure that due recognition is given to the Author in any publication of the Work.
Should SJM, in its sole discretion, elect not to publish the Work within 1 year after the date of this agreement, the cession shall lapse and be of no further effect. In such event the copyright shall revert to the Author and SJM shall not publish the Work, or any part thereof, without the Author’s prior written consent.