Advertisement

Spatial Multicrierial Evaluation of Soil Consumption as a Tool for SEA

  • Pasquale Balena
  • Valentina Sannicandro
  • Carmelo Maria Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8581)

Abstract

The paper represent a check of the use of multicriteria evaluation in order to add a qualitative evaluation to the traditional quantitative measure of the sustainability of soil consumption. The experiment starts analysing all deriving measure from measures of different typology of soil consumption and land use as criteria to evaluate which part of urbanised land is more expendable for land transformation.

This application results quite interesting when utilised to create a set of indicators useful for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), as instrument of measuring impact and of monitoring future urban development

The work is subdivided at the urban scale in three different stages. The setting of measures, the creation of complex indicators as basis for evaluation criteria, the classification of priority n soil consumption. Results show the opportunity of densification inside existing settlements, but they extend the utility of the evaluation in profiling measures for tegional policies of containment of soil consumption.

Keywords

Smoothing TDR Densification Electre SMCA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Funtowicz, S.O., Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., Ravetz, J.R.: Information tools for environmental policy under conditions of complexity, Bruxelles. EC Environmental Issues Series, vol. 9 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murgante, B., Las Casas, G., Sansone, A.: A spatial rough set for locating the periurban fringe. Revue des nouvelles technologies de l’information 857, 101–125 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balena, P., Sannicandro, V., Torre, C.M.: Spatial Analysis of Soil Consumption and as Support to Transfer Development Rights Mechanisms. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Carlini, M., Torre, C.M., Nguyen, H.-Q., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2013, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 7974, pp. 587–599. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim, D., Batty, M.: Modeling Urban Growth: An Agent Based Microeconomic Approach to Urban Dynamics and Spatial Policy Simulation, CASA Working Paper 165. UCL Press, London (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torre, C.M., Balena, P., Zito, R.: An Automatic Procedure to Select Areas for Transfer Development Rights in the Urban Market. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Misra, S., Nedjah, N., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7333, pp. 583–598. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levinson, A.: Why Oppose TDRs: Transferable Development Rights Can Increase Overall Development. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27, 283–296 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Machemer, P.L., Kaplowitz, M.D.: A Framework for Evaluating Transferable Development Rights Programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45(6), 773–795 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conrad, J.M., LeBlanc, D.: The Supply of Development Rights: Results from a Survey in Hadley, Massachusetts. Land Economics 55, 269–276 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daniels, T.L.: The Purchase of Development Rights: Preserving Agricultural Land and Open Space. Journal of the American Planning Association 57, 421–431 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cerreta, M., De Toro, P.: Assessing urban transformations: A SDSS for the master plan of Castel Capuano, Naples. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Misra, S., Nedjah, N., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7334, pp. 168–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cerreta, M., Mele, R.: A landscape complex value map: integration among soft values and hard values in a spatial decision support. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Misra, S., Nedjah, N., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7334, pp. 653–669. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roy, B.: The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE Methods. Theory and Decision 31, 49–73 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Attardi, R., De Rosa, F., Di Palma, M., Piscitelli, C.: A Multi-criteria and Multi-group Analysis for Historic District Quality Assessment. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Carlini, M., Torre, C.M., Nguyen, H.-Q., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2013, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 7974, pp. 541–555. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Torre, C.M., Selicato, M.: The support of multidimensional approaches in integrate monitoring for SEA: A case of study. Earth Syst. Dynam. 4, 51–61 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fusco, G.L.: Sustainability, creativity, resilience: toward new development strategies of port areas through evaluation processes. International Journal of Sustainable Development 13(1-2:), 161–184 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pasquale Balena
    • 1
  • Valentina Sannicandro
    • 1
  • Carmelo Maria Torre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and ArchitecturePolytechnic of BariBariItaly

Personalised recommendations