justification of the final choice. This aspect is particular clear in the application of the
DRSA method presented in Sect. 6.4.2 and in the development of the NAROR
technique illustrated in Sect. 6.4.6.
It is also worth mentioning that, despite the coherence of the results provided by a
MCDA model, the findings of the evaluation can be further verified by means of
specific sensitivity analysis that allow to test under which conditions the obtained
results are confirmed (see the example of Sect. 6.4.4).
MCDA offer also flexible frameworks for the communication of the results of the
evaluation process, making use of diagrams, charts and tables. Of particular importance is the possibility of integrating MCDA model with GIS tools that allow the
production of spatial maps (see the example of Sect. 6.4.1) able to clarify the
complexity of the reality in order to provide a rational basis for understanding
complex information and to create a common knowledge platform.
6 Conclusions
The chapter illustrates a selection of methodologies applied to seven territorial and
urban transformation projects, where the “sustainability question” challenges the
experts to provide the most appropriate methodology to support the DMs. The case
studies are real-world applications in Europe, with a scale that varies from the urban
level to the transnational one, and a large variety of realms (transport, undesirable
facilities, urban planning, energy retrofitting, real estate investments, cultural adaptive reuse and environmental systems). This variety allowed us to synthetically
discuss the possible contribution to the decision-making process of the different
MCDAs: it can be stated that all are effective (with a relevance that goes from
medium to extreme), but some are more suitable than others based on the nature of
the problem, the data available and the type of support required in the decision.
Effectiveness is also demonstrated by the fact that the MCDAs are able to tackle the
ever-wider concept of sustainability, now transversal in every decision, and present
as “the issue” in the political agendas of the whole planet.
References
Abastante, F., & Lami, I. M. (2013). An analytical model to evaluate a large scale urban design
competition. Geoingegneria Ambientale Mineraria (GEAM), 139, 27–36.
Abastante, F., & Lami, I. M. (2018). An integrated assessment framework for the requalification of
districts facing urban and social decline. Green Energy and Technology, 535–545. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-78271-3_42.
Abastante, F., Bottero, M., Greco, S., & Lami, I. M. (2012). A dominance-based rough set approach
model for selecting the location for a municipal solid waste plant. Geoingegneria Ambientale
Mineraria (GEAM), 137, 43–54.
114
I. M. Lami et al.
DRSA method presented in Sect. 6.4.2 and in the development of the NAROR
technique illustrated in Sect. 6.4.6.
It is also worth mentioning that, despite the coherence of the results provided by a
MCDA model, the findings of the evaluation can be further verified by means of
specific sensitivity analysis that allow to test under which conditions the obtained
results are confirmed (see the example of Sect. 6.4.4).
MCDA offer also flexible frameworks for the communication of the results of the
evaluation process, making use of diagrams, charts and tables. Of particular importance is the possibility of integrating MCDA model with GIS tools that allow the
production of spatial maps (see the example of Sect. 6.4.1) able to clarify the
complexity of the reality in order to provide a rational basis for understanding
complex information and to create a common knowledge platform.
6 Conclusions
The chapter illustrates a selection of methodologies applied to seven territorial and
urban transformation projects, where the “sustainability question” challenges the
experts to provide the most appropriate methodology to support the DMs. The case
studies are real-world applications in Europe, with a scale that varies from the urban
level to the transnational one, and a large variety of realms (transport, undesirable
facilities, urban planning, energy retrofitting, real estate investments, cultural adaptive reuse and environmental systems). This variety allowed us to synthetically
discuss the possible contribution to the decision-making process of the different
MCDAs: it can be stated that all are effective (with a relevance that goes from
medium to extreme), but some are more suitable than others based on the nature of
the problem, the data available and the type of support required in the decision.
Effectiveness is also demonstrated by the fact that the MCDAs are able to tackle the
ever-wider concept of sustainability, now transversal in every decision, and present
as “the issue” in the political agendas of the whole planet.
References
Abastante, F., & Lami, I. M. (2013). An analytical model to evaluate a large scale urban design
competition. Geoingegneria Ambientale Mineraria (GEAM), 139, 27–36.
Abastante, F., & Lami, I. M. (2018). An integrated assessment framework for the requalification of
districts facing urban and social decline. Green Energy and Technology, 535–545. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-78271-3_42.
Abastante, F., Bottero, M., Greco, S., & Lami, I. M. (2012). A dominance-based rough set approach
model for selecting the location for a municipal solid waste plant. Geoingegneria Ambientale
Mineraria (GEAM), 137, 43–54.
114
I. M. Lami et al.