Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels
Achieving a good urban form has been a problem since the formation of the earliest cities. The tendency of human populations toward living in urban environments and urbanization has made the quality of life more prominent. This article aimed to calculate the quality of life in an objective way. For...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sustainability 2021-04, Vol.13 (7), p.4067 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 4067 |
container_title | Sustainability |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Vakilipour, Samira Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem Ghodousi, Mostafa Choi, Soo-Mi |
description | Achieving a good urban form has been a problem since the formation of the earliest cities. The tendency of human populations toward living in urban environments and urbanization has made the quality of life more prominent. This article aimed to calculate the quality of life in an objective way. For this purpose, the technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), vlseKriterijumsk optimizacija kompromisno resenje (VIKOR), simple additive weighted (SAW), and elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE) have been utilized. Quality of life was assessed at three spatial levels. In this regard, socioeconomic, environmental, and accessibility dimensions were considered. As a result, in the first level of comparison, sub-districts in District 6 were ranked higher than that of District 13. On the second level, for District 6, vicinity sub-districts had higher rankings than the center, and for District 13, sub-districts near the center of the city had higher rankings. In the third level, District 6 had a higher quality of life. The results of the comparison between research methods showed that the SAW method performs better in terms of stability. Based on the results of correlation tables, there was a strong and direct relationship between each pair of methods at three spatial levels. In addition, as the study area became smaller, the similarity between the methods increased. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3390/su13074067 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2562195781</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2562195781</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-ca469e729c51ef6d924d3a764251ae4dcc32403486203fb2dd18e5ad771f4913</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkF1LwzAUhoMoOHQ3_oKAd0I1X22WS-nmB3SIuPuSNScus2tqkk73792YoOfmPbw8nAMPQleU3HKuyF0cKCdSkEKeoBEjkmaU5OT0336OxjGuyX44p4oWI_Rd-k2vg4u-w0tIXwAdng9tclkZXILgNJ5C46LzXTbXH657x3NIK28i1p3Bs61uB50OdVoBfh1069IOe4srZwHrhKfOWgjQJfzW70Hd4gq20MZLdGZ1G2H8mxdo8TBblE9Z9fL4XN5XWcNUnrJGi0KBZKrJKdjCKCYM17IQLKcahGkazgThYlIwwu2SGUMnkGsjJbVCUX6Bro9n--A_B4ipXvshdPuPNcsLRlUuJwfq5kg1wccYwNZ9cBsddjUl9cFt_eeW_wBLmmwd</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2562195781</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><creator>Vakilipour, Samira ; Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem ; Ghodousi, Mostafa ; Choi, Soo-Mi</creator><creatorcontrib>Vakilipour, Samira ; Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem ; Ghodousi, Mostafa ; Choi, Soo-Mi</creatorcontrib><description>Achieving a good urban form has been a problem since the formation of the earliest cities. The tendency of human populations toward living in urban environments and urbanization has made the quality of life more prominent. This article aimed to calculate the quality of life in an objective way. For this purpose, the technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), vlseKriterijumsk optimizacija kompromisno resenje (VIKOR), simple additive weighted (SAW), and elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE) have been utilized. Quality of life was assessed at three spatial levels. In this regard, socioeconomic, environmental, and accessibility dimensions were considered. As a result, in the first level of comparison, sub-districts in District 6 were ranked higher than that of District 13. On the second level, for District 6, vicinity sub-districts had higher rankings than the center, and for District 13, sub-districts near the center of the city had higher rankings. In the third level, District 6 had a higher quality of life. The results of the comparison between research methods showed that the SAW method performs better in terms of stability. Based on the results of correlation tables, there was a strong and direct relationship between each pair of methods at three spatial levels. In addition, as the study area became smaller, the similarity between the methods increased.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/su13074067</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Air pollution ; Data envelopment analysis ; Decision making ; Environmental quality ; Human populations ; Methods ; Multiple criterion ; Outdoor air quality ; Principal components analysis ; Quality assessment ; Quality of life ; Research methods ; Similarity ; Socioeconomic factors ; Sustainability ; Sustainable development ; Urban environments ; Urban planning ; Urban populations ; Urbanism ; Urbanization</subject><ispartof>Sustainability, 2021-04, Vol.13 (7), p.4067</ispartof><rights>2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-ca469e729c51ef6d924d3a764251ae4dcc32403486203fb2dd18e5ad771f4913</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-ca469e729c51ef6d924d3a764251ae4dcc32403486203fb2dd18e5ad771f4913</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6710-1434 ; 0000-0002-0048-8216</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vakilipour, Samira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghodousi, Mostafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Soo-Mi</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels</title><title>Sustainability</title><description>Achieving a good urban form has been a problem since the formation of the earliest cities. The tendency of human populations toward living in urban environments and urbanization has made the quality of life more prominent. This article aimed to calculate the quality of life in an objective way. For this purpose, the technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), vlseKriterijumsk optimizacija kompromisno resenje (VIKOR), simple additive weighted (SAW), and elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE) have been utilized. Quality of life was assessed at three spatial levels. In this regard, socioeconomic, environmental, and accessibility dimensions were considered. As a result, in the first level of comparison, sub-districts in District 6 were ranked higher than that of District 13. On the second level, for District 6, vicinity sub-districts had higher rankings than the center, and for District 13, sub-districts near the center of the city had higher rankings. In the third level, District 6 had a higher quality of life. The results of the comparison between research methods showed that the SAW method performs better in terms of stability. Based on the results of correlation tables, there was a strong and direct relationship between each pair of methods at three spatial levels. In addition, as the study area became smaller, the similarity between the methods increased.</description><subject>Air pollution</subject><subject>Data envelopment analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Environmental quality</subject><subject>Human populations</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Multiple criterion</subject><subject>Outdoor air quality</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Research methods</subject><subject>Similarity</subject><subject>Socioeconomic factors</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Sustainable development</subject><subject>Urban environments</subject><subject>Urban planning</subject><subject>Urban populations</subject><subject>Urbanism</subject><subject>Urbanization</subject><issn>2071-1050</issn><issn>2071-1050</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkF1LwzAUhoMoOHQ3_oKAd0I1X22WS-nmB3SIuPuSNScus2tqkk73792YoOfmPbw8nAMPQleU3HKuyF0cKCdSkEKeoBEjkmaU5OT0336OxjGuyX44p4oWI_Rd-k2vg4u-w0tIXwAdng9tclkZXILgNJ5C46LzXTbXH657x3NIK28i1p3Bs61uB50OdVoBfh1069IOe4srZwHrhKfOWgjQJfzW70Hd4gq20MZLdGZ1G2H8mxdo8TBblE9Z9fL4XN5XWcNUnrJGi0KBZKrJKdjCKCYM17IQLKcahGkazgThYlIwwu2SGUMnkGsjJbVCUX6Bro9n--A_B4ipXvshdPuPNcsLRlUuJwfq5kg1wccYwNZ9cBsddjUl9cFt_eeW_wBLmmwd</recordid><startdate>20210401</startdate><enddate>20210401</enddate><creator>Vakilipour, Samira</creator><creator>Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem</creator><creator>Ghodousi, Mostafa</creator><creator>Choi, Soo-Mi</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6710-1434</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-8216</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210401</creationdate><title>Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels</title><author>Vakilipour, Samira ; Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem ; Ghodousi, Mostafa ; Choi, Soo-Mi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-ca469e729c51ef6d924d3a764251ae4dcc32403486203fb2dd18e5ad771f4913</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Air pollution</topic><topic>Data envelopment analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Environmental quality</topic><topic>Human populations</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Multiple criterion</topic><topic>Outdoor air quality</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Research methods</topic><topic>Similarity</topic><topic>Socioeconomic factors</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Sustainable development</topic><topic>Urban environments</topic><topic>Urban planning</topic><topic>Urban populations</topic><topic>Urbanism</topic><topic>Urbanization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vakilipour, Samira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghodousi, Mostafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Soo-Mi</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vakilipour, Samira</au><au>Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem</au><au>Ghodousi, Mostafa</au><au>Choi, Soo-Mi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels</atitle><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle><date>2021-04-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>4067</spage><pages>4067-</pages><issn>2071-1050</issn><eissn>2071-1050</eissn><abstract>Achieving a good urban form has been a problem since the formation of the earliest cities. The tendency of human populations toward living in urban environments and urbanization has made the quality of life more prominent. This article aimed to calculate the quality of life in an objective way. For this purpose, the technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), vlseKriterijumsk optimizacija kompromisno resenje (VIKOR), simple additive weighted (SAW), and elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE) have been utilized. Quality of life was assessed at three spatial levels. In this regard, socioeconomic, environmental, and accessibility dimensions were considered. As a result, in the first level of comparison, sub-districts in District 6 were ranked higher than that of District 13. On the second level, for District 6, vicinity sub-districts had higher rankings than the center, and for District 13, sub-districts near the center of the city had higher rankings. In the third level, District 6 had a higher quality of life. The results of the comparison between research methods showed that the SAW method performs better in terms of stability. Based on the results of correlation tables, there was a strong and direct relationship between each pair of methods at three spatial levels. In addition, as the study area became smaller, the similarity between the methods increased.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/su13074067</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6710-1434</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-8216</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2071-1050 |
ispartof | Sustainability, 2021-04, Vol.13 (7), p.4067 |
issn | 2071-1050 2071-1050 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2562195781 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |
subjects | Air pollution Data envelopment analysis Decision making Environmental quality Human populations Methods Multiple criterion Outdoor air quality Principal components analysis Quality assessment Quality of life Research methods Similarity Socioeconomic factors Sustainability Sustainable development Urban environments Urban planning Urban populations Urbanism Urbanization |
title | Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T02%3A11%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20between%20Multi-Criteria%20Decision-Making%20Methods%20and%20Evaluating%20the%20Quality%20of%20Life%20at%20Different%20Spatial%20Levels&rft.jtitle=Sustainability&rft.au=Vakilipour,%20Samira&rft.date=2021-04-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=4067&rft.pages=4067-&rft.issn=2071-1050&rft.eissn=2071-1050&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/su13074067&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2562195781%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2562195781&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |