4.6 Article

A portfolio approach for the selection and the timing of urban planning projects

Journal

SOCIO-ECONOMIC PLANNING SCIENCES
Volume 75, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2020.100908

Keywords

Multiple objectives optimization; Portfolio decision analysis; Urban planning; Scheduling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces a model to support organizations in making urban planning decisions, optimizing conflicting objectives by selecting and timing multiple urban development projects to meet current and future requirements, considering qualitative performances and different scenarios. Through a case study of the execution of the Master Plan of the University of Portsmouth, the versatility of the model and its ability to successfully handle complex decisions are demonstrated.
This paper presents a model to support organizations dealing with urban planning decisions. In particular, we deal with the selection and the timing of several projects that can be realised within an urban development project with the aim of optimizing conflicting objectives. The available resources should be allocated in an acceptable way and current and future requirements must be met. In addition, projects can be characterized by qualitative performances and different scenarios can be considered. The model can be handled with different methods. Given its participatory features, it seems that an interactive multiobjective optimization methodology is the most appropriate approach, since the decision maker can express his opinion throughout the resolution process. We present how the model can work through the description of an application based on the execution of the Master Plan of the University of Portsmouth, one of the most fast progressing University in UK. We show the versatility of the model and how it can successfully handle such complex decisions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available