4.7 Article

Using multi-criteria analysis for the identification of spatial land-use conflicts in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 112-121

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029

关键词

Multi-criteria analysis; Land-use conflicts; Spatial indicators; Urban development indicators; Bucharest Metropolitan Area

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Research through the Young Research Teams [PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0285]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The appearance of land-use conflicts represents one of the expressions of the increasing human pressure on the environment, especially in complex metropolitan areas. We used a multi-criteria analysis applied in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area to create a tool for integrating land-use conflicts into the strategies for territory planning at the metropolitan level. We selected ten main criteria for the analysis, divided them into two categories, i.e., spatial indicators and urban development indicators, and standardized their values. Using the method of pair-wise comparison with an expert-opinion system, we determined the relative importance of each criterion in the form of a criteria weight. The spatial indicators reveal high probabilities for land-use conflicts in the proximity of Bucharest (range: 7.19-52.48), whereas urban development indicators show a scattered spatial distribution of land-use conflicts (range: 10.00-30.01). The variability of the total score for the spatial indicators is greater than that of the urban development indicators (standard error of 0.64 > 0.30, respectively). The total scores reveal local administrative units characterized by a critical or high incidence of spatial-land use conflicts as well as their location in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Further research should concentrate on improving the expert-opinion input for assigning weights and revealing the potential for replication in other areas or on different subjects. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据