Territorial Planning: Interactive Multi-Criteria Decision for Urban Patterns. Case Study: Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46661/revmetodoscuanteconempresa.2630Keywords:
ordenamiento territorial, poblamiento, decisión multicriterio, política demográfica, desarrollo sostenible, territorial planning, settlement, multi-criteria decision, demographic policy, sustainable developmentAbstract
The goal of this paper is to analyze the local government's perception about the significance of a discrete multi-criteria method for assessing proposals for urban expansion (PUE). The study case was performed, by using PROMETHEE method, in Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina. The decision matrix consists of five PUEs: one corresponding to a sparse settlement, trend PUE1, and four for compact settlements, PUE2, PUE3, PUE4 and PUE5, where seven criteria are considered: "Loss of Agricultural Income" (LAI), "Population", "Loss of Ecosystem Services" (LES), "Investment Costs in Road Infrastructure" (Road-IC), "Urban Solid Waste Collection" (USWC), "Range of Public Service Networks" and "Political-Institutional Effort" (PIE). Local government's preferences were disclosed by means of a workshop where: the decision matrix was analyzed; and the relative significance that government members assign to each criterium was asked. Results show that PUE4 and PUE2 were considered in the most selected proposals. In comparison with PUE1, PUE4 saves $162 millions (due to a lower LAI and Road-IC); it requires 35% less in Range of Networks and 11% less in USWC, although this is the PUE that requires a significantly greater {\it PIE}. When considering {\it PUE2}, this option saves $196 millions and requires 51% less in Range of Networks and 37% in USWC. However, PUE2 imposes the greatest PIE in relation with PUE1 and houses less inhabitants than PUE4. Government members attach much importance to an approach based on the multi-criteria method to decide a vision of the territory for the future.
Downloads
References
Angel, S.; Parent, J.; Civco, D. L. y Blei, A. (2011). Making Room for a Planet of Cities. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Antón, J. M.; Grau, J. B.; Cisneros, J. M.; Tarquis, A. M.; Laguna, F. V.; Cantero, J. J. y Sánchez, E. (2016). Discrete multi-criteria methods for lands use and conservation planning on La Colacha in Arroyos Menores (Río Cuarto, Province of Córdoba, Argentina). Annals of Operations Research, 245(1-2), 315-336.
Behzadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R. B.; Albadvi, A. y Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 198-215.
Brans, J.-P. y Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. In J. Figueira, S. Greco y M. Ehrgott (eds.): Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (Vol. 78, pp. 163-195): Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carruthers, J. I. y Ulfarsson, G. F. (2003). Urban sprawl and the cost of public services. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(4), 503-522.
Carruthers, J. I., y Ulfarsson, G. F. (2008). Does “Smart Growth” Matter to Public Finance? Urban Studies, 45(9), 1791-1823.
De Prada, J. D.; Degioanni, A.; Cisneros, J. M.; Galfioni, M. A. y Cantero G. A. (2012). Diseño y evaluación de propuestas de ordenamiento de territorio: La urbanización sobre tierras rurales. XLIII Reunión Anual Asociación Argentina de Economía Agraria, Corrientes, Argentina.
Delgadino, F.; Rodriguez, J. M.; Albrisi, S.; Mosquera, M.; Rubinstein, H.; Moiso, E.; Arranz, P.; Brarda, J.P. y Speranza, P. (2011). Proyecto Córdoba 2025. Resumen Ejecutivo. Córdoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Instituto de Investigación de Servicios Públicos e Infraestructura y Camara Argentina de la Construcción.
Domínguez Serrano, M.; Blancas Peral, F. J.; Guerrero Casas, F. M. y González Lozano, M. (2011). Una revisión crítica para la construcción de indicadores sintéticos. Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa, 11, 41-70.
EEA (2006). Urban sprawl in Europe – The ignored challenge. Copenhague: European Environment Agency.
FAO (2017). FAOSTAT: Población estimada y proyecciones. Revisión año 2015. Recuperado a 04/09/2017 de http://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/OA.
Gaffron, P.; Huismans, G. y Skala, F. (2008). Proyecto Ecocity. Manual para el diseño de ecociudades en Europa. Libro I La ecociudad: Un lugar mejor para vivir. Bilbao: Centro Documentación Estudios para la Paz.
Gómez Orea, D. (2008). Ordenación Territorial (2ª ed.). Madrid: Mundi-Prensa S.A.
Inostroza, L.; Baur, R. y Csaplovics, E. (2013). Urban sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: A dynamic quantification and characterization of spatial patterns. Journal of Environmental Management, 115(30), 87-97.
López, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and risk for being overweight or obese. American Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 1574-1579.
Matteucci, S. y Morello, J. (2009). Environmental consequences of exurban expansion in an agricultural area: the case of the Argentinian Pampas ecoregion. Urban Ecosystems, 12(3), 287-310.
Matus, C. (2008). El lider sin estado mayor. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de la Matanza.
Morello, J.; Buzai, G. D.; Baxendale, C. A.; Matteucci, S. D.; Rodríguez, A. F.; Godagnone, R. E. y Casas, R. (2000). Urbanización y consumo de tierra fértil. Revista Ciencia Hoy, 10(55), 50-61.
Resnik, D. B. (2010). Urban Sprawl, Smart Growth, and Deliberative Democracy. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10), 1852-1856.
Romero, C. (1996). Análisis de las decisiones multicriterio (4 ed.). Madrid: Isdefe.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
Stone, B. (2008). Urban sprawl and air quality in large US cities. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(4), 688-698.
Vacik, H.; Kurttila, M.; Hujala, T.; Khadka, C.; Haara, A.; Pykäläinen, J.; Wolfslehner, B. y Tikkanen, J. (2014). Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-based planning in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 144, 304-315
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Submission of manuscripts implies that the work described has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere and that, in case of acceptance, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the copyright to the Journal for its publication and dissemination. Authors retain the authors' right to use and share the article according to a personal or instutional use or scholarly sharing purposes; in addition, they retain patent, trademark and other intellectual property rights (including research data).
All the articles are published in the Journal under the Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike). It is allowed a commercial use of the work (always including the author attribution) and other derivative works, which must be released under the same license as the original work.
Up to Volume 21, this Journal has been licensing the articles under the Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA 3.0 ES. Starting from Volume 22, the Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA 4.0 is used.