Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for the Sustainability of Historical–Cultural Structures on the Trabzon Coastline
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Material
2.2. Method
2.2.1. Preparation of the Survey
Q = (1 − P) Percentage unpicking a choice (0.5),
d = Error margin (0.05)
2.2.2. Factor Analysis
2.2.3. Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE)
2.2.4. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
3. Results
3.1. Results of Factor, AHP and ELECTRE Analyses
3.2. Assessment of the Sub-Criteria Increasing and Decreasing Coastal Use
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Socialization (1) | ||||||||||||||
S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | Sportive Activity (2) | |||||||||
S1 | - | 1.11 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 0.93 | SA1 | SA2 | SA3 | SA4 | Visual Integrity (3) | ||||
S2 | 0.90 | - | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.86 | SA1 | - | 1.03 | 1.04 | 1.02 | VI1 | VI2 | VI3 | |
S3 | 1.01 | 1.13 | - | 0.97 | 0.75 | SA2 | 0.97 | - | 0.93 | 0.93 | VI1 | - | 1 | 1.03 |
S4 | 1.05 | 1.17 | 1.03 | - | 0.98 | SA3 | 0.96 | 1.08 | - | 0.98 | VI2 | 1 | - | 1.03 |
S5 | 1.07 | 1.19 | 1.34 | 1.02 | - | SA4 | 0.98 | 1.08 | 1.02 | - | VI3 | 0.97 | 0.97 | - |
Appendix B
Service Quality (2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
SQ1 | SQ2 | SQ3 | SQ4 | SQ5 | SQ6 | SQ7 | |||||||||||||||||||
SQ1 | - | 0.98 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.84 | 0.86 | Coast Connection (4) | |||||||||||||||||
City Promotion (1) | SQ2 | 1.2 | - | 1.03 | 1.07 | 1.15 | 1.01 | 1.03 | CC1 | CC2 | CC3 | CC4 | CC5 | ||||||||||||
CP1 | CP2 | CP3 | CP4 | SQ3 | 1.17 | 0.97 | - | 1.04 | 1.12 | 0.94 | 1 | CC1 | - | 0.94 | 0.9 | 0.96 | 1.19 | Space Utilazition (5) | |||||||
CP1 | - | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.78 | SQ4 | 1.13 | 0.94 | 0.96 | - | 1.07 | 0.94 | 0.96 | Outdoor Equipment (3) | CC2 | 1.07 | - | 0.96 | 1.02 | 1.27 | SU1 | SU2 | SU3 | |||
CP2 | 1.15 | - | 0.94 | 0.9 | SQ5 | 1.04 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.94 | - | 0.88 | 0.9 | OE1 | OE2 | CC3 | 1.11 | 1.04 | - | 0.11 | 1.32 | SU1 | - | 1.14 | 1.3 | |
CP3 | 1.23 | 1.07 | - | 0.96 | SQ6 | 1.19 | 0.99 | 1.07 | 1.06 | 1.14 | - | 1.01 | OE1 | - | 0.99 | CC4 | 1.04 | 0.98 | 0.94 | - | 1.24 | SU2 | 0.88 | - | 1.14 |
CP4 | 1.28 | 1.11 | 1.04 | - | SQ7 | 1.17 | 0.97 | 1 | 1.04 | 1.11 | 0.99 | - | OE2 | 1.01 | - | CC5 | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.81 | - | SU3 | 0.77 | 0.88 | - |
References
- Ozyurt, C. Urban life in the twentieth century. J. Balıkesir Soc. Sci. Inst. 2007, 10, 111–126. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, S.H.; Gao, Y.; Shiue, Y.C. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Sustainable Development Ability and Pathway for Major Cities in China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, K. The Image of the City; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Kaymaz, I. Urban Landscape and Identity. In Advantages in Landscape Architecture; Özyavuz, M., Ed.; INTECH: Rijeka, Croatia, 2013; pp. 739–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bille, T.; Schulze, G.G. Culture in urban and regional development. Handb. Econ. Art Cult. 2006, 1, 1051–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández, J.I.P.; García, P.J.C. Trip cultural activities and tourism expenditure in emerging urban-cultural destinations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.Y.; Mujin, Z. Historical survey and the cultivation of a new culture regarding the ecology in China’s Western Provinces. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2004, 11, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdogan, E. Environment and urban aesthetics. J. Fac. For. Bartın. 2006, 8, 68–77. [Google Scholar]
- Bazelmans, J.; Meier, D.; Nieuwhof, A.; Spek, T.; Vos, P. Understanding the cultural historical value of the Wadden Sea region. The co-evolution of environment and society in the Wadden Sea area in the Holocene up until early modern times (11,700 BC–1800 AD): An outline. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012, 68, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marroni, E.V.; Asmus, M.L. Historical antecedents and local governance in the process of public policies building for coastal zone of Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2013, 76, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gkoltsiou, A.; Terkenli, T.S.; Koukoulas, S. Landscape indicators for the evaluation of tourist landscape structure. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2013, 20, 461–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khakzad, S.; Pieters, M.; Van Balen, K. Coastal cultural heritage: A resource to be included in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 118, 110–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudel, E.; Matzarakis, A.; Koch, E. Summer Tourism in Austria and climate change. In Proceedings of the MODSIM 2007 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Christchurch, New Zealand, 22–24 December 2007; pp. 1934–1939. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, Y.; Xu, J.; Wang, Z. Spatial Equity Measure on Urban Ecological Space Layout Based on Accessibility of Socially Vulnerable Groups—A Case Study of Changting, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uzun, A. The effect of blacksea railroad on the natural coastline. J. Educ. Fac. 2000, 1, 59–80. [Google Scholar]
- Atik, M. Environmental Protection in coastal recreation sites in Antalya-Turkey. Coast. Manag. 2010, 38, 598–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, M.E.; Johnstone, R.; Robinson, J. Effects of coastal recreation on social aspects of human well-being. In Proceedings of the Coastal Zone Asia Pacific Conference 2004: Improving the Quality of Life in Coastal Areas, Brisbane, Australia, 5–9 September 2004; pp. 156–162. [Google Scholar]
- Theorell, T.; Osika, W.; Leineweber, C.; Magnusson, H.L.L.; Horwitz, E.B.; Westerlund, H. Is cultural activity at work related to mental health in employees? Int. Arch. Occuation Environ. Health 2013, 86, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ağılönü, A.; Mengütay, S. Recration service and determining model in local. J. Int. Hum. Sci. 2009, 6, 161–176. [Google Scholar]
- Ruth, M.; Baklanov, A. Urban climate science, planning, policy and investment challenges. Urban Clim. 2012, 1, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sairinen, R.; Kumpulainen, S. Assessing social impacts in urban waterfront regeneration. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2006, 26, 120–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, K.; Naylor, L.A.; Quinn, T. Making Space for Proactive Adaptation of Rapidly Changing Coasts: A Windows of Opportunity Approach. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulu, A. The effects of urban changes on urban identity. J. Plan. 2004, 3, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
- Erdogan, A.; Atabeyoglu, Ö. The effect of historical buildings on urban fabric: The sample of Kayseri city center. Turk. J. For. 2016, 17, 83–92. [Google Scholar]
- Spirou, C. Cultural policy and urban restructuring in Chicago. In Tourism Culture and Regeneration; Smith, M., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2007; pp. 123–131. [Google Scholar]
- Kennell, J. Rediscovering cultural tourism: Cultural regeneration in seaside towns. J. Town City Manag. 2010, 1, 364–380. [Google Scholar]
- Mai, T.; Smith, C. Addressing the threats to tourism sustainability using systems thinking: A case study of Cat Ba Island, Vietnam. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1504–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duong, T.M.; Ranasinghe, R.; Walstra, D.; Roelvink, D. Assessing climate change impacts on the stability of small tidal inlet systems: Why and how? Earth Sci. Rev. 2016, 154, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.; Cieszewska, A.; Castro, J. Strategic planning of forest recreation and nature tourism. In European Forest Recreation and Tourism a Handbook; Bell, S., Simpson, M., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: Oxon, MD, USA, 2009; pp. 151–177. [Google Scholar]
- Correia, A.; Kozak, M.; Ferradeira, J. Impact of culture on tourist decision-making styles. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 13, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torkildsen, G. Leisure and Recreation Management, 4th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Budd, L.; Whimster, S. Global Finance and Urban Living: A Study of Metropolitan Change; Routledge: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Kocan, N.; Ates, O. Effect of structuring the visual aspects of coastal landscape: Bartin-Inkumu example reviews. J. Gümüşhane Sci. Technol. Inst. 2011, 1, 54–56. [Google Scholar]
- Collins, D. Contesting Property Development in Coastal New Zealand: A Case Study of Ocean Beach, Hawke’s Bay. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2009, 33, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Li, S.; Guo, Z. The Evolution of the Coastal Economy: The Role of Working Waterfronts in the Alabama Gulf Coast. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4310–4322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdmann, G. The impact of tourism on coastal areas. GeoJournal 1997, 42, 39–54. [Google Scholar]
- House of Commons. Coastal Towns, Communities and Local Government Committee; Second Report of Session 2006-07; Communities and Local Government: London, UK, 2017.
- Kafali, F.Y. Marmaris (Mugla) is the example of completed evalution coast tourism. J. Soc. Sci. 2008, 10, 159–180. [Google Scholar]
- Altanlar, A.; Akıncı, K.G. A research on the attitude and expectations of tourists and citizens of the area for sustainable tourism planning: Case of Akçakoca. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 3, 39–54. [Google Scholar]
- Hahm, H.; Jeong, S.; Jeong, M.; Park, S.C. Cultural resources and management in the coastal regions along the Korean tidal flat. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 102, 506–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jennings, G. (Ed.) Water-Based Tourism, Sport, Leisure, and Recreation Experiences; Taylor and Francis: Oxon, MD, USA, 2007; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Uslu, A.; Kiper, T. Effects of tourism on cultural heritage: Awareness of local people in Beypazarı, Ankara. J. Tekirdag Agr. Fac. 2006, 3, 305–314. [Google Scholar]
- Carey, S.; Davidson, L.; Sahli, M. Capital city museums and tourism flows: An empirical study of the museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 15, 554–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hristov, D.; Petrova, P. Collaborative management and planning of urban heritage tourism: Public sector perspective. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueria, J.; Roy, B. Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 139, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porto, S.M.C.; Leanza, P.M.; Cascone, G. Developing interpretation plans to promote traditional rural buildings as built heritage attractions. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2012, 14, 421–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richards, G. The development of cultural tourism in Europe. In Cultural Attraction and European Tourism; Richards, G., Ed.; CABI Publishing: Oxon, MD, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Yilmaz, E. Ganita: The Way of Trabzon, 1st ed.; Heyamola: Istanbul, Turkey, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Şimşek, R. The history of Trabzon municipality: First Ottomon period. Cult. J. Trabzon Munic. 1993, 8, 100–187. [Google Scholar]
- Çağlar, B. The History of Trabon; Hamsi Publishing: Trabzon, Turkey, 1950. [Google Scholar]
- Ozen, S.L.; Kadıoğulları, A.I. The Model for determination and documentation studies of cultural and natural heritage preservation boards with the help of GIS. In Proceedings of the 4th GIS Days in Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey, 13–16 September 2006; pp. 1–8. Available online: http://dis.fatih.edu.tr/store/docs/ozen_cbssapbelgNPmJJzDq.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2016).
- Maitland, R. Culture, city users and the creation of new tourism areas in cities. In Tourism, Culture and Regeneration; Smith, M.K., Ed.; CABI Publishing: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kisioglu, E.; Selvi, M.S. The impact of local events on destination image of Tekirdağ: An assessment in terms of local shareholders. IAAOJ Soc. Sci. 2013, 1, 68–102. [Google Scholar]
- Kozak, M. Competitiveness and tourism. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2014, 14, 80–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilic, S.E.; Aydogan, M. Mass tourism effects on a coastal historical town: Bodrum case (Turkey). Aegean Geogr. J. 2009, 18, 85–103. [Google Scholar]
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Chapter 6. The Impact of Culture on Tourism: The Port Arthur Historic Site, Australia. 2015, pp. 81–95. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/42040138.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2016).
- Ozdemir, I.B. Determining the Recreational Uses of the Coastal Area: Trabzon City Sample. Ph.D. Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, February 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, T.C.; Ku, K.C.; Ying, T.C. A process-based collaborative model of marine tourism service system–The case of Green Island area, Taiwan. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012, 64, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simsek, D.S.; Korkut, A.B. The aplication of a method in determining coast line recreation potential: Case of the center district of Tekirdağ. J. Tekirdag Agric. Fac. 2009, 6, 315–327. [Google Scholar]
- Acar, C.; Sakici, C. Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1153–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tok, N.; Seçer, A.; Davran, M.K.; Çobanoğlu, F.; Özalp, B. Entrepreneurship characteristics, perceptions and tendencies of fınal year students ın agriculture faculties: The case of Cukurova and Adnan Menderes University. J. Econ. Manag. Res. 2014, 3, 47–74. [Google Scholar]
- Akyuz, Y.; Soba, M. Optimal location choice in textile sector by using Electre Method: A case of Usak. Int. J. Manag. Econ. B 2013, 9, 185–198. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.; You, S.; Chon, J.; Lee, J. Sustainable Land-Use Planning to Improve the Coastal Resilience of the Social-Ecological Landscape. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueria, J.; Mousseau, V.; Roy, B. Electre Methods. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis; Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publisher: London, UK, 2005; pp. 1–107. [Google Scholar]
- Micale, R.; Giallanza, A.; Russo, G.; Scalia, G. Selection of a Sustainable Functional Pasta Enriched with Opuntia Using ELECTRE III Methodology. Sustainability 2017, 9, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bojković, N.; Anić, I.; Pejčić-Tarle, S. One solution for cross-country transport sustainability evaluation using a modified ELECTRE method. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1176–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fetanat, A.; Khorasaninejad, E. A novel hybrid MCDM approach for offshore wind farm site selection: A case study of Iran. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 109, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akgun, A.A.; van Leeuwen, E.; Nijkamp, P. A multi-actor multi-criteria scenario analysis of regional sustainable resource policy. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, S.; Esbah, H.; Akgün, A.A. Quantitative SWOT analysis for prioritizing ecotourism-planning decisions in protected areas: Igneada case. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morteza, Z.; Reza, F.M.; Seddiq, M.M.; Sharareh, P.; Jamal, G. Selection of the optimal tourism site using the ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS in the framework of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A case of Qeshm Island. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 130, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Decision Making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akgun, A.A.; Akgun, I. Quantitative SWOT analysis: Rural planning. In Proceedings of the First National Planning Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, 24–26 November 2010; Türkoğlu, H., Esbah, H., Yüzer, M.A., Kaya, S., Okumuş, G., Eds.; Cenkler Matbaası: Istanbul, Turkey, 2010; pp. 487–499. [Google Scholar]
- Song, L.; Li, Q.; List, G.F.; Deng, Y.; Lu, P. Using an AHP-ISM Based Method to Study the Vulnerability Factors of Urban Rail Transit System. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aydın, O.; Oznehir, S.; Akcali, E. Selection of optimal location for Ankara hospital by modelling analytic hierarchy process. J. Fac. Econ. Admin. Sci. 2009, 14, 69–86. [Google Scholar]
- Demir, S. Determining Ecotourism Potential of Igneada. Master’s Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, September 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Arthur, L.M. Predicting scenic beatuy of forest environments: Some emprical tests. For. Sci. 1977, 23, 151–160. [Google Scholar]
- Erdönmez, M.Ü.; Kaptanoğlu, Y.Ç.A. Assessment of landscape aesthetic and visual quality. J. Fac. For. Istanb. 2007, 56, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
- Thrane, C. Jazz festival visitors and their expenditures: Linking spending patterns to musical interest. J. Travel Res. 2002, 40, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozkan, D.G. The Assessment of Open Urban Area after Using: Sample of Trabzon Coastline. Master’s Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, December 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Mumcu, S. The Behavior Locations of Open Spaces: Investigating of the Sitting Change. Ph.D. Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, February 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kızılırmak, I. A research on special local events for future usage as touristic attractions in Turkey. J. Soc. Sci. 2006, 15, 181–196. [Google Scholar]
- Baggethun, E.G.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Questions | Frequency Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|
Are you knowledgeable about the historical structures on the coast? | I have very little knowledge | 16.5 |
I have little knowledge | 35 | |
I have no idea | 3.9 | |
I am knowledgeable | 43.7 | |
I am very knowledgeable | 1 | |
During which months do you most often go to the areas of Trabzon coast that are the closest to historical structures? | Autumn | 10.7 |
Winter | - | |
Spring | 16.5 | |
Summer | 72.8 | |
How often do you go to the areas of Trabzon coast that are close to historical structures? | Once a week | 18.4 |
More than once a week | 11.7 | |
Once every fifteen days | 7.8 | |
Once a month | 10.7 | |
Once every three months | 26.2 | |
Once a year | 16.5 | |
Quite rarely | 6.8 | |
Never | 1.9 | |
During which periods do you most often go to areas of the Trabzon coast that are close to historical structures? | On weekdays | 14.6 |
At the weekend | 85.4 | |
At which times do you most often go to the areas of the Trabzon coast that are close to historical structures? | 6.00–9.00 | 1 |
9.00–12.00 | 6.8 | |
12.00–15.00 | 26.2 | |
15.00–18.00 | 35.9 | |
18.00–21.00 | 30.1 | |
Historical and cultural structures increase the recreational and tourism potential of the coast. | 11.7 | |
Historical and cultural structures contribute to the coast in terms of socio-cultural effect. | 57.2 | |
Historical and cultural structures do not contribute to coastal use at all. | 31.1 |
Coastal Uses | Factors and Items | Factor Loading | Eigenvalue | Variance (%) | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increasing Criteria | Factor 1: Socialization (S) | 3.66 | 25.10 | 4.04 | |
S1: Offering the opportunity to get rid of the stress of the city and daily intensities | 0.541 | 4.00 | |||
S2: Offering the opportunity to get to know new people | 0.810 | 3.61 | |||
S3: Having the effect of increasing the socio-cultural activities of children | 0.572 | 4.07 | |||
S4: Offering the opportunity to get to know and promote local and folkloric features | 0.572 | 4.21 | |||
S5: Allowing for the organization of festivals | 0.856 | 4.30 | |||
Factor 2: Sportive Activity (SA) | 3.08 | 21.60 | 3.85 | ||
SA1: Providing the opportunity to perform outdoor sports activities | 0.809 | 3.94 | |||
SA2: Fulfilling the wish to perform sportive fishing | 0.859 | 3.82 | |||
SA3: Providing the opportunity to perform water sports | 0.779 | 3.85 | |||
SA4: Providing the opportunity to perform exercise sports | 0.788 | 3.79 | |||
Factor 3: Visual Integrity (VI) | 2.12 | 20.48 | 4.41 | ||
VI1: Historical environment and landscape beauty | 0.866 | 4.37 | |||
VI2: Ensuring integrity with historical, cultural and natural structures | 0.818 | 4.37 | |||
VI3: Having spots for landscapes, sunset watching, photography, and painting | 0.672 | 4.50 | |||
Decreasing Criteria | Factor 1: Service Quality (SQ) | 7.15 | 26.13 | 4.22 | |
SQ1: Lack of direction signs and guide boards | 0.713 | 3.89 | |||
SQ2: Pollution in coastal areas and open green spaces (garbage, domestic waste, marine pollution, air pollution) | 0.703 | 4.40 | |||
SQ3: No compulsory areas required in coastal areas (restroom, child-care areas) | 0.606 | 4.32 | |||
SQ4: The green areas are uncared for | 0.675 | 4.21 | |||
SQ5: Incorrect practices in afforestation works and shortcomings in afforestation | 0.582 | 4.01 | |||
SQ6: Facilities rendering quality services are not adequate | 0.757 | 4.37 | |||
SQ7: Lack of infrastructure and maintenance | 0.516 | 4.32 | |||
Factor 2: Space Utilization (SU) | 1.67 | 10.96 | 3.82 | ||
SU1: The historical–cultural structures are not perceived well from the coast | 0.607 | 4.15 | |||
SU2: There is no accommodation opportunities near the coast with historical and cultural structures | 0.874 | 3.81 | |||
SU3: The climatic factors affect night–day use | 0.774 | 3.50 | |||
Factor 3: Coast Connection (CC) | 2.17 | 14.87 | 4.22 | ||
CC1: Inability to access the historical and cultural structures from the coast | 0.694 | 4.05 | |||
CC2: The effect of unplanned settlement on the coast | 0.609 | 4.24 | |||
CC3: Loss of the historical–cultural structures in the urban pattern | 0.782 | 4.35 | |||
CC4: The decrease in the connection between the coastal paths formed after coastal fills of the historical structures bordering the coast with the coast | 0.778 | 4.22 | |||
CC5: The motorways constructed as a result of filling the coast disconnect the coast from historical and cultural structures partially or fully | 0.828 | 4.23 | |||
Factor 4: Outdoor Equipment (OE) | 1.29 | 9.45 | 4.24 | ||
OE1: Inadequate sports, children playgrounds, and entertainment areas | 0.568 | 4.23 | |||
OE2: Lack of outdoor equipment (for sitting, eating–drinking, etc.) in coastal areas | 0.616 | 4.25 | |||
Factor 5: City Promotion (CP) | 1.75 | 13.37 | 3.92 | ||
CP1: Increasing usage density in the coastal areas during summer months | 0.887 | 3.55 | |||
CP2: Lack of promotion and advertisement info offices about the history of Trabzon on the coast | 0.772 | 3.88 | |||
CP3: No excursions and yacht tours that ensure the integrity with the coast and historical structures | 0.844 | 4.06 | |||
CP4: Lack of promotion, tours and organizations that activate the connection between historical structures and the coast | 0.784 | 4.17 |
Coastal Uses | Main Criteria | Priority Value TO: 0.09 | Sub-Criteria | Group Priority | Overall Priority TO: 0.03 | Priority Rankings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increasing Criteria | Socialization (S) | 0.521 | S1 | 0.197 | 0.119 | 4 |
S2 | 0.177 | 0.107 | 5 | |||
S3 | 0.192 | 0.122 | 3 | |||
S4 | 0.207 | 0.125 | 2 | |||
S5 | 0.222 | 0.127 | 1 | |||
Sportive Activities (SA) | 0.298 | SA1 | 0.256 | 0.073 | 6 | |
SA2 | 0.239 | 0.062 | 9 | |||
SA3 | 0.251 | 0.066 | 7 | |||
SA4 | 0.255 | 0.068 | 8 | |||
Visual Integrity (VI) | 0.181 | VI1 | 0.337 | 0.044 | 10 | |
VI2 | 0.337 | 0.044 | 10 | |||
VI3 | 0.327 | 0.043 | 11 | |||
Decreasing Criteria | City Promotion (CP) | 0.270 | CP1 | 0.216 | 0.053 | 6 |
CP2 | 0.246 | 0.061 | 3 | |||
CP3 | 0.264 | 0.065 | 2 | |||
CP4 | 0.274 | 0.067 | 1 | |||
Service Quality (SQ) | 0.226 | SQ1 | 0.127 | 0.048 | 9 | |
SQ2 | 0.150 | 0.056 | 4 | |||
SQ3 | 0.148 | 0.055 | 5 | |||
SQ4 | 0.143 | 0.053 | 6 | |||
SQ5 | 0.133 | 0.050 | 8 | |||
SQ6 | 0.150 | 0.056 | 4 | |||
SQ7 | 0.148 | 0.055 | 5 | |||
Outdoor Equipment (OE) | 0.203 | OE1 | 0.435 | 0.050 | 8 | |
OE2 | 0.505 | 0.51 | 7 | |||
Coast Connection (CC) | 0.168 | CC1 | 0.191 | 0.37 | 13 | |
CC2 | 0.211 | 0.41 | 11 | |||
CC3 | 0.219 | 0.42 | 10 | |||
CC4 | 0.206 | 0.40 | 12 | |||
CC5 | 0.173 | 0.33 | 14 | |||
Space Utilization (SU) | 0.133 | SU1 | 0.376 | 0.33 | 14 | |
SU2 | 0.333 | 0.29 | 15 | |||
SU3 | 0.292 | 0.26 | 16 |
© 2017 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Özdemir Işık, B.; Demir, S. Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for the Sustainability of Historical–Cultural Structures on the Trabzon Coastline. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112114
Özdemir Işık B, Demir S. Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for the Sustainability of Historical–Cultural Structures on the Trabzon Coastline. Sustainability. 2017; 9(11):2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112114
Chicago/Turabian StyleÖzdemir Işık, Buket, and Sara Demir. 2017. "Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for the Sustainability of Historical–Cultural Structures on the Trabzon Coastline" Sustainability 9, no. 11: 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112114
APA StyleÖzdemir Işık, B., & Demir, S. (2017). Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for the Sustainability of Historical–Cultural Structures on the Trabzon Coastline. Sustainability, 9(11), 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112114