Choice of abandoned territories conversion scenario according to MCDA methods



Published Mar 9, 2018


Urban brownfields are found in all parts of the world. They suffer from a negative image and are generally being viewed as problem areas. However, urban brownfields also offer potentials for new uses and for the ecological regeneration of cities. Strategic decision-making has a long term impact on the quality of life, ecological balance and urban structure. Therefore, the paper is aimed at providing a methodology for selecting the optimal scenario for urban brownfields regarding criteria for urban development and focuses on three possible scenarios representing sustainable urban development in the city. The results of the research are provided as a priority list for each scenario in the context of every neighbourhood of Vilnius city. The obtained results show the scenario optimal for each neighbourhood having the highest priority to implementing solutions in real life. Economic, social, physical (urbanistic) and environmental criteria are considered. Geographic information system (GIS) tools are employed for collecting spatial information, obtaining the initial set of criteria and deriving statistical data. Different MCDA methods, including TOPSIS, EDAS, COPRAS and SAW are used in the research. The correlation between the values of the sets pairs of cumulative criteria for the applied MCDA methods appeared to be satisfactory for the conducted re-search. The developed framework will support the decision-making process in brownfield land redevelopment aiding sustainable urban planning.

Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by VGTU Press This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract 27 | PDF Downloads 18



urban brownfields, urban planning, urban indicators, MCDA, EDAS, COPRAS, TOPSIS

Agostini, P.; Carlon, C.; Critto, A.; Marcomini, A. 2007. A step toward contaminated megasites management: six European experiences at comparison, in A. A. Velinni (Ed.). Landfill research trends. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc., 47–75.

Alexandrescu, F.; Bleicher, A.; Werner, F.; Martinát, S.; Frantál, B.; Krupanek, J.; Michaliszyn, B.; Bica, I.; Iancu, I. 2012. Report on regional decision structures and key actors. Deliverable D2.1 Version 3 of EC Funded TIMBRE project (FP7-ENV-2010.3.1.5-2-265364) [online], [cited 21 December 2017]. Available from Internet:

Alexandrescu, F.; Martinát, S.; Klusáček, P.; Bartke, S. 2014. The path from passivity toward entrepreneurship: Public sector actors In brownfield regeneration processes in Central and Eastern Europe, Organization & Environment 27(2): 181–201.

Alker, S.; Joy, V.; Roberts, P.; Smith, N. 2000. The definition of brownfield, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(1): 49–69.

Bielinskas, V.; Staniūnas, E.; Beconytė, G.; Balčiūnas, A.; Vasiliauskas, D. 2014. Public safety in monofunctional zones of Vilnius city, in The 9th International Conference “Environmental Engineering”, 22–23 May 2014, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Bjelland, M. 2002. Until justice and stewardship embrace: or, how a geographer thinks about brownfield sites, Christian Scholar’s Review 31(4): 393–412.

Bolund, P.; Hunhammar, S. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas, Ecological Economics 29(2): 293–301.

Brauers, W. K.; Ginevicius, R.; Podviezko, A. 2012. Evaluation of performance of Lithuanian commercial banks by multi-objective optimization, in The 7th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management’2012”, 2012. Selected papers.

Burinskiene, M.; Bielinskas, V.; Podviezko, A.; Gurskiene, V.; Maliene, V. 2017. Evaluating the significance of criteria contributing to decision-making on brownfield land redevelopment strategies in urban areas, Sustainability 9(5): 759. http://doi:10.3390/su9050759

Burinskiene, M.; Lazauskaitė, D.; Bielinskas, V. 2015. Preventive indicators for creating brownfields, Sustainability 7: 6706–6720.

Burinskienė, M.; Rudzkienė, V. 2009. Future insights, scenarios and expert method application in sustainable territorial planning, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 15(1): 10–25.

Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city, Landscape and Urban Planning 68(1): 129–138.

de Sousa, C.; Tiesdell, S. 2008. Brownfields redevelopment and the quest for sustainability. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Doumpos, M.; Zopounidis, C. 2002. Multicriteria decision aid classification methods. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Frantál, B.; Klusáček, P.; Kunc, J.; Martinát, S. 2012. Report on results of survey on brownfield regeneration and statistical analysis. Deliverable D3.1 of the TIMBRE project [online], [cited 14 December 2017]. Available from Internet:

Giddens, A. 1991. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Podviezko, A. 2012. Evaluation of isolated socio-economical processes by a multi-criteria decision aid method ESP, in The 7th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management’2012”, 2012. Selected papers.

Glumac, B.; Han, Q.; Schaefer, W.; van der Krabben, E. 2015 Negotiation issues in forming public–private partnerships for brownfield redevelopment: Applying a game theoretical experiment, Land Use Policy 47: 66–77.

Grimsey, D.; Lewis, M. K. 2002. Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects, International Journal of Project Management 20: 107–118.

Guzmán, F.; Sierra, V. 2012. Public–private collaborations: Branded public services? European Journal of Marketing 46(7/8): 994–1012.

Jacyna-Golda, I.; Izdebski, M.; Podviezko, A. 2017. Assessment of efficiency of assignment of vehicles to tasks in supply chains: a case study of a municipal company, Transport 32(3): 243–251.

Jakimavicius, M.; Burinskiene, M.; Gusaroviene, M.; Podviezko, A. 2016. Assessing multiple criteria for rapid bus routes in the public transport system in Vilnius, Public Transport 8(3): 365–385.

Jamecny, L.; Husar, M. 2016. From planning to smart management of historic industrial brownfield regeneration, Procedia Engineering 161: 2282–2289.

Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Bardauskienė, D.; Dargis, R. (Eds). 2012. Darnus nekilnojamojo turto vystymas [Sustainable real estate development]. Vilnius: Technika, 16–20.

Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Olfat, L.; Turskis, Z. 2015. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS), Informatica 26(3): 435–451.

Koppenjan, J. F. M.; Enserink, B. 2009. Public–private partnerships in urban infrastructures: reconciling private sector participation and sustainability, Public Administration Review 69: 284–296.

Lian, P. C. S.; Laing, A. W. 2004. Public sector purchasing of health services: A comparison with private sector purchasing, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 10(6): 247–256.

Loures, L.; Vaz, E. 2016. Exploring expert perception towards brownfield redevelopment benefits according to their typology, Habitat International. In Press, Corrected Proof.

Mathey, J.; Arndt, T.; Banse, J.; Rink, D. 2016. Public perception of spontaneous vegetation on brownfields in urban areas – Results from surveys in Dresden and Leipzig (Germany), Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. In Press, Corrected Proof.

Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.-H. 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research 156(2): 445–455. http://doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1

Palevicius, V.; Grigonis, V.; Podviezko, A.; Barauskaite, G. 2016. Developmental analysis of park-and-ride facilities in Vilnius, PROMET – Traffic & Transportation 28(2): 165–178.

Palevicius, V.; Sivilevicius, H.; Podviezko, A.; Griskeviciute-Geciene, A.; Karpavicius, T. 2017. Evaluation of park and ride facilities at communication corridors in a middle-sized city, Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research 51(2): 231–248.

Parfenova, L.; Pugachev, A.; Podviezko, A. 2016. Comparative analysis of tax capacity in regions of Russia, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22(6): 905–925.

Podvezko, V. 2011. The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS, Inzinerine Ekonomika - Engineering Economics 22(2): 134–146. http://doi:10.5755/

Podviezko, A. 2012. Augmenting multicriteria decision aid methods by graphical and analytical reporting tools, in L. Niedrite; R. Strazdina; B. Wangler (Eds). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 236–251.

Podviezko, A. 2014. Influence of processes of transformation of economy on financial stability, in The 8th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2014”, 2014, Vilnius, Lithuania, 563–570.

Podviezko, A. 2015. Use of multiple criteria decision aid methods in case of large amounts of data, International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets 7(2): 155–169.

Podviezko, A. 2016. On multiple dimensions of criteria representing financial globalisation, in The 9th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2016”, 2016, Vilnius, Lithuania, 1–8.

Podviezko, A.; Podvezko, V. 2015. Influence of data transformation on multicriteria evaluation result, Procedia Engineering 122: 151–157.

Podviezko, A; Podvezko, V. 2014. Absolute and relative evaluation of socio-economic objects based on multiple criteria decision making methods, Engineering Economics – Inzinerine Ekonomika 25(5): 512–529.

Polyakova, I.; Vasylyeva, E. 2016. Benefits of public-and-private partnership for the creation of the infrastructure of the urbanized territories in Russia, Procedia Engineering 165: 1380–1387. http://doi:10.3390/su8030238

Rădulescu, C. M.; Ştefan, O.; Rădulescu, G.; Rădulescu, A.; Rădulescu, M. 2016. Management of stakeholders in urban regeneration projects. Case study: Baia-Mare, Transylvania, Sustainability 8(3): 238. http://doi:10.3390/su8030238

Schädler, S.; Finkel, M.; Bleicher, A.; Morio, M.; Gross, M. 2013. Spatially explicit computation of sustainability indicator values for the automated assessment of land-use options, Landscape and Urban Planning 111: 34–45.

Schädler, S.; Morio, M.; Bartke, S.; Rohr-Zänker, R.; Finkel, M. 2011. Designing sustainable and economically attractive brownfield revitalization options using an integrated assessment model, Journal Environmental Management 92(3): 827–837.

Tailored Improvement of Brownfield Regeneration in Europe (TIMBRE). 2012 [online], [cited 4 October 2017]. Available from Internet:

Thornton, G.; Franz, M.; Edwards, D.; Pahlen, G.; Nathanail, P. 2007. The challenge of sustainability: incentives for brownfield regeneration in Europe, Environmental Science & Policy 10(2): 116–134.

Tölle, A. 2009. Report about concepts and tools for brownfield redevelopment activities. Output No. 3.1.1 of the COBRAMAN project). Bydgoszcz, Poland [online], [cited 24 October 2017]. Available from Internet: http://www.central2013eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/outputlib/cobraman_tools_brownfield_regeneration.pdf

Warf, B.; Arias, S. 2008. The spatial turn: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge.

Weihe, G. 2005. Public–private partnerships: addressing a nebulous concept, in The 10th International Research Symposium on Public Management (IRSPM X), 2005, International Center for Business and Politics Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.