International Journal of Environmental Policy and Decision Making (2 papers in press)

• Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration to greenspace
  by Kieron Doick, Kalliope Pediaditi, Andrew Moffat, Tony Hutchings 
  Abstract: This paper considers projects involving greenspace establishment on brownfield land, and proposes objectives which such projects should meet in order for them to be considered as sustainable. A brief review of the policy context illustrates that brownfield regeneration to greenspace projects are usually branded as inherently sustainable, an assumption that is challenged. The authors accept the value-based nature of sustainability, and examine the brownfield greening procedure in the UK including different stakeholders involved in order to establish the components which influence the sustainability of such projects. Results of interviews with a range of stakeholders are presented which show that a stakeholder’s profession capacity in decision making strongly influences their perception of sustainability. This consequently affects the priorities placed on objectives that greenspace is expected to achieve. Fragmentation in responsibilities and a lack of continuity during greenspace creation are revealed as major obstacles in achieving long term site sustainability. Further fragmentation was observed between objectives stated by policy and management personnel and in the understanding of how these can be fulfilled. Recommendations for designing sites to achieve specific functionality using participatory, context specific methods are made and a standard set of sustainability objectives are proposed. These could be used to design brownfield greenspace, and followed through to implementation, management and long term monitoring.
  Keywords: land regeneration; policy; planning; community participation; multifunction land use
   
• Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban Transport Options – Comparative Analysis of Group Aggregation Methods
  by Sudhakar Yedla, Ram Shrestha 
  Abstract: The present study presents a comparative analysis of different group aggregation methods adopted in AHP by testing them against social choice axioms with a case study of Delhi transport system. The group aggregation (GA) methods and their correctness were tested while prioritizing the alternative options to achieve energy efficient and less polluting transport system in Delhi. It was observed that among all group aggregation methods, geometric mean method (GMM) - the most widely adopted GA method of AHP - showed poor performance and failed to satisfy the most popular “pareto optimality and non-dictatorship axiom” raising questions on its validity as GA method adopted in AHP. All other group aggregation methods viz. weighted arithmetic mean method with varying weights and equal weights (WAMM, WeAMM) and arithmetic mean of individual priorities (AMM) resulted in concurring results with the individual member priorities. This study demonstrates that WeAMM resulted in better aggregation of individual priorities compared to WAMM. Comparative analysis between individual and group priorities demonstrates that the arithmetic mean (AMM) of priorities by individual members of the group showed minimum deviation from the group consensus making it the most suitable and simple method to aggregate individual preferences to arrive at a group consensus.
  Keywords: AHP, decision making, GMM, group aggregation, transportation, WAMM