Motaleate Shahri

Urban Planning

Modeling Urban Land Use Allocation using Spatial Justice Approach Based on the Multi-Objective Optimization Methods

parvaneh jalerajabi; reza ahmadian; Zahra sadat saiedeh Zarabadi

Volume 9, Issue 36 , November 2020, , Pages 41-54

https://doi.org/10.34785/J011.2021.998

Abstract

This research was conducted mainly to provide a method based on artificial intelligence algorithms in order to obtain optimal urban land use allocation, subjected to mathematical modeling from the perspective of spatial justice using multi-criteria decision analysis concepts, both parcel-based and floor-based. ... Read More This research was conducted mainly to provide a method based on artificial intelligence algorithms in order to obtain optimal urban land use allocation, subjected to mathematical modeling from the perspective of spatial justice using multi-criteria decision analysis concepts, both parcel-based and floor-based. For that purpose, objective functions were considered for land use allocation, including mixed use, suitability, dependency, compatibility, and access to services, in terms of both floors and neighbors. For achievement of the main purpose, parameters effective on urban land use planning were examined to optimize urban land use allocation from the spatial justice perspective. This led to a presentation and classification of the spatial parameters effective on land use allocation based on sustainability and, more specifically, spatial justice concerns. The main part of the research, named “land use allocation modeling with NSGA-II” focused on development of a land use allocation model and its optimization. The main stage in the modeling procedure was to adapt multi-objective optimization algorithms to land use allocation and, then, to define it as desired. The adaptation of the multi-objective optimization algorithm involved the definition of the solution structure, objective functions, and problem constraints and their calculation for use in the second version of the Non-dominant Genetic Ranking Algorithm (NSGA-II). The objective functions were defined based on criteria and indexes extracted in the second part of the research, including maximization of accessibility to the facilities, of service efficiency (compatibility), of mixed uses, of land suitability, and of spatial dependency. Moreover, seven constraints were introduced for land use allocation, including avoidance of allocating wasteland to the first floor of the parcel, allocation of a land use to the third floor provided that the second one already has a defined land use, possibility of land use allocation to various floors of the same parcel, consideration of maximum and minimum land parceling, avoidance of exceeding the per capita standards in neighborhoods and districts, and, finally, allocation of the necessary land uses to each of the neighborhoods. The models were then implemented, where the main purpose was to optimize urban land use allocation according to all the criteria and constraints. In other words, these criteria had to be defined in terms of the model objectives and with an extensive search space (many of the possible land use allocations) at the same time. Therefore, a set of solutions, which included Pareto front, i.e. optimal, solutions, was obtained rather than a single solution to the problem. As decision-makers prefer to examine the corresponding scenarios after introducing their own decision priorities, the AHP method was used finally after the optimal Pareto solutions were obtained for selection of one of the four possible land use allocations and its presentation in a land use plan given spatial justice concerns. For that purpose, weights were assigned to the objective functions based on spatial justice. Once the objective function values were normalized, the desired weights were multiplied by the normal values. After the calculation of total weight, the solutions corresponding to the objective functions being addressed were converted to land use plans in ArcGIS. The results of land use allocation in floors were compared to the actual conditions. It could be stated in general that the most important achievement of the study involved the introduction and presentation of an efficient model that was appropriate for addressing multi-criteria decision-making problems for allocation of urban land use. The presented model performs simultaneous optimization, and helps decision makers to select one desired solution from among multiple optimized ones according to their priorities, although it is in contradiction with some of the objective functions. The results of the model designed for land use allocation given spatial justice concerns improved the spatial distribution of facilities at the level of the area under study. Moreover, a quantitative evaluation of the allocation results demonstrated that the commercial, academic, health, sport, and cultural land uses were allocated properly per capita, increasing the level of enjoyment in neighborhoods across the area under investigation. Land use allocation, Spatial justice, Multi-objective optimization method, NSGA-II.

Urban Planning

Just City planning and its position within social justice

H S; F N

Volume 3, Issue 12 , November 2014, , Pages 47-58

Abstract

It is not new to think about justice and the ways one can make cities more just. In all schools of thought, from left to right, planners and politicians have considered themselves the champions of justice. However, up to the 1980s, it was the socialists who considered justice as their central ... Read More It is not new to think about justice and the ways one can make cities more just. In all schools of thought, from left to right, planners and politicians have considered themselves the champions of justice. However, up to the 1980s, it was the socialists who considered justice as their central focus and not the liberals. Since the beginning of the 21st Century, several non-socialist philosophers have begun to talk about justice within the framework of liberal planning. Thus, it can be argued that one new school of thought has come to forth as the Just City approach. Justice, as the fundamental value of action in planning, moves some theorists such as Susan Fainstein to write on this subject. Since Just City is not one “theory”, we first attempt to identify the most influential theories within “Just City” spectrum. One question that is answered here is which pathways are taken by planning theories to deal with the issue of Justice. Justice and injustice are generic concepts within any kind of social relations. To define “Just City Planning”, we look at different arenas of justice. Here, we explain and compare socialist views (Harvey), communicative planning (Innes), commons planning (Marcuse), discursive planning (Fischer), to “Just City”. The core of each theory is explained and compared. The borderlines for each theory are identified and overlaps are discussed. The concept of “social” as pertains to “social justice” is viewed here as a generic concept which deals with relations between two or more persons. Therefore, the nature of “Just Planning” is discussed here in relation to concepts such as “political justice”, “judicial justice”, “economic justice”, “cultural justice”, and “spatial-physical justice”. The criteria used to make the differentiation between these concepts are “scale” and “outcome”. The “means” and “ends” for each pave the way for using the said criteria. For example, the means for political justice are orientation and macro-level strategies for decision making in order to achieve ends such as an increase in citizen satisfaction and their support in elections. The “outcomes” are presented in a number of graphs which show the tangible and nontangible results in micro- and macro-scales. On the x-axis, the “result” from tangible to non-tangible is shown. On the y-axis, the scale from micro to macro is presented. For each of the concepts, it is asked where the Just City Planning stands within the said graphs. Considering the spatial and economic dimensions of urban planning, it is argued that Just City Planning overlaps with cultural justice, economic justice, and spatial justice. It is argued here that the “Just Planning” phenomenon has more parallels to spatial justice and less with economic and cultural justice. Planners are involved with preparing urban development plans and presenting strategies and policies for urban management and not necessarily constructing buildings. It is, however, influenced by political and judicial justice to some extent. The relationship between Just City Planning and political and judicial justice is best explained through the workings of spatial justice, and to some extent, economic and cultural justice.

Articles in Press

Current Issue

Volume 13 (2024)

Volume 12 (2023)

Volume 11 (2022)

Volume 10 (2021)

Volume 9 (2020)

Volume 8 (2019)

Volume 7 (2018)

Volume 6 (2017)

Volume 5 (2016)

Volume 4 (2015)

Volume 3 (2014)

Volume 2 (2013)

Volume 1 (2012)

Keywords = Spatial justice

Modeling Urban Land Use Allocation using Spatial Justice Approach Based on the Multi-Objective Optimization Methods

Abstract

Just City planning and its position within social justice

Abstract