VisualUVAM: A Decision Support System Addressing the Curse of Dimensionality for the Multi-Scale Assessment of Urban Vulnerability in Spain

[EN] Many-objective optimization methods have proven successful in the integration of research attributes demanded for urban vulnerability assessment models. However, these techniques suffer from the curse of the dimensionality problem, producing an excessive burden in the decision-making process by compelling decision-makers to select alternatives among a large number of candidates. In other fields, this problem has been alleviated through cluster analysis, but there is still a lack in the application of such methods for urban vulnerability assessment purposes. This work addresses this gap by a novel combination of visual analytics and cluster analysis, enabling the decision-maker to select the set of indicators best representing urban vulnerability accordingly to three criteria: expert¿s preferences, goodness of fit, and robustness. Based on an assessment framework previously developed, VisualUVAM affords an evaluation of urban vulnerability in Spain at regional, provincial, and municipal scales, whose results demonstrate the effect of the governmental structure of a territory over the vulnerability of the assessed entities.This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, along with FEDER, grant number Project: BIA2017-85098-R".Salas, J.; Yepes, V. (2019). VisualUVAM: A Decision Support System Addressing the Curse of Dimensionality for the Multi-Scale Assessment of Urban Vulnerability in Spain. Sustainability. 11(8):2191-01-2191-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su110821912191-012191-17118Rigillo, M., & Cervelli, E. (2014). Mapping Urban Vulnerability: The Case Study of Gran Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Advanced Engineering Forum, 11, 142-148. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/aef.11.142Malekpour, S., Brown, R. R., & de Haan, F. J. (2015). Strategic planning of urban infrastructure for environmental sustainability: Understanding the past to intervene for the future. Cities, 46, 67-75. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.003Salas, J., & Yepes, V. (2018). Urban vulnerability assessment: Advances from the strategic planning outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 544-558. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.088Moraci, F., Errigo, M., Fazia, C., Burgio, G., & Foresta, S. (2018). Making Less Vulnerable Cities: Resilience as a New Paradigm of Smart Planning. Sustainability, 10(3), 755. doi:10.3390/su10030755De Gregorio Hurtado, S. (2017). Is EU urban policy transforming urban regeneration in Spain? Answers from an analysis of the Iniciativa Urbana (2007–2013). Cities, 60, 402-414. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.015Salas, J., & Yepes, V. (2019). MS-ReRO and D-ROSE methods: Assessing relational uncertainty and evaluating scenarios’ risks and opportunities on multi-scale infrastructure systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, 607-623. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.083Dor, A., & Kissinger, M. (2017). A multi-year, multi-scale analysis of urban sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 115-121. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.05.004Rega, C., Singer, J. P., & Geneletti, D. (2018). Investigating the substantive effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment of urban planning: Evidence from Italy and Spain. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 73, 60-69. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.07.004Salas, J., & Yepes, V. (2018). A discursive, many-objective approach for selecting more-evolved urban vulnerability assessment models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 1231-1244. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.249Penadés-Plà, V., García-Segura, T., Martí, J., & Yepes, V. (2016). A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design. Sustainability, 8(12), 1295. doi:10.3390/su8121295Zio, E., & Bazzo, R. (2011). A clustering procedure for reducing the number of representative solutions in the Pareto Front of multiobjective optimization problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 210(3), 624-634. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2010.10.021Ishibuchi, H., Akedo, N., & Nojima, Y. (2015). Behavior of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms on Many-Objective Knapsack Problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 19(2), 264-283. doi:10.1109/tevc.2014.2315442A fast and effective method for pruning of non-dominated solutions in many-objective problems https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-33750253049&partnerID=40&md5=f46109796025a884fd054d73e71c308eTaboada, H. A., Baheranwala, F., Coit, D. W., & Wattanapongsakorn, N. (2007). Practical solutions for multi-objective optimization: An application to system reliability design problems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 92(3), 314-322. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.014Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55-71. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268-281. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006A new decision sciences for complex systems http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~tas110/Teaching/Lectures/L1/Material/Lempert02.pdfThomas, J., & Kielman, J. (2009). Challenges for Visual Analytics. Information Visualization, 8(4), 309-314. doi:10.1057/ivs.2009.26Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Demsar, U., Dransch, D., Dykes, J., Fabrikant, S. I., … Tominski, C. (2010). Space, time and visual analytics. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24(10), 1577-1600. doi:10.1080/13658816.2010.508043Santos, J., Ferreira, A., & Flintsch, G. (2017). A multi-objective optimization-based pavement management decision-support system for enhancing pavement sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1380-1393. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.027Análisis urbanístico de barrios vulnerables https://www.fomento.gob.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/DIRECCIONES_GENERALES/ARQ_VIVIENDA/SUELO_Y_POLITICAS/OBSERVATORIO/Analisis_urba_Barrios_Vulnerables/Informes_CCAA.htmBirkmann, J., Garschagen, M., & Setiadi, N. (2014). New challenges for adaptive urban governance in highly dynamic environments: Revisiting planning systems and tools for adaptive and strategic planning. Urban Climate, 7, 115-133. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2014.01.006Besagni, G., & Borgarello, M. (2019). The socio-demographic and geographical dimensions of fuel poverty in Italy. Energy Research & Social Science, 49, 192-203. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.007Khalil, N., Kamaruzzaman, S. N., & Baharum, M. R. (2016). Ranking the indicators of building performance and the users’ risk via Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): Case of Malaysia. Ecological Indicators, 71, 567-576. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.032Pellicer, E., Sierra, L. A., & Yepes, V. (2016). Appraisal of infrastructure sustainability by graduate students using an active-learning method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 884-896. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.010Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., & Pellicer, E. (2018). A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of infrastructures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 496-513. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.022Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-