Geodata influencing land market and sustainable development

• Autorzy: Gaudesius Rimvydas

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/gac.2020.131078

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The suitability of a land plot in a real estate market could be identified as a good investment because the land plot is deemed as popular. This activity is important for economic growth, who is one of the sustainable development goals. Mostly, all research in this field is focused on sustainability as well as the opinions of professionals. However, this field should be explored from another side which is based on real geodata. Criteria and its weight are very important in decision support systems. The correct criteria can help in selection of the best real estate object for an investment, but it is not only useful but also and a challenging task that has not yet been solved. The methods of research are data graphical analysis, correlation, decision supporting systems, etc. The research aims at determining the significance of the connections and using them as the criteria in the selected decision supporting method. In addition, it will be determined which decision supporting method defines the most suitable object for investment. These new criteria are proposed for operation in the land use models. Furthermore, it has been identified as one criterion, which is significant in the urban and agrarian territories. Also it turned out, that the land plot is the most active when it is as far from a densely built-up residential territory as possible and as close to a school, and when the land plot is as large as possible.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

land management; sustainable development; land plot; decision support system; criteria

PL

gospodarowanie gruntami; działka; system wspomagania decyzji

• Wydawca: Komitet Geodezji PAN
• Czasopismo: Geodesy and Cartography
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 69, no. 1
• Strony: 3--17
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 43 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Gaudesius Rimvydas

• National Land Service under the Ministry of Agriculture, Gedimino pr. 19, Vilnius, Lithuania Vytautas Magnus University, K.Donelaiˇcio g. 58, Kaunas, Lithuania

Bibliografia

• [1] Afshari, A., Mojahed, M. and Yusuff, R.M. (2010). Simple additive weighting approach to personel selection problem. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1(5), 511–515. DOI: 10.7763/IJIMT.2010.V1.89.
• [2] Bunyan, U.F. and Yalpir, S. (2019). Valuations of builindg plots using the AHP method. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 23(3), 197–212. DOI: 10.3846/ijspm.2019.7952.
• [3] Cai, X., Jiang, Z., Liu, Q. and Shi, H. (2019). Research on Frequency Hopping Synchronization Strategies based on TOPSIS Method. Journal of Physics, 1187(5), 052034. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1187/5/052034.
• [4] Cepulis, P., Deveikis, S. and Raguckas, V. (2013). National property and business valuation standards. Project 2010. From: Outlines of Property Valuation Theory and Practice, 2013. Lithuanian Association of Property Valuers, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University. Steponas Deveikis. – Vilnius: LTVA, 48-82.
• [5] Ciegis, R., Ramanauskiene˙, J. and Startiene, G. (2009). Theoretical Reasoning of the Use of Indicators and Indices for Sustainable Development Assessment. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 3, 33–40.
• [6] Dzikevicius, A., Kazlauskas, L. and Bruzg˙e, Š. (2015). Evaluation of factors leading to formation of price – bubbles in the real estate market of Lithuania. Business: theory and practice, 16, 345–352. DOI: 0.3846/btp.2015.544.
• [7] Gaudešius, R. and Aleknavicius, P. (2015). Agricultural land market activity according to the properties of the land. Agricultural Sciences, (22)3, 163–172. DOI: 10.6001/zemesukiomokslai.v22i3.3157.
• [8] Giudice, V., Pierfrancesco, P., Francesca, T., Nijkamp, P.J. and Shapira, A. (2019). Real Estate Investment Choices and Decision Support Systems. Sustainability, 11. DOI: 10.3390/su11113110.
• [9] Guarini, M.R. and Battisti, F. (2016). Application of a multi-criteria and participated evaluation procedure to select typology of intervention to redevelop degraded urban area. Social and Bechavioral sciences, 223, 960–967. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.329.
• [10] Hallstedt, S.I. (2015). Sustainability criteria and sustainability compliance index for decision support in product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 30, 1–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.068.
• [11] Hong, L. (2014). The Dynamic Relationship between Real Estate Investment and Economic Growth: Evidence from Prefecture City Panel Data in China. IERI Procedia, Special issue: International Conference on Applied Computing, Computer Science, and Computer Engineering, 7, 2–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ieri.2014.08.002.
• [12] Huang,W. and Ma, H. (2015). Research on the Influence of Real Estate Investment and Economic Growth in China. International Conference on Management Engineering and Management Innovation, 10-11 January 2015 (pp. 235–239). Changsha, China. DOI: 10.2991/icmemi-15.2015.41.
• [13] Hwang CL., Yoon K. (1981). Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 186. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• [14] Kacprzak, D. (2019). Fuzzy TOPSIS method for group decision making. Multiple criteria decision making, 13. DOI: 10.22367/mcdm.2018.13.07.
• [15] Karim, R. and Karmaker, C.L. (2016). Machine selection by Ahp and Topsis methods. American Journal of Industrial Engineering, 4(1), 7-1.
• [16] Karlitasari, L., Suhartini, D. and Suhartini, B. (2017). Comparison of simple additive weighting (SAW) and composite performance index (CPI) methods in employee remuneration determination. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., 166, 012020. 10.1088/1757-899x/166/1/012020.
• [17] Komisarov, V., Kauškale, L. and Lepkova, N. (2016). Positive influencing factors of commercial property development: case of Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, 4, 48–60. 10.1515/bjreecm-2016-0004.
• [18] Krulický, T. and Horák, J. (2019). Real estate as an investment asset. SHS Web of Conferences, 61, 01011. DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20196101011.
• [19] Kulakov, K. (2018). Management of the investment value of land plots during complex residential development. MATEC Web of Conferences, 193, 05021. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201819305021.
• [20] Kulakov, K. and Baronin, S. (2017). Methodical modeling of the investment value of land plots for housing development. MATEC Web of Conferences, 106, 08100. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201710608100.
• [21] Laurinavicius, A. and Galiniene, B. (2011). Real estate developer as an economic actor. From: Outlines of Property Theory and Practice 2010/2011, Lithuanian Property Assessors Association, Vilnius University, Faculty of Economics. Steponas Deveikis. – Vilnius: LTVA, 36-47.
• [22] Leń, P., Wójcik-Leń, J. and Stręk, Z. (2019). Application of TOPSIS Method to Hierarchization of Land ConsolidationWorks. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 221, 012068. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/221/1/012068.
• [23] Lithuania Government of the Republic Approval of Special Conditions for Land and Forest Use, 1992, Nr. 22–652.
• [24] Lithuania Land Law of the Republic, No. I-446. State news, 1994, Nr. 34-620.
• [25] Maliene, V., Gough. D.R. and Malys, N. (2018). Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: Sensitivity analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making methods. Applied Soft Computing, 67, 286–298. DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.03.003.
• [26] Maliene, V., Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A. and Raslanas, S. (1999). Multi-criteria valuation of real estate. Construction-Civil Engineering, 5 (4), 272–284. Construction work technology, ISSN 1392-1525.
• [27] Markovic, Z. (2010). Modification of Topsis method for solving of multicriteria tasks. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 10(1), 117–143. DOI: 10.2298/yjor1001117m.
• [28] Memariani, A., Amini, A. and Alinezhad, A. (2009). Sensitivity Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW): The Results of Change in the Weight of One Attribute on the Final Ranking of Alternatives. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 4, 13–18.
• [29] Mosadeghi, R., Warnken, J., Tomlinson, R. and Mirfendereskc, H. (2015). Comparision of fuzzy –AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Computers, environmental and urban systems, 45, 54-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.10.001.
• [30] Mulliner, E. and Maliene, V. (2011). Criteria for Sustainable Housing Affordability. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Environmental Engineering. Vilnius, Lithuania, 19–20 May 2011, pp. 966–973.
• [31] Mulliner, E., Malys, N. and Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146–156. DOI:10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013.
• [32] Oktaviana, S., Rozzaaq, A. and Rosatama, D.A. (2019). Comparative analysis using WP and TOPSIS method to find the best mountain for hiking. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1193, 012023. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1193/1/012023.
• [33] Podvezko, V. (2011). The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22, 134–146. DOI: 10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310.
• [34] Reyes-Bueno, F., Tubio Sanchez, D., Gracia Samaniego, J., Miranda Barros, D., Crecente Maseda, A. and Sanchez-Rodriguez A. (2016). Factors influencing land fractioning in the context of land market deregulation in Ecuador. Land Use Policy, 52, 144–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.021.
• [35] Rose, D.C., Sutherland W.J., Parker, C. and Lobley, M. (2016). Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery. Agricultural systems, 149, 168–174. DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.009.
• [36] Roshanfekr, S., Tawil, N.M. and Goh, N.A. (2016). Investigation of Sustainable Housing Criteria. MATEC Web of Conferences, 66, 00096. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/20166600096.
• [37] Said, R., Majid, R., Alias, A. and Adnan, Y.M. (2016). Sustainable housing affordability in sabah. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, 5, 65–76.
• [38] Salehi, A. and Izadikhah, M. (2014). A novel method to extend SAW for decision-making problems with interval data. Decision Science Letters, 3, 225–236. DOI: 10.5267/j.dsl.2013.11.001.
• [39] Saraff, A.Z., Mohaghar A. and Bazargani, H. (2013). Developing Topsis method using statistical normalization for selecting knowledge management strategies. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 6(4), 860–875. DOI: 10.3926/jiem.573.
• [40] Soufi M.D., Ghobadian B. and Najafi, G. (2015). Topsis multicriteria decision modeling approach for biolubricant selection for two stroke petrol engines. Energies, 8, 13960–13970. DOI: 10.3390/en81212408.
• [41] Tang, J., Zhu, H., Jia, F. and Zheng, X. (2019). Urban Sustainability Evaluation under the Modifed TOPSIS Based on Grey Relational Analysis. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16 (256). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16020256.
• [42] Tumelionis, A. (2013). Topicalities of Comparative Method Calculations. From: Outlines of Property Theory and Practice 2013. Lithuanian Association of Property Valuers, Vilnius University, Faculty of Economics. Steponas Deveikis. – Vilnius: LTVA, 38-54.
• [43] Zhang, Y.J., Li, A.J. and Fung, T. (2012). Using GIS and Multi-criteria decision analysis for conflict resolution in land use planning. Environmental Science, 13, 2264–2273. DOI: 10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.215.