Evaluating the Effectiveness of Commercially Developed Appraisal Instruments (CDAIs) Using Composite Indices to Assess, Compare, and Rank the Liveability, Quality of Living and Sustainability Performance of Cities and Communities

IF 0.8 Q4 GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
C. Poveda
{"title":"Evaluating the Effectiveness of Commercially Developed Appraisal Instruments (CDAIs) Using Composite Indices to Assess, Compare, and Rank the Liveability, Quality of Living and Sustainability Performance of Cities and Communities","authors":"C. Poveda","doi":"10.12924/cis2023.11010001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": This manuscript presents an analysis of commercially developed appraisal instruments (CDAIs) using composite indices to assess, compare and rank the sustainability performance of cities and communities. A group of CDAIs using composite indices are commonly used to assess, compare, and rank the sustainability performance of cities and communities. As a sustainability assessment methodology, composite indices gather qualitative and quantitative information which is then used to calculate the overall performance of the principle (e.g., sustainability); the stand-alone number, commonly known as an index, is often used to compare and rank performance. Because of practicality and mistakenly perceived sim-plicity, the assessment methodology is often misunderstood and underestimated. Issues, skepticism, and criticism surrounding composite indices are rooted in the lack of structured and transparent methodological frameworks for the identification and selection of elements within each hierarchical level. Although scientifically-based methodologies and processes have been developed to assign relevance (i.e., weighting) and aggregate performance to calculate the stand-alone index, the effectiveness of the assessment methodology (i.e., composite indices) is still influenced by various degrees and types of subjectivity and uncertainty. To evaluate their effectiveness, the manuscript discusses three characteristics of CDAIs using composite indices: (1) the hierarchical structural organization (HSO) considers the aim of each hierarchical level in the assessment process, (2) the identification, selection and design of the elements (e.g., principle, sub-principles","PeriodicalId":9944,"journal":{"name":"Challenges in Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Challenges in Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2023.11010001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: This manuscript presents an analysis of commercially developed appraisal instruments (CDAIs) using composite indices to assess, compare and rank the sustainability performance of cities and communities. A group of CDAIs using composite indices are commonly used to assess, compare, and rank the sustainability performance of cities and communities. As a sustainability assessment methodology, composite indices gather qualitative and quantitative information which is then used to calculate the overall performance of the principle (e.g., sustainability); the stand-alone number, commonly known as an index, is often used to compare and rank performance. Because of practicality and mistakenly perceived sim-plicity, the assessment methodology is often misunderstood and underestimated. Issues, skepticism, and criticism surrounding composite indices are rooted in the lack of structured and transparent methodological frameworks for the identification and selection of elements within each hierarchical level. Although scientifically-based methodologies and processes have been developed to assign relevance (i.e., weighting) and aggregate performance to calculate the stand-alone index, the effectiveness of the assessment methodology (i.e., composite indices) is still influenced by various degrees and types of subjectivity and uncertainty. To evaluate their effectiveness, the manuscript discusses three characteristics of CDAIs using composite indices: (1) the hierarchical structural organization (HSO) considers the aim of each hierarchical level in the assessment process, (2) the identification, selection and design of the elements (e.g., principle, sub-principles
利用综合指数评估商业开发的评估工具(CDAIs)的有效性,对城市和社区的宜居性、生活质量和可持续性绩效进行评估、比较和排名
:本文分析了商业开发的评估工具(CDAI),使用综合指数来评估、比较和排序城市和社区的可持续性表现。一组使用综合指数的综合评价指标通常用于评估、比较和排序城市和社区的可持续性表现。作为一种可持续性评估方法,综合指数收集定性和定量信息,然后用于计算原则的总体绩效(例如可持续性);独立数字,通常被称为索引,通常用于比较和排序性能。由于评估方法的实用性和被错误地感知的相似性,经常被误解和低估。围绕综合指数的问题、怀疑和批评源于缺乏结构化和透明的方法框架来识别和选择每个层次中的要素。尽管已经开发了基于科学的方法和过程来分配相关性(即加权)和综合绩效来计算独立指数,但评估方法(即综合指数)的有效性仍然受到不同程度和类型的主观性和不确定性的影响。为了评估其有效性,手稿使用复合指数讨论了CDAI的三个特征:(1)层次结构组织(HSO)考虑了评估过程中每个层次的目标,(2)元素的识别、选择和设计(例如,原则、子原则
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Challenges in Sustainability
Challenges in Sustainability GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信