An Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Assess Sustainable Urban Development in an Emerging Economy

Abstract

Sustainable urban development (SUD) requires a balance between economic growth, social well-being, and environmental protection. Oftentimes, urban policy makers can hardly fulfill all SUD goals due to inadequacy of resources to support SUD programs. Therefore, the process of allocating scarce resources to achieve and balance various SUD goals becomes a critical challenge for policy makers and researchers. To solve this problem, this study adopts fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Situation (TOPSIS) to assess and rank different indicators of SUD and evaluate different cities in an emerging economy (Vietnam). Fuzzy methods exhibit more advantages than traditional ranking methods. Fuzzy AHP is an extension of AHP, whereas fuzzy TOPSIS is an extension of TOPSIS. Fuzzy methods are used to overcome disadvantages of traditional methods and are beneficial techniques for solving complicated decision problems with a realistic solution. Using a valid sample data of ten experts in the field of SUD, empirical results show that education, healthcare, quality of life, and social democracy are the most important indicators of SUD. By contrast, social diversity, social maturity, and energy consumption are the least important indicators of SUD. For social sustainability, social democracy and quality of life are the two most important criteria, whereas social maturity and social diversity are the two least important criteria. For economic sustainability, education and healthcare are the two most important criteria, whereas infrastructure and income are the two least important criteria. For environmental sustainability, water quality and waste disposal are the two most important criteria, whereas energy consumption and ecological conservation are the two least important criteria. Furthermore, fuzzy TOPSIS results reveal the best and the worst cities in Vietnam with regard to overall SUD and its three components. This study provides evidence for researchers and policy makers to better understand the importance of different goals of SUD and efficiently allocate scarce resources to achieve and balance different SUD goals. Furthermore, researchers and policy makers should further focus on indicators such as social democracy, quality of life, education, healthcare, water quality, and waste disposal. These indicators will help obtain the goals of SUD.