See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319261836

Rethinking Design and Urban Planning for the Cities of the Future

Article  in  Buildings · August 2017

DOI: 10.3390/buildings7030076

CITATIONS READS

49 1,012

2 authors, including:

Pierfrancesco De Paola
University of Naples Federico II
60 PUBLICATIONS   651 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "Real Estate Economics, Management and Investments" on "Buildings" journal (Scopus indexing) View project

Special Issue "Real Estate Economics, Management and Investments" on "Sustainability" journal (Scopus indexing) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pierfrancesco De Paola on 24 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 buildings
Article
Rethinking Design and Urban Planning for the Cities
of the Future
Thomas L. Saaty 1 and Pierfrancesco De Paola 2, * ID

1 Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, College of Business, University of Pittsburg, Mervis Hall 322,
Pittsburg, PA 15260, USA; [email protected]
2 Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Piazzale Vincenzo Tecchio 80,
80125 Napoli, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-320-66-11-888

Received: 13 June 2017; Accepted: 22 August 2017; Published: 24 August 2017

Abstract: Growth of urban areas and abandonment of rural areas are phenomena that increase
quickly. The main consequences of urbanization are pollution, consumption of resources and energy,
waste dumps, and junk yards. These aspects require a better planning and design of European
urban metropolitan areas, considering benefits, opportunities, costs and risks (B.O.C.R.), derivable
by urban transformations and available resources. The paper consists of five parts. The first part
contains some reflections on consequences of urban sprawl. In the second part, some possible kinds
of cities are discussed (sustainable city, smart city, and compact city). The third part briefly describes
a multicriteria decision-making approach known as the ‘analytic hierarchy process’ to deal with
complex decisions. In the fourth part, alternative city models are analyzed (compact city, elevated
city, green house city, and water city). Finally, in the fifth part, the criteria selected for the planning
and design of the alternative city models are used for the prioritization of some European cities.

Keywords: planning; design and urban transformations; analytic hierarchy process (AHP); analytic
network process (ANP); B.O.C.R. model; compact city; European cities

1. Introduction
Evolution of cities needs to guarantee the continuity of living activities (internal and external)
and to avoid nature’s control over populations, mostly from effects of increasing climate change on
Earth [1]. This is a main objective for the future of European cities.
Decisions about where and how to live depend, primarily, by particular conditions and
circumstances. If people live in open spaces, it is plausible that they tend to prefer open spaces
in their future, and it is hard and strange to think that they will live in close neighborhoods (unless
specific privileges are present that can compensate for existing differences between open and close
spaces). For example, for the city of Naples (the Neapolitan conurbation counts a population of about
4 million) it has been demonstrated that a key role for residential location choices is the “sense of
belonging” to neighborhoods where people grew up since they were children [2].
Growth of urban areas and abandonment of rural areas are phenomena that increase quickly,
in contrast with the slow decline of the European population. Another significant aspect that
involves the European population is an increasing gap between the elderly population and children,
the phenomenon of population ageing means more care is needed in the planning of future investments
for resource allocation (particularly in social services). Moreover, the migration of people from
countries in war towards Europe will drive cities’ urbanization at a much higher rate. For these
reasons, private corporations, international agencies, and local governments base their decisions on
demographic projections and, consequently, plan their strategies and investments.

Buildings 2017, 7, 76; doi:10.3390/buildings7030076 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2017, 7, 76 2 of 22

All these issues create a need for better planning and design of European urban metropolitan
areas, considering all benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (B.O.C.R. model) derivable by urban
transformations and available resources.
This paper attempts to update ideas of urban design in a holistic way and also shows how to
apply modern theories of decision making to make rational choices in building cities.
With these basic goals, the paper describes various possibilities of future cities considering the
various constraints and demands of society, the environment, and geography. The future city project
aims to delve into details of various future city models and aims to find out which model will be best
suitable depending upon the strategic criteria usable to evaluate the various merits of the B.O.C.R.
model. The four alternative kinds of cities analyzed according to their merits are: compact city, elevated
city, green house city and water city. At the same time, we identify the main criteria for the process
of designing and selecting different kinds of cities we think are plausible for the future of European
citizens. We then use these criteria to demonstrate how we can prioritize alternative European cities.
The paper consists of five parts. The first part contains some reflections on consequences of urban
sprawl. In the second part, some possible kinds of cities are discussed (sustainable city, smart city,
and compact city). The third part briefly describes a multicriteria decision making approach known
as the analytic hierarchy process to deal with complex decisions. In the fourth part, alternative city
models are analyzed (compact city, elevated city, green house city, water city). Finally, in the fifth
part, the criteria selected for the planning and design of the alternative city models are used for the
prioritization of some European cities.

2. Consequences of Urban Sprawl

The main consequences of urban sprawl are pollution, consumption of resources and energy,
waste dumps, and junk yards. These aspects request a better planning and design of European urban
metropolitan areas.
Landscape evolution and ecosystem transformations are driven by urbanization processes, further
exacerbated by fast growing urban population that might increase the risks of environmental problems.
Inappropriate land use is recognized as one of the most important anthropogenic influences on
global climate change, this is because strong relationships exist between population, environment,
development, and land use [1].
McKinsey Global Institution grouped the urbanization pressures into four main categories [3]:
land and spatial development; primary resources request and pollution; labor and skills; funding.
According to some of the most recent reports of Greenpeace and the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (I.P.C.C.), the global average surface temperature increased by 0.74 ◦ C during the
period 1906–2005, mainly for the consequences of anthropic activities [4,5]. Global climate changes
will have unpredictable impacts on ecosystems. Related to this problem, land-use decisional processes
and infrastructure investments need to reduce the vulnerability and to enhance the opportunities for
European urban populations. A particular environmental impact on cities induced by urbanization is
the so-called ‘urban heat island’ effect: due to higher solar radiation absorption and greater thermal
capacity and conductivity in urban areas, the heat is stored during the day and released the night
(with higher temperatures for urban areas respect to rural areas).
Urbanization processes have generated metropolitan areas with urban systems heterogeneous
for many aspects (real estate values, demography, environmental and socio-economical factors,
building types, imperfect real estate markets, etc.) [6–12], with different ways to reply to climate
and environmental changes.
If urban living is rising, many big cities’ social and cultural amenities are not easily accessible
to their populations. Every city should be like a creativity arena with multidimensional activities,
where people’s talents grow and dreams materialize. It should also be noted that cities have a large
number of people who must adapt to urban life without skills necessary to a real adaption: crime can
be born from this conflict.
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 3 of 22

However, urban population increase may also have its advantages: in some cases, the cities
concentrate poverty, but in other cases cities also provide the most important escape from poverty
at the same time. Modern civilization can damage resources and ecosystems, but cities also have
great potentialities for the long-term sustainability. If cities generate problems, they already include
possible solutions too. Therefore, urbanization’s benefits are potentially higher than its disadvantages,
but problems and opportunities are key points for improving urban life, for long-term growth and for
environmental and social sustainability.
The strategies to improve the future of urban life cannot be prescind the participation of civil
society in the processes of design and urban planning. Only a holistic management of cities may be
a possible solution to truly maximize the economic benefits of local communities [1].

3. Sustainable city, Smart City, Compact City

Almost 80% of Europe’s population lives and works in urban areas. In response to the growing
housing emergencies, the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) of European Commission (EC) promotes
new development dynamics and new design strategies, encouraging systemic approaches in the
ability to maximize possible benefits by advanced technologies also considering their socio-economic
impacts [13,14].
According to Wikipedia’s definition, a sustainable city is “a city designed with consideration of
environmental impact, inhabited by people dedicated to minimization of required inputs of energy,
water and food, and waste output of heat, air pollution—CO2 , methane, and water pollution” [15].
In the literature, some works identify the compact city model as an effective sustainable urban
form [16–18].
In the 90s Basiago studied how to make cities sustainable and concluded by suggesting 15 general
principles for sustainable urbanization [19]:

• a sustainable city is a garden city that integrates town and country [20];
• a sustainable city possesses the vital form of the medieval city [21];
• a sustainable city has a form nearest to organic as possible [22];
• a sustainable city elevates maternal, life nurturing functions [23,24];
• a sustainable city is designed with nature [25];
• a sustainable city is a permaculture [26];
• a sustainable city features solar design, natural drainage, edible landscape [27];
• a sustainable city is compact and regenerative of damaged or derelict urban land [28];
• a sustainable city is made compact to allow surrounding wilderness to flourish [29];
• a sustainable city has a circular metabolism [30];
• a sustainable city makes no waste, seeks biodiversity, relies on the sun [31];
• a sustainable city does not exceed nature’s carrying capacity [32];
• a sustainable city uses transit oriented development to control growth [33];
• a sustainable city is holistic, diverse, fractal, and evolutionary [34];
• a sustainable city is comprised of green infrastructure [35]

Moreover, Basiago said that sustainable land use requires the addressing of three specific issues
by local governments [19]:

• to find optimal sites for urban and industrial activities;

• financial systems must adopt the cost accounting system of nature;
• sustainable buildings are the basic unit of urbanization.

Concerning the above requirements, in recent years Copenhagen was declared like the most
eco-friendly city from many European institutions, but according to Arcadis report on “Sustainable
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 4 of 22

Cities Index 2016” [36], Copenhagen is really only in the 12th European position of sustainable
cities (#14 world ranking), where the 10 most sustainable European cities are: Zurich (no.1 world
ranking), Stockholm (no.3 world ranking), Vienna (no.4 world ranking), London (no.5 world ranking),
Frankfurt (no.6 world ranking), Hamburg (no.8 world ranking), Prague (no.9 world ranking), Munich
(no.10 world ranking), Amsterdam (no.11 world ranking), and Geneva (no.12 world ranking). In the
world ranking, the first 15 sustainable cities are all European with the exception of Singapore
(no.2 world ranking) and Seoul (no.7 world ranking).
Different from the concept of a sustainable city, a smart city aims to deploy advanced technology
solutions, synergistically interconnected, for different infrastructures and urban activities: services,
business, transport, communication, water, and energy. However, cities are really smart when new
advanced technologies are able to optimize the use of limited resources and core systems.
Theoretically, smart cities could represent the right way for a sustainable prosperity of cities,
but this can only be done through revolutionary and not evolutionary urban changes.
Cohen Boyd, a climate strategist helping to lead companies, communities, and cities towards
a low carbon economy, structured the so-called “Smart Cities Wheel” (see Figure 1) [37].
According to “Cities in Motion Index 2016” provided by IESE Center for Globalization and
Strategy—University of Navarra, published by Forbes [38], the top 10 smartest European cities
are: London (no.2 world ranking), Paris (no.3 world ranking), Amsterdam (no.6 world ranking),
Geneva (no.9 world ranking), Copenhagen (no.11 world ranking), Zurich (no.14 world ranking), Berlin
(no.16 world ranking), Munich (no.21 world ranking), Helsinki (no.25 world ranking), and Vienna
(no.26 world ranking). In the world ranking only 10 cities are European among the first 30 (New York,
NY, USA is at the no.1 world ranking).
With reference to compact cities, it should be noted that the term “compact city” was coined firstly
in 1973 by George Dantzig and Thomas L. Saaty, whose utopian vision was widely driven by a desire
to see a more efficient use of resources and better survival conditions for people [39].
Sometimes in distorted way, the compact city was strictly intended by some urban planners like
an urban development plan seeking to eliminate the urban sprawl and emphasize the sustainability.
In the original vision of Dantzig and Saaty the Compact City would be an economic city to
build and maintain, with many green spaces like public parks or private gardens. The travel time
from home to schools or work places would be very short, with the possibility to choose the most
desirable travel modality (walk, bicycle, or public transport services). Stores, restaurants, delivery
services, health facilities, and all routine services would always be fully available. In the compact
city, there would be no urban sprawl, freeways, traffic, smog, pollution, and other urban annoyances.
With building construction costs flexible so that it would be easy to remodel, renew, and rearrange
parts of the city, avoiding the processes of urban decay. The compact city would be divided into
five circular areas, more precisely from inside to outside: the core (work’s area with offices, shops,
schools, public services, etc.), core edge, inner residential area (with particular regard to vertical
dimension), mid-plaza (local facilities, elementary schools for children, clinics, neighborhood shops,
parks, and play areas), outer residential area. The compact city would be a four-dimensional city:
most of cities are predominantly two-dimensional cities, but the compact city would have the time as
a further dimension, over building upwards (third dimension) [39].
General requirements and preferences about a well-designed compact city should include
the following multiple goals: aesthetic environment; many labor-saving conveniences as possible;
fast access to any part of the city; suitable climate; low-cost living; conservation of agricultural land;
easy access to natural surroundings; elimination of delays; reduced pollution; elimination of accidents;
prevention of sabotage; maximizing escape possibility in case of natural disasters.
A study by Arifwidodo and Perera [40] has posed a relevant research question: if implementing the
policies on a compact city would significantly improve the quality of life of its residents. The mentioned
study, applied on the city of Bandung, did not provide a definite answer (Bandung is a city of Indonesia
with about 5.9 million of people in its metropolitan area, population density is about 14.975 people
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 5 of 22

perBuildings 2017, 7, 76 
kilometer). Although   the results of the study cannot be generalized, the authors argue 5 of 22 
that the
results seem to suggest that the policies of a compact city, applicable in developed countries, may not
applicable in developed countries, may not be easily applicable to cities in developing countries: the 
be easily applicable to cities in developing countries: the cities in developing countries may have more
problemsin 
cities  indeveloping 
managing the countries 
impactsmay  have  more 
derived problems 
from intense in  managing 
urban the  impacts  derived  from 
development.
intense urban development.   
The Eco-Compact City Network (E.C.C.N.) detects some kinds of “Eco-Compact Cities”
The Eco‐Compact City Network (E.C.C.N.) detects some kinds of “Eco‐Compact Cities” (cities 
(cities developed in balance with the natural environment, with optimum population density,
developed  in  balance  with  the  natural  environment,  with  optimum  population  density,  with  an 
with an extended system of small retails, efficient public transportation systems, pedestrian-friendly
extended system of small retails, efficient public transportation systems, pedestrian‐friendly cities), 
cities), many of these cities are located in Spain [41]: Paris (France); Gijon, Salamanca, Burgos, Bilbao,
many of these cities are located in Spain [41]: Paris (France); Gijon, Salamanca, Burgos, Bilbao, San 
SanSebastian, 
Sebastian,Vitoria 
Vitoria(Spain); 
(Spain); Brandevoort (a new town in Netherlands, designed by Rob Krier and
Brandevoort  (a  new  town  in  Netherlands,  designed  by  Rob  Krier  and 
Christoph Kohl, with a population density of 0.05 hab./sqkm).
Christoph Kohl, with a population density of 0.05 hab./sqkm). 

 
Figure 1. Smart cities wheel of Cohen Boyd (source: [37]). 
Figure 1. Smart cities wheel of Cohen Boyd (source: [37]).
4. Sustainability and Multicriteria Decision Making   
4. Sustainability and Multicriteria Decision Making
Measuring  the  sustainability  in  urban  areas  is  a  challenge  for  environmental  managers  and 
Measuring the sustainability in urban areas is a challenge for environmental managers and
decision‐makers. The idea of sustainable urban development was formulated in order to meet the 
decision-makers. The idea regarding 
growing  understanding  of sustainable urban development
the  several  was formulated
strategic  relationships  in different 
between:  order to meet
urban the
growing understanding
processes  regarding
with  reference  the several
to  social  and  strategic
economic  relationships
development; between: different
global,  urban
regional,  and processes
local 
with reference to social and economic development; global, regional, and  local environmental problems;
environmental problems; increase of urban population; urban sprawl. 
increaseThe  analytic 
of urban hierarchy 
population; process 
urban is  a  valid  tool  for  evaluating  the  urban  sustainable 
sprawl.
development. This because the evolution of cities leads to the need to develop options of innovative 
The analytic hierarchy process is a valid tool for evaluating the urban sustainable development.
designs 
This becauseor the
policies  that  of
evolution would 
citiesbe  beneficial 
leads for  improving 
to the need to developcurrent 
optionsconditions  and designs
of innovative providing  with 
or policies
opportunities to take advantage for future benefits. At the same time, we need to consider their cost 
that would be beneficial for improving current conditions and providing with opportunities to take
and  risk for
advantage consequences  too. At
future benefits. We 
thecan  choose 
same time,the 
we best 
needdesigns  or  policies 
to consider by and
their cost considering  all  the 
risk consequences
benefits‐opportunities‐costs‐risks (B.O.C.R.) factors in a holistic manner.   
too. We can choose the best designs or policies by considering all the benefits-opportunities-costs-risks
The  analytic  hierarchy  process,  a  theory  for  priority  measurement  for  design and evaluation, 
(B.O.C.R.) factors in a holistic manner.
created  and  developed  by  one  of  these  authors  [42–45],  is  a  way  to  make  complex  decisions 
The analytic hierarchy process, a theory for priority measurement for design and evaluation,
involving feedback, and can be used to help with the many decisions and evaluations we need to 
created and developed by one of these authors [42–45], is a way to make complex decisions involving
make as we design future cities [46–52].   
feedback,
We and can
need  beonly 
not  usedto toidentify 
help with
the the manyelements, 
B.O.C.R.  decisionsbut 
and evaluations
also  we need
to  understand  to make as we
interdependence 
design future cities [46–52].
among  them  and  how  the  elements  dominate  each  other  to  finally  influence  the  outcome  of  our 
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 6 of 22

We need not only to identify the B.O.C.R. elements, but also to understand interdependence
among them and how the elements dominate each other to finally influence the outcome of our
decision problem. Working with a group of elements adds challenges but is inevitable to synthesize
the diversity of knowledge and to deal with the difference in preferences.
The set of potential outcomes and the alternatives from which to choose are the essence of
decision making. In laying out the framework for making a decision, one needs to sort the elements
into groupings or clusters that have similar influences or effects. One must also arrange them in some
rational order to trace the outcome of these influences. Briefly, the decision making is a process that
involves the following steps:

• understand and define the problem as completely as possible;

• structure a problem with a model that shows the problem’s key elements and their relationships;
• elicit judgments that reflect knowledge, feelings, or emotions;
• represent those judgments with meaningful numbers;
• use these numbers to calculate the priorities of the elements of the hierarchy;
• synthesize these results to determine an overall outcome;
• analyze sensitivity to changes in judgment.

Cities can be seen as complex networks of components: citizens, businesses, transports,

communications, water, energy, urban integrated services, and other systems. Understanding how
activities improve and change through the lens of these elements offers cities new perspectives on the
progress they are making toward implementing their strategies for achieving their objectives.
Starting from the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and its generalization to dependence and
feedback, the analytic network process (ANP) comprise a well-known methodology that has been
widely used for making the same kind of complex decisions needed here for choosing among
the kind of cities to build, their design, location, and all the nuances involved in trading off
different characteristics.
The AHP is about breaking a problem down, prioritizing all the factors, and then aggregating
the solutions of all the sub-problems into a conclusion. It facilitates decision making by organizing
perceptions, feelings, judgments, and memories into a framework that identifies and exhibits the forces
that influence a decision. The connections between the factors that go into making a decision have two
kinds of structures. The first is hierarchic descending from a goal to criteria, subcriteria, then down to
a level of alternatives that need ranking to determine the best choice (AHP). The other kind of structure
is a network with interdependences and feedback (ANP).
Substantially, an ANP decision model is a more general structure that allows connections in other
ways than the top-down ones in a hierarchy. An ANP model is better for capturing the complexity of
the real problems.
Paired comparisons are the first fundamental paradigmatic shift of the AHP in conceptualizing
how the mind works to generate judgments or to expression of the sense of relative priority and order.
Judgments are inherently subjective, involving both tangible and intangible qualities. The AHP applies
relative measurement, the only way to measure intangible qualities or understanding.
Consequently, to construct a measurement theory that would be applicable for complex problems,
a new scale had to be invented to represent relative judgments. To make a judgment on a pair of
elements on should begin by perceiving which is the dominant element in the pair to be judged,
then select a verbal expression from the following statements that best expresses how dominant it is.
Moreover, we generally need to compare more than a pair of objects, which calls for converting the
verbal judgments into numbers so that they can be synthesized to derive their relative measurement.
Pursuing the accuracy of their representation demands that they need to be validated when
measurements exist to enhance the belief that accurate outcomes can also be reaches by experts
when applying judgment to compare intangibles qualities.
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 7 of 22

The AHP uses the integers 1 to 9 as its fundamental scale of absolute numbers corresponding
to the verbal statements for the comparisons. This scale is not an arbitrarily chosen set of ordinal
numbers but is a meticulously derived scale of absolute numbers by using stimulus–response theory
in psychology [42–45]:

• 1 Equal importance;
• 3 Moderate importance of one over another;
• 5 Strong or essential importance;
• 7 Very strong or demonstrated importance;
• 9 Extreme importance;
• 2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values.

Use reciprocals for inverse comparisons.

5. The Best City Model for the Future

Mainly, there are possible kinds of compact city, and more precisely [1]:

• Circular compact city. The main goal behind the compact circular city is to take advantage of
its specific circular design, because all points at the circumference are equally distant from the
center. The central part of a circular city would be mainly reserved for residential units (apartment
dwellings and community housing). If housing units are at the center, there would be better
security for the residents with good mutual social relations. Infrastructures would be placed
around the center. The outermost levels should be reserved for industrial structures (minimizing
environmental pollution). On the top of buildings there would be green parks as roofs, while city
would be surrounded by rural countryside (without suburbs). The major benefits of the circular
compact city are less city congestion and efficient public transport systems. However, its main
limitation is the poor space for further expansion, even if a network of compact circular cities
would be a possible way to resolve the urban expansion problem.
• Elevated city. The main goal of the elevated city is the preservation of natural landscapes.
The nature would be raised to preserve the environmental contexts. Ecological efficiency would
be the main rule, using recycled building materials, compost toilets, nature-based water cleansing
systems, forests, plant life, and water-based ecosystems. Essentially, the elevated city would
be more an ecosystems design than an architectural habitation design. Nature’s beauty would
be preserved by condensing living areas, working environments, commercial, and industrial
services, into an upwardly directed architectural structure. The ideal form of the elevated city
is the trumpet bell shape, with high compressive characteristics. The city would be completely
self-sufficient in terms of energy, energy entirely produced from renewable sources.
• Green house city. The main goal of this city is the use of natural forms and resources to build
future houses. The idea of the green house city is to build houses only with wood materials.
Transportation would be only by vehicles powered with bio-fuels. The use of fossil or natural
resources such as coal, oil, and gas would be minimal and restricted. Green houses have
many advantages, however these houses would be not adaptable where climate conditions
are unfavorable, where trees/wood are not available easily, and it is also necessary to consider
the limited useful life of wood materials. Although the green houses may not be able to provide
all the comforts as apartments, the green house city is a realistic possible model for the cities of
the future.
• Water city. This kind of city would be a complex system of structures in able to accommodate
many people and to relieve population’s pressures on land. New synthetic materials could be
used for buildings, to withstand the corrosive effects of the harsh water environment. This is
a conceptual view of a city and, in effect, a similar construction could be the Palm Island located
in the sea of Dubai.
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 8 of 22

Although in recent years many studies have been carried out on the topic of ‘compact cities’,
its distinction into the four models described above can still be considered current.
Now we use an ANP model to rank them in order to choose the best one. In particular, a complex
B.O.C.R. model is implemented with separate models used for analyzing benefits, opportunities,
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 
costs, and risks.   8 of 22 

Paired comparisons and analytic elaborations are carried out with Super Decisions software
Paired  comparisons  and  analytic  elaborations  are  carried  out  with  Super  Decisions  software 
(free available, after registration, at www.superdecisions.com).
(free available, after registration, at www.superdecisions.com).   
Figure 2 shows the general structure of the ANP model used to combine the results from the
Figure 2 shows the general structure of the ANP model used to combine the results from the 
separate B.O.C.R. models. It contains the strategic criteria used to evaluate the importance of the
separate  B.O.C.R.  models.  It  contains  the  strategic  criteria  used  to  evaluate  the  importance  of  the 
B.O.C.R. nodes, the priorities of which are then used to combine results from the separate B.O.C.R.
B.O.C.R. nodes, the priorities of which are then used to combine results from the separate B.O.C.R. 
models to give the best overall answer. The priorities of the B.O.C.R. nodes are multiplied by their
models to give the best overall answer. The priorities of the B.O.C.R. nodes are multiplied by their 
respective vectors of priorities of the cities and combined to determine the overall importance of
respective vectors of priorities of the cities and combined to determine the overall importance of the 
thecities. 
cities.The 
Thestrategic 
strategiccriteria 
criteriaare 
areinvariant 
invariant higher-level
higher‐level  concerns
concerns  that
that  must
must  be be considered
considered  in every
in  every 
decision and
decision  areare 
and  used to evaluate
used  thethe 
to  evaluate  priorities of the
priorities  B.O.C.R.
of  the  nodes
B.O.C.R.  in the
nodes  particular
in  the  decision:
particular  basic
decision: 
necessities, environmental friendliness, population pressure, social life, and social care.
basic necessities, environmental friendliness, population pressure, social life, and social care. 

 
Figure 2. Main structure of ANP model provided by Super Decisions software. 
Figure 2. Main structure of ANP model provided by Super Decisions software.

The control criteria for the benefits subnet, opportunities subnet, costs subnet, and risks subnet 
The control criteria for the benefits subnet, opportunities subnet, costs subnet, and risks subnet
are shown in Tables 1–4. For every control criterion further subnets exist with a subsequent priority 
areorder of alternatives. Tables 1–4 show all clusters and elements for the separate B.O.C.R. models. 
shown in Tables 1–4. For every control criterion further subnets exist with a subsequent priority  
order of alternatives. Tables 1–4 show all clusters and elements for the separate B.O.C.R. models.
Benefits model 
Benefits model
 Social  subnet.  Social  benefits  judge  future  cities  on  the  quality  and  availability  of  public 
• services, 
Social subnet.medical 
Social facilities,  city  energy 
benefits judge demand, 
future cities housing 
on the qualityneeds  related  to  the 
and availability increase 
of public of 
services,
population,  travel  expenses.  For  this  subnet,  the  element  ‘time  spent  with  family’ 
medical facilities, city energy demand, housing needs related to the increase of population, travel has  the 
highest global priority (see Table 1). 
expenses. For this subnet, the element ‘time spent with family’ has the highest global priority
 (see
Environmental subnet. Environmental benefits are expressed by following parameters: energy 
Table 1).
conservation, and impacts on flora and fauna, pressure on natural resources consumption, low 
• Environmental subnet. Environmental benefits are expressed by following parameters: energy
environmental  pollution.  For  this  subnet,  the  element  ‘water’  has  the  highest  global  priority 
conservation, and impacts on flora and fauna, pressure on natural resources consumption,
(see Table 1). 
low environmental pollution. For this subnet, the element ‘water’ has the highest global priority
 Economic  subnet.  Economic  benefits  are  expressed  by  following  parameters:  low  living 
(see Table 1).infrastructures  development  and  their  maintenance,  transportation  costs  and  costs 
expenses, 
• Economic subnet.
related  to  Economic
development  of  benefits are expressed
new  parking  bythis 
spaces.  For  following
subnet, parameters:
the  element low livinghas 
‘income’  expenses,
the 
infrastructures development and
highest global priority (see Table 1).  their maintenance, transportation costs and costs related to
 development of new
For  the  benefits  parking
model,  the spaces.
compact For this
city  subnet,
and  the element
the  water  ‘income’
city  have  has theand 
more  benefits  highest
they  global
are 
priority (see
aligned  on Table 1). value  substantially,  with  the  first  city  being  slightly  higher  than  the 
the  same 
second (0.311 vs. 0.310, see Table 5). 
Opportunities model 
 Social  subnet.  Social  opportunities  deriving  by  the  cities  of  the  future  are  expressed  by 
following  parameters:  free  time  opportunities,  low  crime  rate,  work‐life  balance,  and  social 
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 9 of 22

• For the benefits model, the compact city and the water city have more benefits and they are
aligned on the same value substantially, with the first city being slightly higher than the second
(0.311 vs. 0.310, see Table 5).

Opportunities model

• Social subnet. Social opportunities deriving by the cities of the future are expressed by following
parameters: free time opportunities, low crime rate, work-life balance, and social harmony.
For this subnet, the element ‘work–life balance’ has the highest global priority (see Table 2).
• Technological subnet. Technological opportunities deriving by the cities of the future are expressed
through the sharing of technical advances with the subsequent impacts on overall life aspects.
For this subnet, the element ‘technical advances’ has the highest global priority (see Table 2).
• Economic subnet. Economic opportunities are expressed by following parameters: job creation
opportunities related to the increase of population, opportunities linked to the increased budget
for security and public health. For this subnet, the element ‘health budget’ has the highest global
priority (see Table 2).
• For the opportunities model, the compact city presents the greatest opportunities followed by the
green house city (see Table 5).

Costs model

• Environmental subnet. Environmental costs are expressed by following parameters: climate

changes, impacts on flora and fauna, waste management. For this subnet, the element ‘climate
changes’ has the highest global priority (see Table 3).
• Financial subnet. Financial costs are expressed by following parameters: loss of existing
investments, complexity of processes, raw materials costs, waste disposal problems, development,
and city maintenance costs. For this subnet, the element ‘waste disposal’ has the highest global
priority (see Table 3).
• Social subnet. Social costs are expressed by following parameters: costs for maintain law & order
in the city, acceptance costs of available alternatives, historical and cultural heritage loss. For this
subnet, the element ‘law and order’ has the highest global priority (see Table 3).
• For the costs model, the water city presents the highest costs followed by the green house city
(see Table 5).

Risks model

• Technology subnet. Technological risks are expressed by following parameters: technology

support and improvement for the increase of population, dead-end risk due to technological
changes, technology misuses, and uncertainties in the technological feasibility. For this subnet,
the element ‘technology support’ has the highest global priority (see Table 4).
• Environmental subnet. Environmental risks are expressed by following parameters: lives and
properties losses due to natural disasters or unknown risks for human health and environmental
threats to flora and fauna. For this subnet, the element ‘disaster threats’ has the highest global
priority (see Table 4).
• Financial subnet. Financial risks are expressed by following parameters: affordability, adaptability,
and sustainability of the city, in addition to potential unexpected expenses for the maintenance
of public services. For this subnet, the element ‘self sustainable’ has the highest global priority
(see Table 4).
• Social subnet. Social risks are expressed by following parameters: basic support by society,
isolation from neighbors and loved ones, crime rate. For this subnet the element ‘crime rate’ has
the highest global priority (see Table 4).
• For the risks model, the water city presents the highest risks in absolute (see Table 5).
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 10 of 22

In Table 5, the overall output about the best city model of the future is reported.
Figure 3 shows the synthesizing results using multiplicative formula of the B.O.C.R. model m, this
option is the best solution in the short-term [1]. More in detail, in the short-term scenario, the overall
synthesized priorities for the alternatives are reported in Figure 3. The results highlight that the
compact city is, in absolute, the preferred alternative for the city of the future in the short-term.
Figure 4 shows the synthesizing results using additive method of the B.O.C.R. model. The additive
method combines the priorities (b, o, c, r) and the strategic criteria (B, O, C, R) as follows:
[(b × B) + (o × O) − (c × C) − (r × R)]; this option is the best long-term alternative [1]. More in detail,
in the long-term scenario, the overall synthesized priorities for the alternatives are reported in Figure 4.
Also in this case, the results highlight that the compact city is the preferred alternative in the long-term
for the cities of the future. The only other alternative is the green house city.
Finally, a sensitivity analysis has carried out for to verify the variance of overall results for a specific
input parameter (varying the 50% weight for benefits, opportunities, costs and risks; see Figure 5).
According to sensitivity analysis, in the short-term the compact city is always the best alternative
followed by the green house city.

Table 1. Priorities of elements in benefits model.

Benefits
Control Criteria Clusters Elements Local Priorities Global Priorities
Security 0.747 0.035
Administrative (0.15)
Public services 0.253 0.012
Availability 0.474 0.051
Medical (0.35)
Quality 0.526 0.057
Energy needs 0.216 0.028
Social (0.31)
Quality of life (0.42) Housing 0.264 0.043
Time spent with family 0.520 0.068
Policy executive 0.255 0.006
Government (0.08) Policy planning 0.270 0.007
Public welfare
0.475 0.012
department
Air 0.176 0.069
Energy 0.159 0.062
Stakeholder (0.80) Flora and fauna 0.183 0.072
Land 0.165 0.065
Environmental
Water 0.317 0.124
(0.49)
Conservation 0.668 0.065
Other (0.20) Enrichment 0.215 0.021
Pollution 0.117 0.011
Infrastructure
0.724 0.043
Industrialization (0.30) development
Jobs 0.276 0.017
Maintenance 0.588 0.018
Administrative (0.15)
Security 0.412 0.012
Economic (0.20) Income 0.711 0.053
Individual (0.37)
Living expenses 0.289 0.021
Accident 0.441 0.012
Gasoline 0.156 0.005
Transportation (0.18) Parking 0.104 0.003
Road 0.233 0.007
Vehicle 0.066 0.001
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 11 of 22

Table 2. Priorities of elements in opportunities model.

Opportunities
Control Criteria Clusters Elements Local Priorities Global Priorities
Consulting 0.082 0.036
Health budget 0.477 0.210
Economic (0.44) Other (1.00)
Job 0.273 0.120
Security budget 0.168 0.074
Crime rate 0.217 0.085
Custom and
0.147 0.057
tradition
Social (0.39) Other (1.00)
Health and leisure 0.213 0.083
Shared community 0.087 0.034
Social harmony 0.093 0.036
Work life balance 0.243 0.095
Better forecasting 0.240 0.041
Technological (0.17) Other (1.00) Technical advances 0.438 0.074
Technology sharing 0.322 0.055

Table 3. Priorities of elements in costs model.

Costs
Control Criteria Clusters Elements Local Priorities Global Priorities
Acceptance 0.184 0.042
Heritage 0.360 0.083
Social (0.23) Other (1.00)
Law and order 0.268 0.062
Social relations 0.188 0.043
Legal 0.137 0.005
Administrative
Loss of productivity 0.269 0.010
(0.20)
Process Implementation 0.594 0.021
Demolition 0.041 0.006
Development 0.131 0.018
Financial (0.18)
Loss of investments 0.133 0.019
Other (0.80) Maintenance 0.211 0.030
Raw material 0.201 0.029
Training 0.055 0.008
Waste disposal 0.228 0.033
Waste management 0.206 0.121
Environmental
Other (1.00) Climate change 0.696 0.411
(0.59)
Flora and fauna impact 0.098 0.059

Table 4. Priorities of elements in risks model.

Risks
Control Criteria Clusters Elements Local Priorities Global Priorities
Acceptance risks 0.079 0.027
Basic need support 0.350 0.119
Social (0.34) Others (1.00)
Crime rate 0.424 0.144
Seclusion 0.147 0.050
Government 0.433 0.012
Stakeholder (0.25)
Public 0.567 0.016

Financial (0.11) Adaptability 0.216 0.018

Affordability 0.173 0.014
Acceptability (0.75)
Self freedom 0.197 0.016
Self sustainable 0.414 0.034
Disaster threats 0.606 0.315
Environmental
Other (1.00) Flora and fauna 0.146 0.076
(0.52)
Health 0.248 0.129
Future technology changes 0.250 0.007
Misuse 0.057 0.002
Technology (0.03) Other (1.00)
Technical feasibility 0.256 0.008
Technology support 0.437 0.013
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 12 of 22

Buildings 2017, 7, 76    
Buildings 2017, 7, 76  Table 5. Overall output about the best city model of the future. 12 of 22 
12 of 22 

Table 5. Overall output about the best city model of the future. 
City Model Benefits Opportunities Costs
Table 5. Overall output about the best city model of the future.  Risks
Compact city City Model 0.311 Benefits
City Model  Benefits 0.407
Opportunities
Opportunities Costs0.189
Costs Risks
Risks 0.242
Elevated cityCompact city 
0.100 0.311 
Compact city  0.311  0.110
0.407 
0.407 
0.147
0.189  0.242 
0.189  0.242 
0.148
Green house city 0.279 0.100 
Elevated city  0.268
0.110  0.273
0.147  0.148  0.240
Elevated city  0.100  0.110  0.147  0.148 
Water cityGreen house city 
0.310 0.279  0.215
0.268  0.391
0.273  0.240  0.370
Green house city  0.279  0.268  0.273  0.240 
Water city 
Water city  0.310 
0.310  0.215 
0.215  0.391  0.370 
0.391  0.370 

  
Figure 3. B.O.C.R. model: best city in the short‐term (multiplicative formula) 
Figure 3. B.O.C.R. model: best city in the short-term (multiplicative formula).
Figure 3. B.O.C.R. model: best city in the short‐term (multiplicative formula) 

  
Figure 4. B.O.C.R. model: best city in the long‐term (additive formula) 
Figure 4. B.O.C.R. model: best city in the long‐term (additive formula) 
Figure 4. B.O.C.R. model: best city in the long-term (additive formula).
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 13 of 22
Buildings 2017, 7, 76    13 of 22 

(a)  (b)

(c)  (d) 

Figure 5. Results of sensitivity analysis: Benefits (a); Opportunities (b); Costs (c); Risks (d). 
Figure 5. Results of sensitivity analysis: Benefits (a); Opportunities (b); Costs (c); Risks (d).

6. Ranking Today’s European Cities 
6. Ranking Today’s European Cities
In today’s Europe, many different kinds of cities coexist: cities that merge two continents like 
In today’s Europe, many different kinds of cities coexist: cities that merge two continents like
Istanbul, flat or hill cities like Paris or Rome, new three‐dimensional sky scraper cities like London, 
Istanbul, flat or hill cities like Paris or Rome, new three-dimensional sky scraper cities like London,
water cities like Venice or Amsterdam, cold weather cities existing in the Scandinavian peninsula, 
water cities like Venice or Amsterdam, cold weather cities existing in the Scandinavian peninsula, cities
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 14 of 22

in the mountains like Andorra la Vella (the highest mountain capital city in Europe with 1.023 m),
medieval cities like Florence or Prague, and fully enclosed cities like compact cities.
Some known cities in Europe have been selected for this case study, where each city has
some unique features that make each one noticeable different from the other. Cities are chosen
for particular reasons which make them alternatives among them: Paris is the largest and widest of the
European capital cities, Rome is a flat/hill European capital city, London is the European capital city
characterized by three-dimensions, Andorra la Vella is the highest European capital city, Amsterdam is
the unique European capital city on the water, Copenhagen is a green European capital city and, finally,
the compact city as the best city for the future. Figure 6 shows some images of the compact city model.
The ranking of European cities is carried out by the B.O.C.R. model. Benefits and costs are referred
to in the present time, opportunities and risks will be referred to in the future.
The criteria used for the B.O.C.R. model are mainly taken from international literature related
to city ranking [53]. In addition to tangible criteria taken from literature, other intangible criteria are
included in the case study.
Through pairwise comparisons, the criteria priorities are determined and, then, the judgment
about the seven selected cities by comparing them on each criterion separately and finally weight or
multiply the priorities of the alternatives by the importance or priorities of the criteria and add to
determine the best city.
Prefixed priorities and data are based on personal experiences and critical opinions, considering
also the specific criticalities of European cities. Quantitative or qualitative information for the
judgments are taken from the Arcadis report on “Sustainable Cities Index 2016” [36].
The pairwise comparison judgments are entered by comparing a criterion listed on the left of
the table with another listed at the top. A criterion compared with itself is always assigned the value
one. The values 3, 5, 7, and 9 correspond to the following verbal judgments of the comparisons of
elements on the left over those at the top: ‘moderately more dominant’, ‘strongly more dominant’,
‘very strongly more dominant’, and ‘extremely more dominant’ (with the values 2, 4, 6, and 8 for
compromise between the previous values). Instead, the reciprocal values (1/3, 1/5, 1/7, 1/9) are
automatically inserted when the element on the left does not dominate, but it is dominated by the
element at the top of the table [1].
The priorities are obtained by raising the matrix to a large power to capture all the interactions,
adding the entries in each row and dividing by the total sum of the rows. It is mathematically
demonstrated that it is necessary to use this scale to get meaningful results in practice. It represents
the normal range of human sensitivity to phenomena that are homogeneous.
Figures 7–10 show the structures of the B.O.C.R. model. The chosen criteria for the judgement
on cities are always inserted at the second level of the hierarchy, while the candidate cities (or the
alternatives of decision making) are at the third level.
For brevity of discussion, criteria and priorities are fully listed in Table 6:
Benefits model

• Social subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘public services’ has the highest global priority.
• Environmental and ecology subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘pollution’ has the highest
global priority.
• Economic subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘energy consumption’ has the highest global priority.
• Security subnet. For this subnet, ‘crime rate’ is the only element considered.
• For the benefits model, the compact city has the highest benefits, followed by Copenhagen and
Amsterdam (see Table 7).

Opportunities model

• Social subnet. For this subnet, ‘leisure time’ is the only element considered.
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 15 of 22

• Technological subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘measures of innovation’ has the highest
global priority.
• Economic subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘job creation’ has the highest global priority.
• For the opportunities model, London presents the greatest opportunities followed by Paris
(see Table 7).

Costs model

• Environmental subnet. For this subnet, ‘loosing green’ is the only element considered.
• Economic subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘waste disposal’ has the highest global priority.
• Social subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘heritage cost’ has the highest global priority.
• For the costs model, Rome presents the highest costs followed by Amsterdam (see Table 7).

Risks model

• Technological subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘uncertainty about technological feasibilities’
has the highest global priority.
• Environment and ecology subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘unacceptable losses of life’ has the
highest global priority.
• Economic subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘risk in maintaining the public services’ has the
highest global priority.
• Social subnet. For this subnet, the element ‘population increase and Immigration’ has the highest
global priority.
• For the Risks model, Rome presents the highest risks in absolute (see Table 7).

In Table 7 the overall output about European cities is presented.

For the long-term and short-term scenarios, the overall synthesized priorities for the alternatives
are reported in Figures 11 and 12. Results of multiplicative formula (Figure 11) and additive formula
(Figure 12) highlight always the compact city as the best choice followed by Copenhagen.
As already mentioned in the previous paragraph, the additive formula is the best option for to
interpret the best long-term alternative, the multiplicative formula is the more suitable solution to
identify the best short-term alternative.
In the case study, the ranking of first two cities are the same for both methods of synthesizing
although this is not necessarily true in general. In the short-term, Copenhagen is second, Andorra is the
third, and Amsterdam comes in fourth. To further explore our outcome, we can show the sensitivity
analysis in the short-term scenario respect to costs and risks. If risks become more important (after 0.50),
the compact city, Copenhagen, and Andorra maintain still, respectively, the first, second, and third
place (see Figure 13). If costs become more important (after 0.50), the compact city, Amsterdam,
and Copenhagen are, respectively, at the first, second, and third place (see Figure 13).
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 16 of 22
Buildings 2017, 7, 76    16 of 22 
Buildings 2017, 7, 76    16 of 22 

(a)  (b)
(a)  (b)
Figure 6. Compact city model: top and side view (a); typical plan (b) [1]. 
Figure 6. Compact city model: top and side view (a); typical plan (b) [1].
Figure 6. Compact city model: top and side view (a); typical plan (b) [1]. 

 
 
Figure 7. The best European city benefits hierarchy. 
Figure 7. The best European city benefits hierarchy. 
Figure 7. The best European city benefits hierarchy.
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 17 of 22
Buildings 2017, 7, 76    17 of 22 
Buildings 2017, 7, 76    17 of 22 

 
 
Figure 8. The best European city opportunities hierarchy. 
Figure 8. The best European city opportunities hierarchy.
Figure 8. The best European city opportunities hierarchy. 

 
 
Figure 9. The best European city costs hierarchy. 
Figure 9. The best European city costs hierarchy. 
Figure 9. The best European city costs hierarchy.
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 18 of 22
Buildings 2017, 7, 76    18 of 22 

 
Figure 10. The best European city risks hierarchy. 
Figure 10. The best European city risks hierarchy.
Table 6. B.O.C.R. criteria and priorities 

BENEFITS (0.26) 
Table 6. B.O.C.R. criteria and priorities.
Priority  OPPORTUNITIES (0.31)  Priority 
I—Improving the budget 
L—Living expenses (0.219)  0.009  0.050 
BENEFITS (0.26) Priority OPPORTUNITIES (0.372) 
(0.31) Priority
E—Energy consumption 
Economic (0.16)  L—Living expenses 0.020  Economic (0.43)  I—Improving the
J—Job creation (0.421)  0.056 
(0.485)  0.009 0.050
(0.219) budget (0.372)
G—Per‐capita income growth 
E—Energy 0.012  Economic E—Expandability (0.207)  0.028 
Economic (0.16) (0.296)  0.020 J—Job creation (0.421) 0.056
consumption (0.485) (0.43)
P—Pollution (0.426)  0.049  Social (0.15) L—Leisure time (1.000)  0.046 
G—Per-capita income T—Better technological 
E—Expandability
T—Traffic (0.163)  0.019 
0.012 0.062 
0.028
Environment and  growth (0.296) Technological  (0.207)
advances (0.485) 
ecology (0.44)  (0.42)  M—Measures of innovation 
L—Leisure time 0.066 
P—Pollution (0.426)
FF—Flora and fauna (0.411)  0.049
0.047  Social (0.15) (0.515)  0.046
(1.000)
COSTS (0.21)  Priority 
Security (0.15)  C—Crime rate (1.000)  0.039  T—Better
W—Waste disposal (0.582)  0.061 
T—Traffic (0.163) 0.019 Economic (0.5)  technological 0.062
Environment and H—Housing (0.232)  0.015  S—Security cost (0.418)    0.044 
ecology (0.44) Technological advances (0.485)
A—Accessibility of health 
0.017  (0.42) H—Heritage cost (0.627)  0.033 
services (0.262)  Social (0.25)  M—Measures of
FF—Flora and fauna 0.066
Social (0.25)  P—Public services (0.326)  0.047
0.021  innovation (0.515)
P—Psychological cost (0.373)  0.020 
(0.411)
TT—Time spent in travelling 
0.004  Environment  COSTS (0.21) Priority
(0.061)  G—Loosing green (1.000)  0.053 
(0.25)  W—Waste disposal
Security (0.15) MT—Metro Areas (0.119) 
C—Crime rate (1.000) 0.008 
0.039 0.061
RISKS (0.22)  Priority 
(0.582)
RISKS (0.22)  Priority 
Economic (0.5)
S—Economic sustainability  S—Security cost
H—Housing (0.232) 0.015
0.037  0.044
(0.373)  (0.418)
RP—Population increase and 
Economic (0.45)  Social (0.13)  0.029 
MS—Risk in maintaining the 
A—Accessibility of Immigration (1.000) 
H—Heritage cost
0.062 
0.017 0.033
public services (0.627) 
health services (0.262) (0.627)
Social (0.25) UT—Uncertainty about 
TF—Threat to flora and fauna 
P—Public services P—Psychological cost
Social (0.25) 0.013 
0.021 technological feasibilities  0.046 
0.020
Environment and  (0.415) 
(0.326) Technological  (0.373)
(0.742) 
ecology (0.14)  (0.28) 
TT—Time spent in
LL—Unacceptable losses of  MT—Misuse of technology 
0.004
0.018  G—Loosing green 0.016 
travelling (0.061)
life (0.585)  Environment (0.258)  0.053
(1.000)
MT—Metro Areas (0.25)
0.008
(0.119) Table 7. Overall output 
RISKS (0.22) Priority RISKS (0.22) Priority
City  Benefits Opportunities Costs Risks
S—Economic
Compact City  0.270  0.129  0.046  0.041 
0.037
sustainability (0.373)
Amsterdam  0.170 0.181 0.207 RP—Population
0.132
Economic (0.45) MS—Risk in Social (0.13) increase and 0.029
maintaining the 0.062 Immigration (1.000)
public services (0.627)
UT—Uncertainty
TF—Threat to flora
0.013 about technological 0.046
Environment and and fauna (0.415) Technological feasibilities (0.742)
ecology (0.14) (0.28)
LL—Unacceptable MT—Misuse of
0.018 0.016
losses of life (0.585) technology (0.258)
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 19 of 22

Table 7. Overall output.

City Benefits Opportunities Costs Risks

Buildings 2017, 7, 76    19 of 22 
Buildings 2017, 7, 76    19 of 22 
Compact City 0.270 0.129 0.046 0.041
Amsterdam 0.170 0.181 0.207 0.132
Copenhagen  0.199 
Copenhagen  0.1990.199  0.122 
0.122  0.055 
0.055  0.065 
0.065 
Copenhagen 0.122 0.055 0.065
Andorra 
Andorra 0.188 
Andorra  0.1880.188  0.027 
0.027
0.027  0.042 
0.042
0.042  0.056 
0.056
0.056 
London 
London 0.0690.069
London  0.0410.069 0.224
0.224
0.224 0.140
0.140
0.140 0.2450.245
0.2450.261
RomeRome  0.041  0.134
0.134  0.347
0.347  0.261 
Paris Rome  0.0630.041  0.134 
0.183 0.347 
0.163 0.261 
0.200
Paris 
Paris  0.063 
0.063  0.183 
0.183  0.163 
0.163  0.200 
0.200 

  
Figure 11. Results on best European city in the short‐term (multiplicative formula). 
Figure 11. Results on best European city in the short-term (multiplicative formula).
Figure 11. Results on best European city in the short‐term (multiplicative formula). 

  
Figure 12. Results on best European city in the long‐term (additive formula). 
Figure 12. Results on best European city in the long‐term (additive formula). 
Figure 12. Results on best European city in the long-term (additive formula).
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 20 of 22
Buildings 2017, 7, 76    20 of 22 

 
(a)  (b) 

Figure 13. Sensitivity analysis with respect to costs (a) and risks (b). 
Figure 13. Sensitivity analysis with respect to costs (a) and risks (b).
7. Concluding Remarks 
7. Concluding Remarks
Many cities have piecemeal forms. Future challenges for European cities will need to include 
Many cities have piecemeal forms. Future challenges for European cities will need to include
rethinking design and urban planning. 
rethinking design and urban planning.
The compact city model is the best solution for design and urban planning, taking into account 
The compact city model is the best solution for design and urban planning, taking into account of
of urban sprawl, building transformations, and economic effects on environment. Today, there are 
only  few 
urban alternatives, 
sprawl, buildingfew  cities  have  greater 
transformations, awareness 
and economic and  on
effects attention  to  energy 
environment. consumption, 
Today, there are only
environmental sustainability, quality of public services, and social assistance. 
few alternatives, few cities have greater awareness and attention to energy consumption, environmental
The future of cities will always involve more complex situations requiring a holistic approach 
sustainability, quality of public services, and social assistance.
for policy decisions. In this sense, the modern theories of decision making can help to make rational 
The future of cities will always involve more complex situations requiring a holistic approach
choices in building cities. 
for policy decisions. In this sense, the modern theories of decision making can help to make rational
choices in building cities.
Author Contributions: This paper is to be attributed in equal parts to the authors. 

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. 
Author Contributions: This paper is to be attributed in equal parts to the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References 
1. Saaty,  T.L.  Compact  City:  The  Next  Urban  Evolution  in  Response  to  Climate  Change;  RWS  Publications: 
References
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2013. 
1.2. Saaty, T.L. Compact City: The Next Urban Evolution in Response to Climate Change; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh,
Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Torrieri, F.; Pagliara, F.; Nijkamp, P. A decision support system for real estate 
investment choice, Scienze Regionali. Ital. J. Reg. Sci. 2010. 
PA, USA, 2013.
2.3. McKinsey Global Institute. Available online: www.mckinsey.com (accessed on 13 June 2017). 
Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Torrieri, F.; Pagliara, F.; Nijkamp, P. A decision support system for real estate
4. Greenpeace International. Available online: www.greenpeace.org (accessed on 13 June 2017). 
investment choice, Scienze Regionali. Ital. J. Reg. Sci. 2010. Available online: http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available online: www.ipcc.ch (accessed on 13 June 2017). 
bitstream/handle/1871/15279/20090010.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed on 13 June 2017).
3.6. Del  Giudice, 
McKinsey V.;  De 
Global Paola,  P.; 
Institute. Forte,  F. 
Available The  appraisal 
online: of  office  towers 
www.mckinsey.com in  bilateral 
(accessed on 13 monopoly’s 
June 2017). market: 
4. Evidence from application of Newton’s physical laws to the Directional Centre of Naples. Int. J. Appl. Eng. 
Greenpeace International. Available online: www.greenpeace.org (accessed on 13 June 2017).
Res. 2016, 11, 9455–9459.   
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available online: www.ipcc.ch (accessed on 13 June 2017).
Buildings 2017, 7, 76 21 of 22

6. Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Forte, F. The appraisal of office towers in bilateral monopoly’s market: Evidence
from application of Newton’s physical laws to the Directional Centre of Naples. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2016,
11, 9455–9459.
7. Del Giudice, V.; Manganelli, B.; De Paola, P. Depreciation methods for firm’s assets. In Lecture Notes in
Computer Science; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 214–227.
8. Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Manganelli, B.; Forte, F. The monetary valuation of environmental externalities
through the analysis of real estate prices. Sustainability 2017, 9, 229. [CrossRef]
9. Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Cantisani, G.B. Rough Set Theory for real estate appraisals: An application to
Directional District of Naples. Buildings 2017, 7, 12. [CrossRef]
10. Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Cantisani, G.B. Valuation of real estate investments through Fuzzy Logic. Buildings
2017, 7, 26. [CrossRef]
11. Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Forte, F. Using Genetic Algorithms for Real Estate Appraisal. Buildings 2017, 7, 31.
[CrossRef]
12. Del Giudice, V.; Manganelli, B.; De Paola, P. Hedonic analysis of housing sales prices with semiparametric
methods. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Inf. Syst. 2017, 8, 65–77. [CrossRef]
13. European Commission, Joint Programming Initiative (JPI). Available online: www.jpi.urbaneurope.eu
(accessed on 13 June 2017).
14. ERA Portal Austria, the Knowledge-Sharing Platform. Available online: www.era.gv.at (accessed on
13 June 2017).
15. Wikipedia. Available online: www.wikipedia.org (accessed on 13 June 2017).
16. Burton, E.; Jenks, M.; Williams, K. The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban form; Spon Press—Taylor & Francis:
London, UK, 2005.
17. Burgess, R.; Jenks, M. Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries; Spon Press—Taylor &
Francis Group: London, UK, 2004.
18. Holden, E.; Norland, I.T. Three Challenges for the Compact City as a Sustainable Urban Form: Household
Consumption of Energy and Transport in Eight Residential Areas in the Greater Oslo Region. In Urban
Studies; Sage Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2005; Volume 42, pp. 2145–2166.
19. Basiago, A.D. The search for the sustainable city in 20th century urban planning. Environmentalist 1996, 16,
135–155. [CrossRef]
20. Howard, E. Garden Cities of Tomorrow (1946 edition); Faber and Faber: London, UK, 1902.
21. Geddes, P. Cities in Evolution (1948 edition); Williams and Norgate: London, UK, 1915.
22. Wright, F.L. Broadacre City: A new community plan. Archit. Rec. 1935, 77, 243–254.
23. Mumford, L. The Culture of Cities; Harcourt, Brace and Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1938.
24. Mumford, L. The City in History; Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1961.
25. McHarg, I. Design With Nature; Natural History Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1969.
26. Mollison, B.; Holmgren, D. Permaculture One: A Perennial Agricultural System for Human Settlements; Tagari
Publications: New South Wales, Australia, 1979.
27. Corbett, M.; Corbett, J. Energy and the Human Environment, College of Human Ecology Monograph Series;
Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1984; Volume 103, pp. 1–11.
28. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). Green Paper on the Urban Environment; CEC: Brussels,
Belgium, 1990.
29. Nash, R. Island Civilisation; Wild Earth, Winter: Gold Coast, Australia, 1991.
30. Girardet, H. Cities: New Directions for Sustainable Urban Living; Gaia Books: London, UK, 1992.
31. McDonough, W. The Hannover Principles; William McDonough: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
32. Canfield, C. Cerro Gordo: Exploring symbiotic community. Cerro Gordo Town Forum 1993, 20, 15–17.
33. Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural
Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
34. McDonald, M. Los Osos, California: A Proposal for a Sustainable Community Within a Sustainable Watershed.
Available online: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=arch_fac
(accessed on 13 June 2017).
35. Lyle, J.T. Designing green infrastructure. In The Sustainability Project, Designing for Sustainable Communities;
AIA: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 1994.
36. Sustainable Cities Index 2016. Available online: www.arcadis.com (accessed on 13 June 2017).
 Buildings 2017, 7, 76 22 of 22

37. Cohen Boyd, Smart Cities Wheel. Available online: www.fastcoexist.com (accessed on 13 June 2017).
38. Cities in Motion Index (CIMI). IESE Center for Globalization and Strategy—University of Navarra. 2016.
Available online: www.forbes.com (accessed on 13 June 2017).
39. Dantzig, G.B.; Saaty, T.L. Compact City: A Plan for a Liveable Urban Environment; W.H. Freeman and Company:
San Francisco, CA, USA, 1973.
40. Arifwidodo, S.D.; Perera, R. Quality of Life and Compact Development Policies in Bandung Indonesia.
Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2010, 6, 159–179. [CrossRef]
41. Eco-Compact City Network (ECCN). Available online: www.ecocompactcity.org (accessed on 13 June 2017).
42. Saaty, T.L. Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic hierarchy process. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 841–855. [CrossRef]
43. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Decision Making with the Analytic network process: Economic, Political, Social and
Technological Applications with benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks. In Springer’s International Series;
Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006.
44. Saaty, T.L. Theory and Applications of the Analytic network process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2005.
45. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making with the Analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–89. [CrossRef]
46. Vidal, L.A.; Marle, F.; Bocquet, J.C. Using a Delphi process and the Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to
evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 5388–5405. [CrossRef]
47. Vidal, L.A.; Marle, F.; Bocquet, J.C. Measuring project complexity using the Analytic hierarchy process. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 718–727. [CrossRef]
48. Morano, P.; Locurcio, M.; Tajani, F. Cultural Heritage Valorization: An application of AHP for the choice of
the highest and best use. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 223, 952–959. [CrossRef]
49. Guarini, M.R.; D’Addabbo, N.; Morano, P.; Tajani, F. Multi-Criteria Analysis in compound decision processes:
The AHP and the architectural competition for the Chamber of Deputies in Rome (Italy). Buildings 2017, 7,
38. [CrossRef]
50. Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Review of the main developments in the Analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst. Appl.
2011, 38, 14336–14345. [CrossRef]
51. Sipahi, S.; Timor, M. The Analytic hierarchy process and Analytic network process: An overview of
applications. Manag. Decis. 2010, 48, 775–808. [CrossRef]
52. Subramanian, N.; Ramanathan, R. A review of applications of Analytic hierarchy process in operations
management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 138, 215–241. [CrossRef]
53. Sperling, B.; Sander, P. Cities Ranked & Rated: More than 400 Metropolitan Areas Evaluated in the U.S. and Canada;
John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats