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

net/publication/273369561

GIS-Based Framework for Supporting Land Use Planning in Urban Renewal:

Case Study in Hong Kong

Article  in  Journal of Urban Planning and Development · October 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000216

CITATIONS READS
37 1,706

3 authors:

Hao Wang Geoffrey Qiping Shen

Central University of Finance and Economics The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
11 PUBLICATIONS   335 CITATIONS    419 PUBLICATIONS   14,464 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bo-Sin Tang
The University of Hong Kong
74 PUBLICATIONS   2,712 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

CMA-VNS: A novel meta-model for combinatorial black-box optimization problems View project

A Social Network Analysis and NK-model based study of stakeholder relationship in mega construction projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hao Wang on 31 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Study

GIS-Based Framework for Supporting Land

Use Planning in Urban Renewal:
Case Study in Hong Kong
Hao Wang 1; Qiping Shen 2; and Bo-sin Tang 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Land use planning plays an important role in achieving sustainable urban development. One of the problems planners frequently
encounter is the absence of an integrated quantitative approach to assessing land-use suitability and supporting land use planning (site level),
particularly in urban renewal. This paper develops a geographic information system (GIS)-based framework to solve this problem. The
framework consists of three main modules: land information database, planning/policy control mechanism, and model of land-use suitability
analysis (LUSA). In the process of developing this framework, three tasks are completed. First, key factors affecting land-use decision making
in urban renewal planning are identified and 20 of them are quantitatively examined from five perspectives of land attributes: inherent/
physical, locational, social, economic, and environmental. Second, two submodels, namely, the criterion-value generation model and suit-
ability assessment model are designed and built for LUSA in land redevelopment/urban renewal. Third, five types of land use, i.e., residential,
commercial, industrial, government/institutional/community (G/IC), and open space in Hong Kong are defined and considered for land-use
suitability grading. Several new planning approaches such as scenario planning, public participation, and collaborative interaction are
included in this framework to improve planning processes by enhancing their adoption and application in urban (land use) planning. This
proposed framework is found to be a useful tool for both practitioners and researchers involved in sustainable land use planning in urban
renewal. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000216. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: GIS-based planning support; Urban renewal; Quantitative land-use suitability analysis; Multicriterion decision analysis
(MCDA).

Introduction (land use) planning becomes increasingly difficult due to increas-

Land use planning for urban redevelopment has become increas-
ingly important and challenging due to rapid urbanization, urban
land shortages and the conflicting goals in achieving economic
growth, social equity, and environmental protection (Teng et al.
2006; Pearson et al. 2010). Urban renewal/redevelopment is an
imminent issue in many countries and has gained much attention
from different perspectives, such as impact on housing prices, reuse
of historic buildings, and emergence of gentrification (Fauria and
Mathur 2012; Yung et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2013). As a type of
land to be redeveloped, brownfields have been studied by a grow-
ing number of researchers (Amekudzi et al. 2003; Amekudzi and
Fomunung 2004; Bernath Walker et al. 2010). Urban planners and
local decision makers often encounter the problem of having to
deal with situations involving complex decisions (Witlox 2005).
Especially in developed areas, many different stakeholders such
as governments, residents, and developers are involved in the allo-
cation of land (Blokhuis et al. 2012; Ho et al. 2012). As urban
1 set of standardized toolkits widely used in planning practice. Vonk
Assistant Professor, School of Management Science and Engineering,
Central Univ. of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: holy.wong@connect.polyu.hk
2
Chair Professor, Dept. of Building and Real Estate and Research
Institute of Sustainable Urban Development, Hong Kong Polytechnic
Univ., Hong Kong, China. E-mail: geoffrey.shen@polyu.edu.hk
3
Professor, Dept. of Urban Planning and Design, Univ. of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, China. E-mail: bsbstang@hku.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 28, 2012; approved on
February 14, 2014; published online on June 2, 2014. Discussion period
open until November 2, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning
and Development, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488/05014015(13)/$25.00.
ingly complex urban systems and large amounts of geospatial data/
information involved (Katpatal and Rama Rao 2011), planners
need new sharp tools to equip themselves for meeting the growing
technical requirements in planning practices (Coppola et al. 2013).
Planning support systems (PSS) provide a set of innovative
computer-based tools that can assist urban planners to foresee the
potential scenarios of land utilization in the future and make better
land use plans (Vonk et al. 2007). In many cases, a PSS includes a
geographic information system (GIS), especially when geospatial
data are involved in the task of planning. Planning support systems
generally have three key elements or functionalities: geodata
assembly related to planning problems, models or methods opti-
mizing the planning processes, and virtual-reality visualization.
During the period of PSS development, some PSS software or tool-
kits have been developed and experimentally used in the planning
processes, such as What if? (Klosterman 1999), and CommunityViz
(Kwartler and Bernard 2001).
The development and applications of PSS are still in the early
stage (Brail 2008). Planning support systems are far from being a
et al. (2005) indicated some major bottlenecks blocking the adop-
tion of PSS in planning practice include factors such as planners’
lack of awareness of PSS and their potential, and planners’ limited
experience with these tools and little interest in starting to use them.
Basically, an appropriate and successful PSS should be developed
aiming at the requirements of planning tasks and fitting the de-
mands of end users. To eliminate the mismatch between the supply
side of PSS and the demand from the planning practice, better com-
munication between system developers and planning practitioners
at the beginning of PSS development is necessary. In addition,
the technologies for building PSS, user interfaces of PSS and

© ASCE 05014015-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

 the complexity in operational processes will ultimately affect the
acceptance of PSS. From the perspective of urban planners (PSS
users), they usually believe that the instruments are too complicated
to use and too much data or information are required to make
decisions. Furthermore, some specialized and function-fixed PSS
are not flexible enough to fit the multiple and dynamic objectives
of land use planning.
Although several existing PSS such as What If? can support
land use planning in general by providing a computer-based
platform with GIS technologies, key criteria and associated data
usually considered in the particular planning process such as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in planning processes. For instance, Carsjens and Ligtenberg
(2007) introduced a GIS-based support tool that integrated environ-
mental considerations into local spatial planning processes in
metropolitan areas. Baz et al. (2009) produced rational solutions
to environmental and natural resources and the conservation of
small-scale specific areas by evaluating environmental sustainabil-
ity and settlement suitability in urban areas. Long et al. (2011)
proposed a GIS-based planning support system for a special
purpose—urban containment plans, in which development control
factors were identified and spatially analyzed to support urban con-
tainment planners in managing urban growth. Nonetheless, existing

distance to major living facilities and factors affecting land redevel-
opment, are not provided in such software. A framework/approach
as the prototype of PSS specially used in supporting such a deci-
sion-making process is highly needed since the complexity of plan-
ning concerns and processes is much higher in urban renewal
projects (Hui et al. 2011; Zheng et al. 2014). The differences be-
tween the framework proposed in this paper and other similar PSS
in terms of methods/techniques of PSS development (components),
applicability, and functionality are shown in Table 1.
To bridge these gaps, this framework is systematically built us-
ing multicriterion evaluation (MCE), analytic hierarchy process
(AHP), and GIS to enable planners to easily understand the ration-
ale and to encourage them to follow this framework as a guideline
for sustainable land use planning in urban renewal. The approach
and workflow of establishing geoinformation data sets are de-
scribed, and a more open environment for user customization is
provided through changing the criteria of land-use suitability by
users. More importantly, the communication among planning
practitioners (demand side), the developers of a planning support
approach (supply side) and other stakeholders of planning is
achieved by conducting interviews and focus group meetings at
the beginning and also during the whole process of this research.
In the following sections, land-use suitability analysis (LUSA)
as a way to decision support is introduced, and the conceptual
framework is proposed and described. Then, a completed case
study is presented to show the validation of this proposed frame-
work. Finally, the advantages and significance of this framework
and its contributions to both academic and practice are discussed,
and research limitations and future research directions are also
suggested.
A Way to Supporting Land-Use Decisions—LUSA
Land-use suitability analysis is a tool used to identify the most suit-
able locations for future land use for specific purposes (Collins et al.
2001). It aims to comprehensively determine the most suitable pat-
tern for future land use to meet the needs of land users (Malczewski
2004). Therefore, LUSA is often used to support land-use decisions
studies on LUSA for urban land such as residential, industrial, and
open spaces are always limited to large scale (district level or
above), leaving small scale (street/site level) a relatively neglected
topic.
This paper uses multicriterion decision analysis (MCDA)/MCE
to assess land-use suitability in developed urban areas. In spatial
planning processes, identifying a suitable location for a specific
future land use is a multiobjective decision task, and it is difficult
for planners to simultaneously consider multiple factors affecting
land-use selection (Wang and Zou 2010). According to Malczewski
(2006), the AHP method, as one of approaches of MCDA, is
capable of achieving LUSA. The AHP method has the advantages
of effectively collecting expert views (Cengiz and Akbulak 2009)
and its operation process is relatively simple for nonprofessionals
such as land developers and surrounding residents to understand
so as to fully participate in the public consultation activities.
Considering the needs of participatory planning support, the
MCDA approach (MCE þ AHP þ GIS) is appropriate to serve for
LUSA in this study and it cannot be replaced by other approaches
due to its easy-to-understand feature.
Formation of the Framework
The Process of Framework Development
This framework was conceptualized and developed based on the
reality of land use planning in urban renewal. The whole process
of the framework development (both conceptual and practical) is
shown in Fig. 1.
At the formation stage, a comprehensive literature review on
PSS for land use planning and LUSA in urban areas, particularly
small-scale urban renewal was done to identify the research gaps to
be filled by this study. At the same time, planning-related and land
policy documents issued in Hong Kong were analyzed to make the
framework conform to the statutory planning practice. According
to the findings of in-depth interviews with five town planners who
work in the Planning Department of Hong Kong (3) and univer-
sities (2), and two committee members of the Town Planning Board

Table 1. Comparison with Existing PSS in Methodology and Applicability

PSS Method/technique Applicability Functionality
The framework proposed Rule-based modeling Specifically applied to site-level LUSA in With a set of key factors affecting land-use
in this paper (MCE þ AHP þ GIS) developed urban areas (small scale) decision making in developed urban areas
3D visualization potential
What if? Rule-based models, GIS Suitability analysis Projection of land use Incomprehensive factors supporting land use
demand, population and employment planning process
(large scale) No 3D visualization
CommunityViz Rule-based models, GIS Suitability analysis A set of comprehensive indicators supporting
Allocation of land use according to land use planning process except for land
multiple projections redevelopment
Impact assessment (multiscale) 3D visualization

© ASCE 05014015-2 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

 Identification of
Research Objectives
Comprehensive Policy Documents
Literature Review Analysis
Formation of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conceptual Framework
Refining
&
Adjusting
Expert
Interviews
Formation Stage
Fig. 1. Process of framework development
of Hong Kong (seven interviewees in all), the problem they have
encountered for many years is that decisions of land use are made
relying heavily on the subjective and qualitative judgment of plan-
ners and without a necessary objective and quantitative method to
support the decision making. In addition, the public often cannot
be effectively engaged in public consultation due to the lack of
planning knowledge to fully understand planners’ considerations.
The aim of the framework is to solve these problems in planning
practice. Based on these preparations, a conceptual framework for
supporting land use planning in urban renewal was formed.
At the validation stage, an appropriate case study in which a
highly developed district of Hong Kong was chosen as the study
area was conducted to adjust and validate this framework. Two
kinds of data were included in the framework: geospatial data such
as topographic map, roads network, and facilities locations, and
socioeconomic statistical data such as population, employment,
and housing price. These raw data were collected and processed
to produce adapted data. As various and large amounts of data
are required in this framework, data collection and data processing
took up much of the time involved in the development of the prac-
tical framework. When all the required data and the analysis
approach were created, the practical framework was completed.
A focus group meeting comprised of town planners (government
sector), land developers (private sector), surrounding residents
(public sector), and the author who served as the facilitator (sup-
plier of planning support), was conducted to validate the framework
by discussing and evaluating the results of LUSA within the study
area. Ultimately, the procedure of the framework development was
finalized.
Structure of Conceptual Framework
The framework consists of three modules, which have different
functions and are linked to each other in terms of the rationale
of the development of the framework and its input-output data flow
(Fig. 2). For instance, map layers in the land information database
are made in accordance with assessment criteria in the planning/
policy control mechanism, and the output data of the two modules
are the input data of the third module—the LUSA model.
The land information database is a geospatial database in
which digital map layers containing both spatial and nonspatial
© ASCE 05014015-3
J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.
Selection of Data
Case Study Collection
Formation of
Data
Practical Processing
Framework
Result Framework
Validation Finalization
Focus Group
Meetings
Validation Stage
data are stored. The purpose of establishing this database was to
provide the processed data for spatial analysis and geospatial visu-
alization, and it can be regarded as physical foundation of the
framework.
The planning/policy control mechanism is actually a set of
assessment criteria and their weightings for LUSA. The mechanism
is built based on a literature review, document analysis, and expert
opinions from planning practitioners (e.g., weightings are deter-
mined by a focus group meeting consisting of 6–10 planning
practitioners).
The LUSA model of is the core of the framework. Land-use
suitability maps for five types of land use, namely, residential, com-
mercial, industrial, G/IC, and open space can be generated from this
model. The model serves as a planning-support tool for land use
planning in urban renewal by quantitatively analyzing land-use
suitability to assist planners in making land-use decisions for land
rezoning/redevelopment and explicitly conveying the planning
principles from the perspective of planners to the public (nonpro-
fessional stakeholders in planning) for improving the effectiveness
of public consultation. Land-use suitability maps can also be used
as a medium with GIS visualization for enhancing the communi-
cation between planners and other stakeholders involved in the
process of land use planning.
Validation of the Framework—A Case Study
Study Area
According to data availability and level of land development, the
Yau Tsim Mong district was selected as the study area (Fig. 3),
which is located in one of the metropolitan areas of Hong Kong
(i.e., Kowloon) and covers about 7 km2 . Land is the most scarce
and precious physical resource in Hong Kong (Shen et al. 2009).
In this area, land has been highly developed and infrastructures
such as roads, railways, and main service facilities have also been
built. This area was suitable for the case study of the framework
because this study focused on a small-scale (site-level) urban
developed area. Actually, the characteristics and merits of this
framework can be reflected from conducting the process of the case
study.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 LUSA Criteria and their
Digital map layers in both
Weightings identified from
vector and raster format literature review, planning
(Topographic, land standards, expert opinions, and
focus group meetings
utilization, traffic
network, facilities (Specialized for land
location, etc.) redevelopment in urban
renewal)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Land Information Database Planning/Policy Control Mechanism

Input

Land-use suitability
Techniques: maps for five land uses:
Residential, Environment:
Multi-criterion Commercial, Industrial,
evaluation G/IC and Open space ‘ModelBuilder’
(MCE), ArcGIS in ArcGIS
processing (Planning support in Desktop
modeling land-use decision-
making)

Functions:
Quantitative analysis for land-
use suitability, land-use
decision support for site
redevelopment

Model of Land-use Suitability Analysis

Fig. 2. Three modules of the framework

Development of Practical Framework
After choosing a real case, a practical framework was developed to
support the planning process in practice. Corresponding to the
structure of the conceptual framework, the practical framework also
included three modules as follows.
Land Information Database
The land information database was established through two main
phases: data collection and data processing. To set up a comprehen-
sive geodatabase for urban planning and land management,
volumes of raw spatial data such as digital topographic maps, aerial
photos, and land utilization map and also many raw nonspatial data
such as statistical tables recording the information of population,
employment, and housing prices were involved in this database.
The details of raw data are listed in Table 2. Some of the raw data
could be obtained from governmental websites, e.g., Outline
Zoning Plan (OZP), traffic noise distribution, population distribu-
tion, air pollution index (API), and some such as topographic maps,
aerial photos, and transaction records of housing prices needed to
be purchased from government offices or relevant institutions. Raw
data are the foundation of planning support, and they provide suf-
ficient information for urban land use planning and management
with geospatial visualization.
The raw data were processed to provide adapted data (i.e., map
layers required) for land suitability analysis. For example, the in-
formation of slope and elevation was derived from topographic
maps; the distances between land sites and main public facilities
were calculated based on the location map of public facilities;
and the distribution map of housing prices was created by
allocating the records of housing prices onto the corresponding
locations and then using the interpolation techniques. It was a time-
consuming process that required the ability to use GIS software.
Corresponding to the criteria of land suitability in the planning/
policy control mechanism, the map layers required were created
for further use in the LUSA model. In addition, the database
was established using ArcGIS, so that all raw data were digitized
or converted into the storage format of file geodatabase. Data with
different attributes were categorized into different datasets such as

© ASCE 05014015-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Study area

accessibility, housing prices and land use, and data with the same Table 3. Key Factors Affecting Land-Use Decision-Making in the
attribute were divided into two types of datasets: feature dataset Planning Process
(vector format) and raster catalog (raster format). Factor type Number Factor

Planning/Policy Control Mechanism 1. Inherent/physical 1 Slope

According to current land utilization map in the land information attributes 2 Elevation
3 Vegetation
database, land sites in the study area were classified into six
4 Current land use
land-use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, G/IC, open 2. Locational attributes 5 Connection to road network
space, and vacant/others. In recent years, a set of indicators/factors (accessibility) 6 Connection to pedestrian route
is frequently used to monitor and direct land-use development in 7 Distance to sensitive use
urban planning and renewal (Repetti and Desthieux 2006; Lee and (e.g., bad neighbor)
Chan 2008), and planning policies and regulations for local areas 8 Distance to CBD/sub-CBDs
could be studied to help identify key factors affecting land-use 9 Distance to airport
decisions. Based on the literature review of land suitability studies 10 Distance to railway stations/MTR
and the findings from expert interviews with planning practitioners, 11 Distance to bus terminus
12 Distance to ocean/streams
13 Distance to nearest hospital
Table 2. Details of the Raw Data (Adapted from Wang et al. 2013) 14 Distance to nearest
primary/high school
Spatial data Nonspatial data
15 Distance to open space
• Topographic base maps • Demographic data (including 16 Distance to trunk roads
population projections) 17 Distance to historic sites
• Aerial photos • Employment distribution (preservation)
• Current land use map • Household income and expenses 3. Social attributes 18 Population density
• Air pollution index (API) 19 Employment density
• Land use plan • Statistics of land sales 4. Economic attributes 20 Unit price of land sale
(Outline Zoning Plans) 21 Property average price/rent
• Road network map • Statistics of housing transactions 5. Environmental 22 Air ventilation
• Rail (MTR) network map • Statistics of office rental attributes 23 Visual permeability
• Location map of public facilities • Statistics of industrial rental (harbor front)
(e.g., hospitals, schools, parks) 24 Air quality
• Location map of historic sites 25 Traffic noise
• Distribution map of traffic noise 6. Political/legal factors 26 Land lease
• Vegetation coverage map 27 Policy constraints
• Georeference data (including 7. Community/cultural 28 Historic corridor (heritage)
building name, site polygon) factors 29 Compatibility with neighbors

© ASCE 05014015-5 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

 Table 4. Particular Factors Considered in Land Redevelopment
Parameters
Characteristics of buildings
Building density
Special needs for local
redevelopment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Factors
Building age
Building height
Building condition
Building surrounding
Population density in each building
Parameters of development
Plot ratio
Specified use of a redeveloped site
Employment resettlement
accordance with different types of land use. Six planning practitioners
(part of the seven interviewees introduced previously) were invited
in the focus group meeting. In this study, the suitability of land sites
was assessed for five different types of land use, namely, residential,
commercial, industrial, G/IC, and open space. Definitions of the five
types of land use are given in Table 6. Based on the opinions of the
planning practitioners in the focus group, different criteria were
selected for varied types of land use. Table 7 shows the different sets
of criteria for the five types of land use chosen by local planners.
The focus group meeting included two sessions: the first half was
the group decision making by six experienced planning practitioners

and in the second half, four more participants (2 local developers and
2 residents living in the studied district) joined the focus group for
a set of key factors/criteria affecting land-use decision making further discussion on weighting scoring for the criteria. Weighting
was proposed (Tables 3 and 4). In view of the data availability, matrices were scored based on expert opinions (group of planners)
20 criteria were examined in the case study (Table 5). and the weightings of each criterion were calculated by applying
The 20 criteria of urban land suitability were classified into five the AHP method in the software Expert Choice. The AHP method
categories: inherent/physical attributes, locational attributes, social is a widely used and effective means of quantitatively analyzing
attributes, economic attributes, and environmental attributes. Inher- the importance of key factors (Hill et al. 2005; Demir and Yilmaz
ent attributes mean the existing or natural attributes of pieces of 2012). It was created to deal with complex decisions, and then was
land, such as current land use, slope, and elevation. They restrict refined and developed to apply to group decision making. The tradi-
the usage of land sites from the perspective of the land’s physical tional nine-scale AHP method was used to compare the relative im-
conditions. Locational attributes represent the spatial accessibility portance between each of two criteria in the process of weighting
and compatibility, and currently this kind of land attribute is re- determination. The relative importance is ranked by numbers 1–9,
garded as the most important concern in terms of site selection and the explanation is provided in Table 8. Only one round of expert
in urban areas. There were 10 locational criteria, half of all the cri- scoring was applied in the AHP process for the scores were deter-
teria. In this study, average distances between land sites and selected mined by the group rather than each individual after group discussion.
service facilities, which were calculated based on the road network, In the AHP process, weightings were determined on the basis of two
were used for measuring the accessibility and compatibility. In ad- affiliated levels (i.e., the AHP hierarchy): five attributes/categories
dition, social attributes, economic attributes, and environmental and 20 criteria; and all the criteria were covered by the five categories.
attributes were identified to reflect the sustainability of land use. In other words, weightings were assigned to the five attributes first,
Six criteria were chosen for the three attributes, and each category and then subassigned to every criterion in each attribute category.
had two criteria. The six criteria covered the main consideration Taking residential use as an example, the hierarchical structure
of land-use sustainability in accordance with the three elements of the criteria is shown in Fig. 4, indicating that five attributes
of sustainable development, and they also suggested a more effec- (Level 1) include 14 criteria identified (Level 2). The first step
tive and convenient way to quantify the land-use sustainability. of assigning weights to criteria was to rank importance of five
After the criteria of land-use suitability were finalized, weightings attributes using a matrix for scoring (Table 9), and then the second
for each criterion were determined by a focus group meeting in step was to rank importance of selected criteria categorized in each
attribute using a similar matrix. Through inputting the matrices
with importance scores to the software Expert Choice, weights
Table 5. Criteria of Land-Use Suitability in the Case Study of each criterion selected in residential land use were automatically
Criterion type Number Criterion Data format
1. Inherent 1 Current land use Vector Table 6. Definitions of Five Types of Land Use in the Study (Adapted
attributes 2 Slope Raster from Wang et al. 2013)
3 Elevation Raster
Type of land use Definitions Examples
4 Vegetation Raster
2. Locational 5 Distance to CBD/sub-CBDs Raster Residential Residential land sites • Public housing
attributes 6 Distance to airport Raster • Private housing
(accessibility) 7 Distance to railway/MTR Raster • Staff/student
stations dormitories
8 Distance to bus terminus Raster Commercial Commercial land sites • Offices
9 Distance to ocean/streams Raster • Shopping malls
10 Distance to historic sites Raster • Markets
(Preservation) • Hotels
11 Distance to nearest hospital Raster • Carparks
12 Distance to nearest Raster Industrial Industrial land sites • Indoor/outdoor
primary/high school factories
13 Distance to open space Raster • Container
14 Distance to trunk roads Raster terminals
3. Social attributes 15 Population density Raster • Warehouses
16 Employment density Raster G/IC Abbreviation for government, • Utilities for
4. Economic 17 Unit price of land sale Raster institution, and community public purposes
attributes 18 Property average price/rent Raster Open space Land sites for open space and • Parks
5. Environmental 19 Air quality Raster recreational facilities for the • Playgrounds
attributes 20 Traffic noise Raster pleasure of surrounding residents • Gardens

© ASCE 05014015-6 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

 Table 7. The Selected Criteria of Land-Use Suitability for Five Types of Land Use
Criterion Residential Commercial Industrial G/IC Open space
Current land use X X X X X
Slope — X X — X
Elevation — X X X
Vegetation — X — X X
Distance to CBD/sub-CBDs — X — — —
Distance to airport — X X — —
Distance to railway/MTR stations X X X X —
Distance to bus terminus X X — X —
Distance to ocean/streams X — X X
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Distance to historic sites (preservation) X X X X X

Distance to nearest hospital X — — X —
Distance to nearest primary/high school X — — X X
Distance to open space X — — X X
Distance to trunk roads X X X X —
Population density X X X X X
Employment density X X X X X
Unit price of land sale — X X X X
Property average price/rent X X X — —
Air quality X X X X X
Traffic noise X — — X X
Note: X = the item is selected.

calculated (Fig. 5). In addition, locational factors increasingly be-
come the most important consideration for urban land use planning,
particularly urban renewal in developed areas (Turk and Korthals
Altes 2011). That is why half of the criteria were categorized into
locational attribute.
Model of Land-Use Suitability Analysis
Land-use suitability analyses were conducted for the five types of
land use in this model. This model included two submodels,
Table 8. The Instruction of Nine-Scale AHP
Value Meaning
1 Criterion i and Criterion j with equal importance
3 Criterion i is moderately more important than Criterion j
5 Criterion i is strongly more important than Criterion j
7 Criterion i is very strongly more important than Criterion j
9 Criterion i is extremely more important than Criterion j
2, 4, 6, 8 Medians between importance values shown above
Note: The reciprocal of above values if Criterion i is less important than
Criterion j.
Level 1 – Criterion attribute Level 2 – Criterion (No.)
Physical/inherent 1 classified into four levels: highly suitable, suitable, unsuitable, and
namely, the criterion-value generation model and the suitability as-
sessment model. The criterion-value generation model was a geo-
processing model created by using the ModelBuilder application in
ArcGIS. The ModelBuilder is a tool that is able to create, edit, and
manage geoprocessing models for spatial data analysis. A geopro-
cessing model is a set of spatial processes that converts input data
into an output map using a specific function in ArcToolbox such as
buffer or overlay, and large models can be built by linking several
processes together [Environmental Systems Research Institute
(ESRI) (2000)]. With the help of ModelBuilder, the values of each
criterion of land-use suitability could be acquired for suitability
assessment from the output maps, which were automatically gen-
erated based on spatial analyses of input data. For instance, slope
information of land sites needed to be obtained from the digital
elevation model (DEM), which was made from elevation informa-
tion by running some spatial analysis processes; and information
of average distances needed to be measured by making buffer rings
of target facility locations such as mass transit railway (MTR)
stations, hospitals, and schools first. Since 20 final map layers were
involved in this study, the geoprocessing model was huge and
complex.
The other was the suitability assessment model. This submodel
provided a holistic approach for land-use suitability assessment,
including the classification of land-use suitability, rating standards
of criterion values, and scoring formula of multicriterion analysis.
First, according to the design of this model, land-use suitability was

Locational 7 - 14 Table 9. Matrix for Criterion Attributes

Criterion attributes Aj
Social 15, 16 A1 (physical/ A2 A3 A4 A5
Ai inherent) (locational) (social) (economic) (environmental)
A1 1
Economic 18 A2 — 1
A3 — — 1
A4 — — — 1
Environmental 19, 20 A5 — — — — 1
Note: The blank cells are filled following 1–9 scale AHP method (refer to
Fig. 4. Hierarchy of LUSA criteria for residential land use
Table 8).

© ASCE 05014015-7 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Criteria and their weightings of land suitability for residential use

very unsuitable, and integers ranging from 3 to 0 were assigned to into four levels based on the final scores: highly suitable (2.25–3.0),
the four levels correspondingly (refer to Table 10). Second, the val- suitable (1.5–2.25), unsuitable (0.75–1.5) and very unsuitable
ues of each criterion, for example, a slope mean of one piece of land (0–0.75).
extracted from the map layer of slope needed to be rated to any one
of the four levels for further scoring. The rating standards were a
crucial part of this submodel and they were determined on the basis Outcomes of the Framework
of the literature review, Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guide- Finally, land-use suitability maps for five types of land use were
lines, and also the opinions of experienced planners. The set of rat- generated. The public opinions (the other four participants) from
ing standards of one criterion—traffic noise is shown as a sample in the second half of the focus group meeting were added to the pro-
Table 10. Third, the scoring formula was a linear mathematical cess of map generation. For each land use type, every land site
model. It is depicted in the form of formula as follows: located in the study area was classified into four suitability grades
X
n as discussed above. In this study, 86 land sites with six different
Si ¼ Ri ðjÞ × WðjÞ types of land use were investigated. The current utilization of these
j¼1 land sites (Fig. 6) was shown in accordance to the map of land
utilization in Hong Kong provided by the Lands Dept. of the
where Si means the land-use suitability of land site i; i is the num- government. The total area of residential land (orange diagonal)
ber of land sites; j ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; n is the number of criteria; Ri ðjÞ was 2,205,956 m2 (40.8%); commercial land (yellow diagonal)
refers to the rating of criterion j of the land site i; and WðjÞ is was 580,797 m2 (10.7%); industrial land (in red) was 52,394 m2
the weighting of criterion j. By using the spatial overlay function (1%); G/IC use (green circle) was 1,070,752 m2 (19.8%); open
of GIS to overlay the selected criterion layers with their respective space (blue curve) was 506,323 m2 (9.4%); and vacant land or
weightings, the final scores of each land site were calculated con- others (black point) was 987,073 m2 (18.3%).
veniently. The suitability grade of each land site was also divided Land-use suitability maps created from this study can support the
particular process of land use planning, and they can be used as a
reference for land-use decision making or planners. The land suit-
Table 10. Suitability Classification and Rating Standards of Criterion—
ability maps of the five land use types are presented in Figs. 7–11.
Traffic Noise
The suitability levels of the sites were classified in accordance with
Rating standards different land uses as follows: three levels (i.e., highly suitable, suit-
Highly Very able, and unsuitable) for residential use, two levels (i.e., highly
suitable Suitable Unsuitable unsuitable suitable and suitable) for commercial use, two levels (i.e., suitable
Criterion Land use 3 2 1 0 and unsuitable) for industrial use, one level (i.e., suitable) for G/IC
use, and two levels (i.e., highly suitable and suitable) for open space.
Traffic Residential <55 55–70 70–75 >75 Taking the residential suitability map as an example, the 86 land
noise (dB)
Commercial <65 65–75 75–80 >80
sites were assessed and classified into three grades: highly suitable
Industrial <70 70–75 75–80 >80 (green circle), suitable (blue curve), and unsuitable (orange diago-
G/IC <60 60–70 70–80 >80 nal). As displayed in the study area, most land sites (94% of
Open space <60 60–75 75–80 >80 total area) were suitable for residential use since this area was
basically flat and had been developed for human habitation for a

© ASCE 05014015-8 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Current land use of 86 land sites (adapted from © Google, Image © 2012 DigitalGlobe)

long time. Considering multiple factors that are affecting the
suitability of residential land, the majority of land sites were graded
to be suitable for residential use, whereas several land sites were
rated to be unsuitable because of inconvenient public transportation,
excessive traffic noise, and other locational or environmental prob-
lems. In addition, the specific unsuitable land sites can be easily
found and located on the map.
User Evaluation—An Experiment
An experiment was conducted to validate the effectiveness of
the framework based on feedback of experiencing the supported
planning process from experienced planning practitioners, who
were six registered town planners in Hong Kong (not the six par-
ticipants in the last focus group meeting) and all had more than
10 years of working experience in planning practice. In the experi-
ment, the participants (like PSS users) were asked to discuss about
the most suitable land use for one piece of land in the study area
with the planning support provided by the practical framework, and
finish a feedback questionnaire (refer to Q1–Q9 in the following
Note) as a focus group. According to the filled questionnaire,
the feedback of the focus group showed that the experts gave
positive comments to the framework (Fig. 12) and agreed that
the planning process supported by the framework can facilitate

Fig. 7. Land suitability map of residential use (adapted from © Google, Image © 2012 DigitalGlobe)

© ASCE 05014015-9 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Land suitability map of commercial use (adapted from © Google, Image © 2012 DigitalGlobe)

the decision-making process of land reuse in urban renewal proj- Note

ects. In detail, what the users like most were an integrated database
storing required information for land use planning, a list of key
factors (including sustainability criteria) affecting decision making
in land use planning, and an approach to quantitative analysis of
land-use suitability for site planning in urban renewal; what the
users like least were lack of qualitative analysis of land-use suit-
ability (community/legal/political sides), the issue of data collec-
tion and update, and the operation and interface of the planning
support tool. The merits of the framework highlighted in the user
evaluation corroborate the significance and effectiveness of the
framework, and the deficiencies of the framework indicated by
the users also direct future work for the framework improvement.
• Q1: The framework enables us to get familiar with the planning
area more quickly.
• Q2: The framework enables us to have better understanding
of the attributes of each piece of land.
• Q3: The framework enables us to have better understanding
of land-use suitability of each piece of land.
• Q4: The quantitative analysis of land-use suitability facili-
tates us to make better decisions during the planning
process.
• Q5: The list of key factors affecting decision making in land use
planning is a practical reference for planners/decision makers to
better consider the planning needs.

Fig. 9. Land suitability map of industrial use (adapted from © Google, Image © 2012 DigitalGlobe)

© ASCE 05014015-10 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Land suitability map of G/IC use (adapted from © Google, Image © 2012 DigitalGlobe)

• Q6: The information provided by the framework is more useful Discussion

for planners/decision makers to make decisions during the plan-
ning process.
• Q7: The information provided by the framework is more
comprehensive and easy to understand for nonprofessionals
to deliver their ideas during public consultation activities.
• Q8: The geospatial information visualized through GIS technol-
ogies helps us understand the condition of land and surround-
ings of planned sites.
• Q9: The framework can support the process of site planning in
urban renewal.
Land-use suitability maps generated from this integrated frame-
work by using multicriterion analysis approach are useful for urban
planners to make decisions on land-use selection in the planning
process. These maps provide a quantitative and objective reference
for planners’ decision-making processes, which heavily rely on
their subjective and qualitative judgments. Small-scale LUSA
(e.g., street/site level) in developed urban areas is the biggest in-
novation in this paper. In comparison with large-scale LUSA
(e.g., urban/regional level), the greatest difference is in the set

Fig. 11. Land suitability map of open space (adapted from © Google, Image © 2012 DigitalGlobe)

© ASCE 05014015-11 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Scores of Q1–Q9 given in the user evaluation
of criteria of LUSA for some of the criteria are taken into account
only in small-scale land use planning in urban developed areas. For
instance, distance to historic sites, distance to nearest hospital, and
distance to MTR stations. In particular, some factors concerning
land redevelopment, such as land-use compatibility, characteristics
of existing buildings and parameters of land development are not
considered in large-scale LUSA. The thinking of sustainable devel-
opment (SD) incorporated in the framework can be reflected in
the LUSA model: the factors/criteria for suitability analysis were
identified including the triangle of SD: economic, social, and envi-
ronmental attributes (Fischer and Amekudzi 2011). For instance,
air quality and traffic noise can be quantified to measure the envi-
ronmental sustainability of land. Therefore, LUSA is the premise of
land sustainability assessment and plays an important role in
sustainable land use planning.
Except for decision-making support, this framework also pro-
vides a collaborative channel to facilitate public participation in
the practical process of urban planning. Public participation is in-
creasingly becoming a very important element in the success of
urban planning, since every part of the city under planning will
ultimately be integrated with the daily life of the public (Wu et al.
2010). Several support tools used in public surveys and participa-
tory workshops, such as cognitive mapping, statistical analysis, and
suitability modeling have been recognized as effective methods in
spatial/participatory planning (Golobic and Marusic 2007). A good
urban land-use plan should be made on the basis of listening to
voices from all interest sectors. With the support of the framework,
town planners can have effective and efficient communication be-
tween other stakeholders involved in the planning process through
showing key factors normally considered in land use planning and
visual land-use suitability maps during public consultation meet-
ings, so that planners can easily and effectively convey their ideas
to other stakeholders.
Furthermore, this framework achieves one kind of scenario
planning. Scenario planning is becoming a popular tool used for
dealing with uncertainty in rapidly changing situations (Lemp et al.
2008; Pearson et al. 2010). Scenario analysis is regarded as a useful
tool to test incentives, measures, or planning regulations in accor-
dance with different policy objectives (Reginster and Rounsevell
2006). The advantage of scenario approaches is that they enable
land use planning proposals to be formulated, presented, and evalu-
ated according to some development constraints and controls in
advance (Pettit and Pullar 2004). By incorporating map represen-
tations via GIS technology in spatial scenario planning, a story
about alternative land-use scenarios can be told not only in words,
but also in vivid pictures. In the framework, alternative scenarios of
land-use suitability maps can be generated by adjusting the criteria
© ASCE 05014015-12
J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.
considered and their weightings according to the different view-
points and preferences collected from different stakeholders for
different land uses.
Conclusions
This study investigates a specific but imminent scenario in contem-
porary cities—land use planning (site level) for land redevelopment/
urban renewal and provides a completed framework (including
criteria, data and procedures) to support the planning process. As
validated by the case study, this proposed framework is appropriate
and effective in supporting land use planning in urban renewal. The
main contributions of this framework are twofold: First, for academ-
ics, since there is few specific studies on small-scale (site-level) land-
use suitability for urban land, this paper fills the gap by providing a
quantitative approach to suitability analysis based on land sites
formed by the existing road grids and proposing an integrated sol-
ution to supporting land use planning in developed (i.e., well-infra-
structured) urban areas. Second, for practitioners, the framework
helps solve the practical problem planners in Hong Kong have faced
for many years, which is the lack of a quantitative and objective
analysis approach as a general support to land-use decision making
in urban planning practices and assists planners in making land-use
decisions more comprehensively and reasonably in developed urban
areas where urban renewal projects increasingly take place.
Although there are many advantages of applying this framework
to land use planning practices, the framework still has two main
limitations. First, not all factors identified in the framework are
quantitatively examined in the case study because of the constraints
of data availability and techniques of criterion quantification
(e.g., some criteria cannot be quantified without people’s subjective
judgments). Second, neighborhood conditions are partially consid-
ered in the framework, as several factors such as distance to sur-
rounding sensitive use, land-use compatibility with neighbors are
identified and highlighted in the planning/policy control mecha-
nism, and the impacts of surrounding land uses in the case study
are limited to the analysis of physical distance from the sites to
some particular facilities, such as historic sites, hospitals, and trunk
roads. Neighborhood conditions associated to people (i.e., socio-
economic/cultural parameters) such as income, education, and
customers have yet to be included in the study.
However, these limitations do not invalidate the novelty and
contribution of this study. As an exploratory study, the results of
LUSA based on the 20 available criteria are appropriate, albeit
not ideal, and the case study serves as an experimental implemen-
tation for validating the framework. The authors firmly believe
that advanced technologies such as real-time three-dimensional
(3D) visualization, web-based communication, and virtual-reality
interaction could be adopted in supporting sustainable land use
planning, particularly land-use decision making for land redevelop-
ment/urban renewal in the future. This paper helps contribute a
small step forward in this direction.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to Department
of Building and Real Estate and Research Institute of Sustainable
Urban Development of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
for the funding support to the research project on which this paper
is based, and to Dr. Paul Fox for his kind help in manuscript proof-
reading. In addition, appreciation should also be given to the group
members in our research team for their continuously constructive
comments and suggestions on this research project.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 References
Amekudzi, A., and Fomunung, I. (2004). “Integrating brownfields redevel-
opment with transportation planning.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9488(2004)130:4(204), 204–212.
Amekudzi, A., McNeil, S., and Koutsopoulos, H. N. (2003). “Assessing
extrajurisdictional and areawide impacts of clustered brownfield devel-
opments.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2003)
129:1(27), 27–44.
ArcGIS [Computer software]. Esri, Redlands, CA.
Baz, I., Geymen, A., and Nogay, S. (2009). “Development and application
of GIS-based analysis/synthesis modeling techniques for urban
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV on 08/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
planning of Istanbul area.” Adv. Eng. Softw., 40(2), 128–140.
Bernath Walker, S., Boutilier, T., and Hipel, K. W. (2010). “Systems man-
agement study of a private brownfield renovation.” J. Urban Plann.
Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2010)136:3(249), 249–260.
Blokhuis, E. G. J., Snijders, C. C. P., Han, Q., and Schaefer, W. F. (2012).
“Conflicts and cooperation in brownfield redevelopment projects: Ap-
plication of conjoint analysis and game theory to model strategic deci-
sion making.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444
.0000122, 195–205.
Brail, R. K. (2008). Planning support systems for cities and regions,
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Carsjens, G. J., and Ligtenberg, A. (2007). “A GIS-based support tool for
sustainable spatial planning in metropolitan areas.” Landscape Urban
Plann., 80(1), 72–83.
Cengiz, T., and Akbulak, C. (2009). “Application of analytical hierarchy
process and geographic information systems in land-use suitability
evaluation: A case study of Dumrek Village (Canakkale, Turkey).”
Int. J. Sustainable Dev. World Ecol., 16(4), 286–294.
Collins, M. G., Steiner, F. R., and Rushman, M. J. (2001). “Land-use suit-
ability analysis in the United States: Historical development and prom-
ising technological achievements.” Environ. Manage., 28(5), 611–621.
CommunityViz [Computer software]. Placeways LLC, Boulder, CO.
Coppola, P., Ibeas, Á., dell’Olio, L., Cordera, R. (2013). “LUTI model for
the metropolitan area of Santander.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/
(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000146, 153–165.
Demir, H., and Yilmaz, A. (2012). “Measurement of urban transformation
project success using the analytic hierarchy process: Sulukule and
Tepeustu-Ayazma case studies, Istanbul.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10
.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000110, 173–182.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). (2000). “ModelBuilder
for ArcView Spatial Analyst 2: An ESRI white paper.” Redlands, CA.
Expert Choice [Computer software]. Expert Choice Inc., Arlington , VA.
Fauria, A., and Mathur, S. (2012). “Impact of targeted redevelopment of
central business district on housing prices in the surrounding neighbor-
hoods: Evidence from Oakland, California.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10
.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000112, 244–253.
Fischer, J. M., and Amekudzi, A. (2011). “Quality of life, sustainable
civil infrastructure, and sustainable development: Strategically expand-
ing choice.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444
.0000039, 39–48.
Golobic, M., and Marusic, I. (2007). “Developing an integrated approach
for public participation: A case of land-use planning in Slovenia.”
Environ. Plann. Plann. Des., 34(6), 993–1010.
Hill, M. J., Braaten, R., Veitch, S. M., Lees, B. G., and Sharma, S. (2005).
“Multi-criteria decision analysis in spatial decision support: The ASSESS
analytic hierarchy process and the role of quantitative methods and
spatially explicit analysis.” Environ. Model. Software, 20(7), 955–976.
Ho, D. C. W., Yau, Y., Poon, S. W., and Liusman, E. (2012). “Achieving
sustainable urban renewal in Hong Kong: Strategy for dilapidation as-
sessment of high rises.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP
.1943-5444.0000104, 153–165.
Hui, E. C. M., Ng, I. M. H., and Lo, K. K. (2011). “Analysis of the viability of
an urban renewal project under a risk-based option pricing framework.”
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000047, 101–111.
Katpatal, Y. B., and Rama Rao, B. V. S. (2011). “Urban spatial decision
support system for municipal solid waste management of Nagpur urban
area using high-resolution satellite data and geographic information
© ASCE 05014015-13
View publication stats J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015.141.
system.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444
.0000043, 65–76.
Klosterman, R. E. (1999). “The what if? Collaborative planning support
system.” Environ. Plann. B, 26(3), 393–408.
Kwartler, M., and Bernard, R. N. (2001). CommunityViz: An integrated
planning support system, ESRI Press, Redlands, CA.
Lee, G. K. L., and Chan, E. H. W. (2008). “Factors affecting urban renewal
in high-density city: Case study of Hong Kong.” J. Urban Plann. Dev.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2008)134:3(140), 140–148.
Lemp, J. D., Zhou, B., Kockelman, K. M., and Parmenter, B. M. (2008).
“Visioning versus modeling: Analyzing the land-use-transportation
futures of urban regions.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9488(2008)134:3(97), 97–109.
Long, Y., Shen, Z. J., and Mao, Q. Z. (2011). “An urban containment plan-
ning support system for Beijing.” Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., 35(4),
297–307.
Malczewski, J. (2004). “GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: A critical
overview.” Prog. Plann., 62(1), 3–65.
Malczewski, J. (2006). “GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: A sur-
vey of the literature.” Int. J. Geog. Inf. Sci., 20(7), 703–726.
Pearson, L. J., Park, S., Harman, B., and Heyenga, S. (2010). “Sustainable
land use scenario framework: Framework and outcomes from peri-
urban South-East Queensland, Australia.” Landscape Urban Plann.,
96(2), 88–97.
Pettit, C., and Pullar, D. (2004). “A way forward for land-use planning to
achieve policy goals by using spatial modelling scenarios.” Environ.
Plann. Plann. Des., 31(2), 213–233.
Reginster, I., and Rounsevell, M. (2006). “Scenarios of future urban land
use in Europe.” Environ. Plann. Plann. Des., 33(4), 619–636.
Repetti, A., and Desthieux, G. (2006). “A relational indicator set model for
urban land-use planning and management: Methodological approach
and application in two case studies.” Landscape Urban Plann.,
77(1–2), 196–215.
Shen, Q. P., Chen, Q., Tang, B. S., Yeung, S., Hu, Y. C., and Cheung, G.
(2009). “A system dynamics model for the sustainable land use
planning and development.” Habitat Int., 33(1), 15–25.
Teng, J. Y., Huang, W. C., and Huang, M. J. (2006). “Multiobjective
strategic evaluation for urban development in Kaohsiung, Taiwan:
Case study.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)
132:3(160), 160–165.
Turk, S. S., and Korthals Altes, W. K. (2011). “Potential application of land
readjustment method in urban renewal: Analysis for Turkey.” J. Urban
Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000035, 7–19.
Vonk, G., Geertman, S., and Schot, P. (2005). “Bottlenecks blocking wide-
spread usage of planning support systems.” Environ. Plann. A, 37(5),
909–924.
Vonk, G., Geertman, S., and Schot, P. (2007). “A SWOT analysis of
planning support systems.” Environ. Plann. A, 39(7), 1699–1714.
Wang, H., Shen, Q. P., Tang, B. S., and Skitmore, M. (2013). “An integrated
approach to supporting land-use decisions in site redevelopment for
urban renewal in Hong Kong.” Habitat Int., 38, 70–80.
Wang, Y. W., and Zou, Z. C. (2010). “Spatial decision support system for
urban planning: Case study of Harbin City in China.” J. Urban Plann.
Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2010)136:2(147), 147–153.
What if? [Computer software]. What if?, Inc.
Witlox, F. (2005). “Expert systems in land-use planning: An overview.”
Expert Syst. Appl., 29(2), 437–445.
Wu, H. Y., He, Z. W., and Gong, J. Y. (2010). “A virtual globe-based 3D
visualization and interactive framework for public participation in urban
planning processes.” Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., 34(4), 291–298.
Yung, E. H., Chan, E. H., and Xu, Y. (2013). “Community-initiated adap-
tive reuse of historic buildings and sustainable development in the inner
city of Shanghai.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-
5444.0000174, 05014003.
Zhang, X., Hu, J., Skitmore, M., and Leung, B. Y. (2013). “Inner-city urban
redevelopment in china metropolises and the emergence of gentrifica-
tion: The case of Yuexiu, Guangzhou.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/
(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000169, 05014004.
Zheng, W., Shen, Q. P., and Wang, H. (2014). “A review of recent studies
on sustainable urban renewal.” Habitat Int., 41, 272–279.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.