Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
relative dominance of each alternative can be assessed in the form of a success rank
order—or even a rating—of the alternatives. More details can be found in Nijkamp
et al. (
1990
), while a recent application could be found in Akg¨n et al. (
2012
).
The aim of this MCA is to identify the relative importance of each of the
five future strategies (namely, the future campus profiles under consideration).
Four evaluation domains (assessment criteria) were defined and decomposed
into a set of operational sub-criteria. Based on literature reviews, stakeholder
information and expert knowledge, a comprehensive ordinal impact matrix
was next defined showing the relative contribution of each sub-criterion to the
campus profiles concerned (Table
20.2
). In this case the aim of the MCA is
not to identify one unambiguous campus profile, but to seek for a systematically
ranked set of campus profiles which in combination make up the most desirable
campus image.
Next, an intensity score has been assigned to each sub-criterion, indicating how
important it appears to be for the campus development (the intensity score shows
how often a sub-element is mentioned in the focus-group discussions). Three
distinct vectors were defined: one for the entire campus, one for the Southern part
and one for the Northern part of the campus (see Table
20.3
). This preference
elicitation process was next used to specify weights in the Regime Analysis of an
MCA. The results are shown in Fig.
20.5
.
The results from Fig.
20.6
show that the functional strategy is the most important
strategy for the performance of the campus, while next accessibility is an important
element of redevelopment. This holds for the whole campus area and is thus a
consequence of the high correlation between functionality and accessibility with all
the domains of analysis of the campus (as mentioned in Sect.
20.2.1
). The other
three strategies are more or less equally important for the whole campus, but differ
very much between North and South, according to the preferences of the users: the
ecological strategy is seen as very important for the South campus, but relatively
less important for the Northern part. Instead, for the North campus an experiential
strategy might be more useful. For all areas holds that the collaborative strategy is
the least important one; however, it should still be part of the overall plan.
To test the robustness of our findings, it is important to carry out a sensitivity
analysis after the removal of one or more assessment criteria. This is a large
combinatorial exercise. For the ease of presentation here, we deleted Science
Orientation and repeated the analysis without the indicators related to the Science
Orientation factor. Figure
20.7
shows these results, showing that, in this case, the
functional strategy has become less important and the ecological strategy more
important. However, the main message still holds: accessible and functional
strategies are critical for the performance of the campus and, next to that, the
ecological strategy is particularly relevant. Finally, the collaborative strategy
becomes more important for the North and the experiential for the South parts of
the campus. A differentiated balance between these five forces has to be sought in
order to reach an optimal campus Image.
