Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38622614›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2024

Towards a better psychological satisfaction: developing a mixed multi-criteria evaluation system to urban 'Not in my back yard' facilities siting.

Kang Cao, Xing Gao, Wei Zheng, Keyu Zhai, Jiacheng Zheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kang CaoDepartment of Regional and Urban Planning, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Xing GaoSchool of Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China. xing.gao@bit.edu.cn.
Wei ZhengDepartment of Regional and Urban Planning, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.
Keyu ZhaiSchool of Graduate Studies, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, 999077, China.
Jiacheng ZhengDepartment of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 999077, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 52278082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

'Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY)' facilities are psychologically sensitive to urban and regional development. Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) method has been widely used for the decision-making of optimum siting of urban NIMBY facilities which aim to improve residents' psychological satisfaction. However, the evaluation of qualitative criteria in siting analysis remains under researched, such as the insufficient focus on urban and regional spatial development, social public opinion, and psychological factors. Thus, the effective improvement of MCE method through an interdisciplinary view can optimise the decision process and advance the factor assessment system of siting, which helps to supplement qualitative criteria evaluation. The specific improvement steps are as follows. The first step is to introduce the mixed MCE method to improve the qualitative criteria evaluation method by pre-processing qualitative criteria with min-max standardisation and normalization. This process transfers all negative factors to positive ones and transforms the F function to linear functions. The second step is to optimise the existing two-phase siting decision-making including the feasibility evaluation phase and the MCE phase. The third step is to propose a modular criteria system composed of urban and regional spatial planning, social psychological factors and the corresponding improvement strategy of this system from three perspectives of composition, measure, and weight. We argue that the improved method could be broadly applied to optimum siting decision of urban NIMBY facilities and enhance the psychological satisfaction of residents.

Indexed as

Public OpinionHumansMulti-criteria evaluationNIMBY facilitiesPsychological resistanceUrban and regional planning

Identifiers

PMID38622614
PMCPMC11017667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.